冬季辩题资料发布已有一周啦
不知道大家备赛是否顺利呢？
这一周里
我们也为大家准备了
2024冬季辩题Sample Case
Pro/Con双方均有参考
话不多说，让我们赶紧开始吧！
近年来，随着环境问题逐日严峻，大家对于环保问题也愈发关注起来。而在诸多环保问题中，是否应该使用塑料制品——尤其是一次性的塑料制品——成为了争论不休的重要议题。一方面，塑料制品的确能够为人类生活带来不可替代的便利性，另一方面为了地球环境的可持续发展，我们又必须对塑料制品的应用加以限制。
本次的Sample Case为正反双方都提供了视角和思路，希望大家能够从中得到一些启发，打开备赛思路～
接下来，让我们一起看看 今天Sample Case的具体内容吧~
Sample Case
PRO
We affirm: Resolved: The United States federal government should ban single-use plastics. To begin, single use plastics are defined by Smith in 2023 as: “Plastic items that are discarded after only being used once or for a short period of time.”[1]
# Contention 1 -Framework
Our framework for the debate is the precautionary principle. According to Poto et. Al. in 2021, applying the precautionary principle to single use plastics would mean urgently taking preventive measures because of the of the unknown impacts that micro and nano plastics have on human health and the environment.[2] Kayikci in 2012 explained that the precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof to the product, which must prove it’s safe before being released to the market.[3] To win the debate, the con team must prove that single use plastics do not harm humans or the environment. The pro team does not need to win that plastics are bad to win.
# Contention 2 - Climate
■Subpoint A – Links
1) Production- Vasarhelyi in 2021 demonstrated three ways the production of plastics contributes to climate change: “Because single-use plastic is produced from fossil fuels, the process of extracting and creating these plastics emits huge amounts of [ghgs]…just the extraction…and…transportation to plastic factories emits 12.5 to 13.5 million metric tons…The removal of forested land for oil extraction and pipeline construction…resulted in over 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide…The refinement of plastics emit an additional 184 to 213 million metric tons of [ghgs] each year.”[4] This is a significant source of ghgs. Peril and Promise & Oceana on 11/1/2023 wrote: The plastics industry is responsible for more ghg emissions than most countries. “If plastic were a country, it would be the fifth largest emitter…”[5]
2) Oceans- Lujan in 2021 detailed the various ways that plastics affect the ocean and contribute to climate change. “The ocean plays a part in the carbon cycle…it allows carbon to sink…Plastic makes phytoplankton excretion more buoyant, so it floats more and is slower to sink. The slower it sinks, the more time carbon has to escape…the role of whales in carbon capture- they store a large amount of co2, and support the growth of phytoplankton…Plastic poses a lethal threat to whales- through ingestion, entanglement and a build-up of pollutants- and if whales are dying sooner…they are capturing less carbon…plastic debris, when exposed to sunlight, releases carbon…if there is plastic floating around…it releases carbon when exposed to sunlight.”[6]
3) Decay- In 2018, Hagelberg argued that: “As plastics decay, they emit traces of methane and ethylene, two powerful [ghgs], and the rate of emission increases with time. The emissions occur when plastic materials are exposed to…solar radiation…plastics represent a heretofore unrecognized source of climate-relevant trace gases that are expected to increase as more plastic is produced and accumulated in the environment.”[7] Vasarhelyi in 2021 also quantified the emissions from landfills, which “account for over 15% of methane emissions.”[8]
4) Environmental leadership- According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium in 2021, a US federal government ban on single use plastics would reverse this trend and “enhance U.S. leadership in driving solutions to global plastic pollution.”[9] In 2022, Dr. Lau called on the US to take the lead in solving the problem of plastic pollution by regulating the “production, consumption and distribution” of plastics “at the federal and state levels.” The US should act now and increase international cooperation, “which will be crucial to solving the plastic pollution problem.”[10] US environmental leadership drives green innovation in three ways. He et. Al. in 2023 said: “Environmental leadership is critical for delivering green innovation in business and industry…environmental leadership has significant positive effects on green production innovation performance…proactive environmental strategies partly mediate the relationship between environmental leadership and green product…and a firm’s organization structure positively moderates the relationship between environmental leadership and proactive environmental strategies.”[11] Finally, green innovation is critical to solving climate change. Hasna et. Al. on 11/6/2023 explained: “Making low-carbon technologies cheaper and more widely available is crucial to reducing harmful emissions. We have seen decades of progress in green innovation for mitigation and adaptation…More recently though, momentum in green innovation has slowed…promising technologies aren’t spreading fast enough to lower-income countries…The slower momentum is concerning because…green innovation is not only goof for containing climate change, but for stimulating economic growth.”[12]
■ Subpoint B – Impacts
The magnitude is existential. According to the Ocean Conservancy in 2023: “Plastics and climate change are interconnected- and existential- threats…The climate impacts of plastics undermine our ability to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and prevent catastrophic climate change. [13] Specifically, Laville in 2019 warned that: “[ghg] emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability…to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C.”[14] Finally, 1.5 degrees is the threshold for catastrophe. World Wildlife Foundation in 2020 concluded: “The existential threat of climate change…was the spur for the…goal to limit global warming to…1.5°C…Climate change impacts are happening now The current ~1°C of global warming is already having impacts and causing damage…exposed to extreme heat waves…more than 2 billion people…in a 2°C world. Similarly, in a 1.5°C world…70% of tropical coral reefs are at risk of severe degradation… virtually all in a 2°C world. Breaching 1.5°C is not inevitable Political leadership is important…1.5°C is not a lost cause.”[15]
# Contention 3 - Solvency
■Subpoint A – Federal Ban
King in 2019 explained that Congress should pass federal legislation to ban single use plastics because it has the jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. It could “create a floor of minimum plastic standards and give states the ability to make improved laws…While such a ban would not solve the plastic problem in its entirety, it is a step in the right direction.”[16] Dr. Alderman in 2022 wrote that legislative bans on single use plastics are more likely to succeed than bypassing because they are broader and galvanize public support.[17]
■ Subpoint B – Ban Effective
In 2023 Alder & Wells argued that the precautionary principle should be applied to regulation of plastics, and the US should ban single use plastics as a result.[18] Finally, Stein in 2019 stated that voluntary limits on single use plastics are not as effective as holistic congressional legislation banning SUP since source control is needed. “Voluntary steps to address plastic pollution can be positive but are not enforceable. Only regulation can create a level playing field that applies the same standards to all businesses.”[19]
Works Cited
[1] Smith; 2023
(Brad; The Vanella Group; “The environmental and health impacts of single-use plastics and what we can do to reduce their use”; https://www.vanellagroupmn.com/the-environmental-and-health-impacts-of-single-use-plastics-and-what-we-can-do-to-reduce-their-use#:~:text=Harmful%20chemicals%20like%20bisphenol%20A,asthma%2C%20and%20breast%20cancer%20risks.)
Single-use plastics, often also referred to as disposable plastics, are plastic items that are discarded after only being used once or for a short period of time. These include:
·Plastic bags, straws, and cutleryprovided by restaurants and retailers
·Takeout food containers and disposable coffee cups
·Plastic bottles, wrappers, and packagingaround food items and consumer goods
·Other plastic products meant to be used briefly and then thrown away, like razors and hotel toiletries
Many single-use plastic products are madefrom low-density polyethylene (LDPE) orpolyethylene terephthalate (PET) which are lightweight, cheap to produce, and durable. However, these properties also make disposable plastics persist in the environment and cause extensive pollution. Their environmental impact has been exacerbated by a “throwaway” culture that has normalized excessive plastic waste.
[2]Poto, et. Al.; 2021
(Margherita Paola Poto, Edel Oddny Elvevoll, Monica Alterskjær Sundset, Karl-Erik Eilertsen, Mathilde Morel, and Ida-Johanne Jensen; Foods; 10:9; “Suggestions for a systematic regulatory approach to ocean plastics”; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8472657/)
A prerequisiteand condicio sine qua nonof the regulation process, in the absence of scientific certainty of harmful impacts of plastics at sea, is the reference to the precautionary principle and the need to take preventive urgent action. The precautionary principle is enshrined in Article 15 of the Rio Declarationon Environment and Development [12] and Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU [13]. The need for urgent action is especially evident in the case of the unknown impacts of the smallest particles of plastics: microplastics(MPs, less than 5 mm in size) and nanoplastics(NPs with a size defined as either less than 100 or 1000 nm) [14]. Due to the dearth of coordination between the research on the harmful impacts, one may argue that there is not yet sufficient evidence to substantiate a regulatory effort that tackles all the risks that plastics pose to food security, food safety, and ultimately to human health [14]. Consequently, the precautionary principle and the need to take preventive measures can legitimize the policymakers’ anticipatory action even under scientific uncertainty.
[3] Kayikci, LBF Partners Law; 2012
(Mehmet Suat; “The burden of proof within the scope of the precautionary principle: International and European perspectives”; July 6; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2101613)
One of the controversial issues that the PP leads tois the so-called shifting the burden of proof(BOP). In contrast to the traditional BOP rule, it has been argued that the PP shifts the BOP from the opponents of an activity or a product to their proponents. However, this argument creates great discussion among scholars. Some commentators claim that the PP does not change the traditional approach, whereas others state that it does only in certain cases. Some other commentators hold a more strict approach by arguing that the PP absolutely reverses the BOP rule.
[4] Vasarhelyi; 2021
(Kayla; University of Colorado Boulder Environmental Center; “The climate impact of single use plastics”; https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/02/25/climate-impact-single-use-plastics)
How is Single-Use Plastic Production Contributing to Climate Change?
Because single-use plastic is produced from fossil fuels, the process of extracting and creating these plastics emits huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
It is estimated that just the extraction of these fossil fuels and their transportation to plastic factories emits 12.5 to [13.5] million metric tonsof greenhouse gases.
The removal of forested land for oil extraction and pipeline construction has also resulted in over 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxidebeing released into the atmosphere. This land clearing also limits the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.
The refinement of plastics emits an additional 184 to 213 million metric tonsof greenhouse gases each year.
[5] Peril and Promise & Oceana; 11/1/2023
(PBS; “How single use plastics are hurting our oceans and warming our planet”; https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2023/11/how-single-use-plastics-hurt-our-oceans-and-warm-our-planet/#:~:text=The%20production%2C%20use%2C%20and%20disposal,in%20an%20energy%2Dintensive%20process.)
How does the production of plastic contribute to climate change?
The production, use, and disposal of plastic creates significant greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Greenhouse gases escape from fossil fuels extracted and refined to make plastic. Fossil fuels are used to make plastic in an energy-intensive process.
“When you add together all the greenhouse gas emissions related to plastic, they are greater than the emissions of every single country except for the U.S., China, India and Russia … If plastic were a country, it would be the fifth largest emitterof greenhouse gases in the world,” Leavitt said.
[6] Luján, conservation lawyer; 2021
(Tatiana Luján in an interview with ClientEarth, wildlife conservation lawyer, research assistant at London School of Economics and Political Science, Client Earth, environmental organization using legal mechanisms to change the system, “Is plastic affecting the ocean as a carbon sink? We ask Tatiana Luján”, ClientEarth, January 11, 2021) https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/opinions/is-plastic-affecting-the-ocean-as-a-carbon-sink-we-ask-tatiana-lujan/
Werely on the planet's oceans to absorb vast amounts of harmful CO2produced when burning fossil fuels. But the staggering amounts of plastic waste pouring into our oceans are having a negative effecton its ability to do so.ClientEarth lead plastics lawyer, Tatiana Luján, works with her team to reduce the use and distribution of single-use plastics, and to hold plastic producing companies accountable for the environmental issues they contribute to. We sat down with her to talk about how plastic waste in the ocean is negatively impacting its role as a natural carbon sink, and what she and her team are doing to help. What is the role of the ocean in the carbon cycle? “Around 50% of the oxygen we consume comes from the ocean, and most of that comes from algae that we can’t see. Thealgae is present on the surface of the ocean, which, along with kelp forests and seagrass meadows,captures carbon from the atmosphere and releases oxygen.Another way in which the ocean plays a part in the carbon cycle is how it allows carbon to sink.There are types of algae and phytoplankton that eat things from the water’s surface, or ingest them through the air they breathe, and so the carbon they eat gets captured, and sinks to the ocean floor when excreted. With all the pressure of the weight of the ocean on top of it, it stays captured.” How big a problem is plastic in our oceans? “It’s a huge problem. You can find plastic in the Mariana Trench – the deepest oceanic trench on Earth. In 2016, an estimated11% of the world’s plastic waste(about 19 to 23 million metric tonnes), entered our rivers, seas and oceans. The Ellen McArthur foundation have predicted thatby 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean, and that is turning out to be an underestimation. It’s not only a quantity problem.Plastic kills or endangersall sorts of wildlife. There are more than 100 species of birds threatened because of plastic, as they mistake it for food, eat it, feel full and then starve. Plastic also affects invertebrates – when oysters eat plastic for example, their immune system is weakened and so is their external shell, so it’s easier for them to get eaten by predators. When it comes to animals like porpoises and dolphins, their endocrine systems are disrupted by the plastic they ingest, which can change their behaviour and development.The population of porpoises in the Baltic is currently endangered, because there is so much chemical pollution in the water that most of the females are now sterile. Some of that pollution is linked to chemicals that are either in plastic or part of the lifecycle of plastic. When one of these species is affected, whether the birds, oysters or porpoises, the whole ecosystem and how it functions is affected too.”How does plastic in the ocean affect its ability to act as a carbon sink?“Plastic makes phytoplankton excretion more buoyant, so it floats more and is slower to sink. The slower it sinks, the more time carbon has to escape back into the atmosphere, sothe capture cycle isn’t functioning properly.When we think of plastic, we might think of plastic bottles, but there are so many types of micro and nano plastics present on the surface of the ocean too. Something else being explored is the role of whales in carbon capture – they store a large amount of CO2, and support the growth of phytoplankton.It’s estimated that the average great whale will accumulate around 30 tons of CO2 during its lifespan, and when it dies, it sinks to the ocean floor, trapping that carbon for hundreds of years.Plastic poses a lethal threat to whales– through ingestion, entanglement and a build-up of pollutants – and if whales are dying sooner than they should, they are capturing less carbon. There was also a study in 2018 showing thatplastic debris, when exposed to sunlight, releases carbon.So it’s not just that the carbon doesn’t sink properly as a result of microplastics – it’s also thatif there is plastic floating around in the ocean, it releases carbon when exposed to sunlight.”
[7] Hagelberg, Senior program office UN Environment; 2018
(Niklas, senior program officer at UN Environment, coordinator of UN subprogram on Climate Change, has a Master of Science in forestry, “Double trouble: plastics found to emit potent greenhouse gases”, UN Environmental Program, August 24, 2018) https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/double-trouble-plastics-found-emit-potent-greenhouse-gases//ac
Authors of a study conducted at Hawai’i University recently reported another good reason to redouble global efforts to beat plastic pollution: as plastics decay, they emit traces of methane and ethylene, two powerful greenhouse gases, and the rate of emission increases with time.The emissions occur when plastic materials are exposed toambientsolar radiation, whether in water or in the air, but in air, emission rates are much higher.The researchers tested polycarbonate, acrylic, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, high-density polyethylene and low-density polyethylene – materials used to make food storage, textiles, construction materials and various plastic goods. “Low-density polyethylene emits these gases when incubated in air at rates about 2 times and 76 times higher than when incubated in water for methane and ethylene, respectively,” says the study.“Our results show that plastics represent a heretofore unrecognized source of climate-relevant trace gases that are expected to increase as more plastic is produced and accumulated in the environment,” the study concludes. Plastic bags are the most harmful Ethylene is widely used in the chemical industry and its worldwide production (over 150 million tons in 2016) exceeds that of any other organic compound.Much of this production goes towards polyethylene.Polyethylene, used in shopping bags, is the most produced and discarded synthetic polymer globally and was found to be the most prolific emitter of methane and ethylene.Over the past 50 years, polymer manufacturing has accelerated, and it’s estimated that over 8 billion tons of virgin plastic have been produced since 1950. Current annual production levels are expected to double in the next 20 years. “Given the expected growth in plastic production worldwide, it is important for plastics manufacturers, as well governments wrestling to curb climate change, to understand the extent of methane and ethylene emissions from plastic and their impact on ecosystems,” says Niklas Hagelberg, a UN Environment climate change expert. “Polyethylene, like other plastics, is not inert and is known to release additives and other degradation products into the environment throughout its lifetime,” says the Hawai’i study. “For example, the additive bisphenol-A used in the manufacture of many plastic products is leached as plastics age, and hydrocarbon gases are produced during high-temperature decomposition (>202°C).“These chemicals vary amongst different types of plastic and, once released, some can be toxic and have adverse effects on the environment and human health. Degradation processes not only affect the chemical integrity of the plastic but also ultimately results in the fragmentation of the polymer into smaller units increasing the surface area exposed to the elements.”These findings provide additional fuel and legitimacy to the efforts spearheaded by UN Environment and its partners to fight plastic pollution. In 2017, UN Environment launched the campaign Beat Plastic Pollution – with its social media hashtag #BeatPlasticPollution – canalizing the efforts of like-minded organizations, governments and countless local authorities towards a plastic-free environment.
[8] Vasarhelyi; 2021
(Kayla; University of Colorado Boulder Environmental Center; “The climate impact of single use plastics”; https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/02/25/climate-impact-single-use-plastics)
Landfills, where thrown out single-use plastics are sent, account for over 15% of methane emissions. The disposal of more plastics to landfills leads to increases in landfill size and these emissions.
[9] Monterey Bay Aquarium; 2021
(“A blueprint for US action on plastic pollution”; https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/stories/margaret-spring-on-nasem-plastic-report)
We need to reduce the production of plastic, especially the kinds that aren’t very degradable, reusable, or recyclable. At the same time, we need to innovate alternative materials and productsthat are easily degradable, reusable, and recyclable. We should implement policies that restrict plastic products and packages that are unnecessary, and encourage recycling and reuse. We need to improve waste management to prevent plastic waste from getting into the environment. For the plastic waste that’s already escaped, we can try to clean it up before it reaches the ocean — though prevention at the source is more efficient and effective than cleaning it up. Of course, we also need to stop the direct dumping of plastic waste from sources like ships and industrial facilities.
Taking coordinated actionin each of these six areas would fill the gaps between the sources of plastic waste and the management systems that are supposed to prevent leakageinto the environment. This strategy wouldhelp curb our overuse of plastic and speed up the transition to more sustainable materials. It would alsoenhance U.S. leadership in driving solutions to global plastic pollution.
[10] Dr. Lau, Senior Manager Pew Charitable Trusts; 2022
(Winnie; Pew; March 1; “President Biden can lead on ending plastic pollution of our ocean”; https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/03/01/president-biden-can-lead-on-ending-plastic-pollution-of-our-ocean)
The U.S. could adopt a system change strategy at the federal and state levels that would implement solutions across the U.S. plastic production, consumption, and distribution infrastructure. A joint statement from the U.S. and France to support negotiations on a global plastics treatyat the United Nations Environment Assembly, ongoing through March 2, is a good start for international cooperation, which will be crucial to solving the plastic pollution problem.
The world needs to act now to put in place substantial measures to reduce plastic production and consumptionand improve recycling rates. There’s no single solution to plastic pollution, but with rapid and concerted action from governments and companies, plastic waste could be greatly reduced in a generation. The U.S. must lead on solving this huge and growing problem—for the long-term good of our ocean and all of us who depend on it.
[11] He, et. Al.; 2023
(Suchao He,Wanyi Zhao, Jinfeng Li, Junting Liu, and Yating Wei; Heliyon; 9:7; July; “How environmental leadership shapes green innovation performance: A resource-based view”; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395348/)
Considering rapid climate change and its effects, an increasing number of enterprises are paying more attention to environmental protection behavior in order to realize their green innovation activities. However, environmental leadership is critical for delivering green innovation in business and industry. As such, can environmental leadership promote the green innovation performance of enterprises? If so, what is the influence mechanism? In the previous research on environmental leadership, the impact of environmental leadership on the green innovation performance of enterprises had not yet been effectively explored. Therefore, drawing on a resource-based view, this study explored the mechanism through which environmental leadership influences a firm's green innovation performance. In this study, with the help of the mature scale at home and abroad, variables were measured, and the relationship between variables was verified by multiple regression analysis using samples collected from 224 heavy-polluting enterprises in western China at multiple time points. It was found that (1) environmental leadership has significant positive effects on green product innovation performance and green process innovation performance; (2) proactive environmental strategies partly mediate the relationships between environmental leadership and green product, as well as green process innovation performance; and(3) a firm's organizational structure positively moderates the relationship between environmental leadership and proactive environmental strategies. Therefore, the results of our study provide theoretical and practical contributions for research on environmental leadership and proactive environmental strategies.
[12] Hasna, et. Al.; 11/6/2023
(Zeina Hasna, Florence Jaumotte, Samuel Pienknagura; “How green innovation can stimulate economies and curb emissions”; https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/11/06/how-green-innovation-can-stimulate-economies-and-curb-emissions)
Making low-carbon technologies cheaper and more widely available is crucial to reducing harmful emissions.
We have seen decades of progress in green innovation for mitigation and adaptation: from electric cars and clean hydrogen to renewable energy and battery storage.
More recently though, momentum in green innovation has slowed. And promising technologies aren’t spreading fast enough to lower-income countries, where they can be especially helpful to curbing emissions. Green innovation peaked at 10 percent of total patent filings in 2010 and has experienced a mild decline since. The slowdown reflects various factors, including hydraulic fracking that has lowered the price of oil and technological maturity in some initial technologies such as renewables, which slows the pace of innovation.
The slower momentum is concerning because, as we show in a new staff discussion note, green innovation is not only good for containing climate change, but for stimulating economic growthtoo. As the world confronts one of the weakest five-year growth outlooks in more than three decades, those dual benefits are particularly appealing. They ease concerns about the costs of pursuing more ambitious climate plans. And when countries act jointly on climate, we can speed up low-carbon innovation and its transfer to emerging market and developing economies.
[13] Ocean Conservancy; 2023
(“Plastic is everywhere- except the one place it should be”; https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PlasticIsEverywhere_Web.pdf)
Plastics and climate change are interconnected—and existential—threats to the ocean and coastal communities.
The ocean has long been ground zero for the plastic pollution crisis, with 11 million tons of plastics entering the ocean each year. Plastics have been found everywhere on Earth, from Arctic snow to our own bodies. The news is replete with headlines of animals like whales, dolphins and turtles washing ashore, stomachs filled with plastics. But this is just one aspect of the threat.
Plastics, 99% of which are made from fossil fuels, are also a major contributor to the climate crisis. The plastics industry is on a rapid growth trajectory, generating high levels of greenhouse gas pollution—from production to disposal—and locking in continued oil and gas extraction for decades to come. The climate impacts of plastics undermine our ability to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and prevent catastrophic climate change. Still, amid calls to limit society’s dependence on fossil fuels, plastics are missing from investor and company climate commitments and guidance.
[14] Laville; 2019
(Sandra; The Guardian; “Single use plastics a serious climate change hazard, study warns”; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/15/single-use-plastics-a-serious-climate-change-hazard-study-warns)
“At current levels, greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the abilityof the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C,” the report says.
“With the petrochemical and plastic industries planning a massive expansionin production,the problem is on track to get much worse.”
[15] World Wildlife Foundation; 2020
(“The urgency of 1.5 degree C”; https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/climate_and_energy_practice/ipcc152/)
Why 1.5°C?
The existential threat of climate changeto some vulnerable and island countries was the spur for the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global warming to well below 2°Cabove pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to 1.5°C. This stimulated scientists to focus research on 1.5°C.
Here's what we know:
Climate change impacts are happening now
The current ~1°C of global warming is already having impacts and causing damage including in the form of extreme and dangerous weather events– for examplethe global heatwavethis summer, expansive wildfires and deadly hurricanes. We need to adapt and build resilience, and this will only become more pressing at higher temperatures.
1.5°C is safer than 2°Cfor people and nature
We already know higher global temperatures lead to greater climate impacts – on land, in the oceans, and the in polar regions. But we can now better quantify by how much. For example, nearly 700 million people (9.0% of world population) will be exposed to extreme heat wavesat least once every 20 years in a 1.5°C world, but more than 2 billion people(28.2%) in a 2°C world. Similarly in a 1.5°C world, the end of the century projection is that 70% of tropical coral reefs are at risk of severe degradationdue to temperature-induced bleaching, but virtually all in a 2°C world.
Breaching 1.5°C is not inevitable
Political leadership is important. So are individual choices. Strong leadership and the right choices can lead to the necessary rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, which improves the chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. For example, governments encouraging renewable energy over fossil fuels and individuals choosing to eat a healthy, more plant-based diet. This is not to belittle the unprecedented scale of the challenge ahead but shows 1.5°C is not a lost cause.
[16] King, JD/MBA American University Law; 2019
(Ethan; Sustainable Development Law & Policy; 20:1; “State preemption and single use plastics: Is national intervention necessary?”; https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=sdlp)
Regulation of single use plastics also falls under the purview of the Commerce Clause. Congress can and should step in to protect public health by creating federal Legislation to ban single use plastics. Such a bill would create a floor of minimum plastic standards and give states the ability to make improved laws to combat climate change and reduce plastic waste. While such a ban would not solve the plastic problem in its entirety, it is a step in the right directionhelping the United States phase out its reliance on single use plastic materials.
[17] Dr. Alderman; 2022
(Petra; Westminster Foundation for Democracy; “Legislative leadership on environmental issues”; November; https://www.wfd.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Legislative%20leadership%20on%20environmental%20issues%20-%20final.pdf)
Legislatures can play an important role in environmental policy making, but in some countries, they are bypassed in the name of a swift environmental actionor a host of other reasons, including partisanship and industry influence. Such an approach does not always pay dividends. As our analysis has shown SUP bans that were adopted in the form of executive decrees or ministerial regulations were often much narrower than those that went through parliaments.Many of these SUP bans were also difficult to implement due to the lack of popular and/or industry support. Even the relatively successful ones, such as Kenya’s 2017 plastic bag ban, are yet to be replicated in other areas of SUPs.
When legislatures are beset with partisan or strong industry interests, they might become barriers to environmental action. Yet, as our analysis has shown on the example of Kenya, bypassing legislatures might not make future environmental action easier. Legislative involvement offers an opportunity to galvanise broader political supportthat is not dependent on a single strong-minded environmental leader. This is important because as we have demonstrated on the example of Thailand there may be limitations to what a single environmental leader can achieve. Not all ministerial portfolios are created equal and the option of a regulatory action on SUPs should not be taken for granted.
[18] Alder, Dean University of Utah Law, & Wells, JD University of Utah Law; 2023
(Robert & Carina; Harvard Environmental Law Review; 47:1; “Plastics and the limits of US environmental law”; https://journals.law.harvard.edu/elr/wp-content/uploads/sites/79/2023/04/HELR-Vol.-47.1-AdlerWells.pdf)
Effective solutions to the plastic pollution crisis—and to similarly intractable environmental problems—must address these two fundamental problems. Absent expediting reforms to the regulatory process generally, which have been elusive for decades, the best solution to the first problem would be more effective use of the precautionary principle to prohibit new plastics and new plastics uses until proven safe. The soundest resolution to the second problem is to ban the use of SUPs and other plastics whose harm cannot be justified by their benefits, and to require or incentivize development of nontoxic alternative materials with longer life cycles and easier recyclability or biodegradability.
[19] Stein, supervising attorney Wells Environmental Law Clinic & director Emmett Institute on Climate Change @ UCLA Law; 2019
(Julia; The Regulatory Review; “Single-use plastics need comprehensive federal legislation”; https://www.theregreview.org/2019/02/13/stein-single-use-plastics-comprehensive-federal-legislation/)
Comprehensive federal legislation to address single-use plastics does not yet existin the United States. Instead, the conversation has focused on encouraging foreign governments to control plastic waste, making improvements to recycling and waste management infrastructure, and promoting voluntary steps industries can take to improve plastic products and reduce waste.
Missing from that conversation is a critical piece of the puzzle: reducing consumption of single-use plastic at the sourceto limit the amount of plastic trash Americans generate. To reduce single-use plastics more effectively, Congress must step in and regulate through source control.
Source control is important for a number of reasons. Less than 10 percent of the world’s plastic waste is recycled, and many kinds of single-use plastic waste, like thin plastic bags and Styrofoam, cannot be recycledentirely.
Voluntary steps to address plastic pollution can be positive but are not enforceable. Only regulation can create a level playing field that applies the same standards to all businesses. And plastic production and breakdown is linked to climate change. Plastic is a petroleum-based product, and, by the plastic industry’s own assessment, plastic production is expected to increase significantly over the next few decades. This means the plastic industry’s share of greenhouse gas emissions will increase as well. Some estimates project greenhouse gas emissions from the petrochemical sector will increase 30 percent by 2050. Studies are now showing that plastic releases greenhouse gases as it breaks down, too.
In the United States, hundreds of local governments and a handful of states have taken steps to stem the tide of plasticentering our environment through source control measures. Over 340 municipalities have laws that ban single-use plastic carryout bags, place a charge on carryout bags, or combine both strategies. Some cities and states are now taking action to ban other single-use items, like straws, foodware, and to-go cups.
But bans and fees are just one part of a solution and must be implemented carefully. For example, an outright ban on single-use plastic bags alone could drive consumers to shift to free single-use paper bags, which come with their own set of environmental consequences, making imposition of a fee on all single-use carryout bags an important part of bag use reduction efforts. Indeed, fees have been incredibly successful in shifting consumer behavior. They have prompted as high as an 85 percent reduction in point-of-sale consumption of single-use bags. Beyond bans and fees, consumer education and extended producer responsibility programs can also play an important role in source control efforts, raising awareness and placing responsibility on manufacturers to manage their products at end of life.
A holistic approach to plastic pollution at the national level could employ a number of strategies to tackle the issue, including source control to reduce consumer use of single-use plastic items, improvement of recycling and waste management infrastructure, and research and development. It would also provide a national framework to reduce single-use plastic waste. Despite their effectiveness, some local actions are under threat by claims of state-level preemption. Comprehensive federal legislationto address single-use plastics could resolve that issue.
Sample Case
CON
We negate: Resolved: The United States federal government should ban single use plastics.
According to Kim et al. in a paper published in ACS Chemical Reviews in 2023, “plastics are a subset of polymers that can be molded or shaped typically by heating and then hardened through cooling.” Single-use plastics are items primarily made from plastics and intended for disposal immediately after use. Given the broad wording of the resolution, the debate should be about whether a comprehensive ban on single-use plastics should be imposed.
# Contention 1 Biodegradable plastics
■Subpoint A – Links
Kim et al. 2023 define them as plastics capable of breaking down into water, biomass, and small gases. Notably, there has been substantial progress in the research and commercialization of biodegradable plastics. According to CBS News in 2022, companies have invested billions in developing fully biodegradable plastics. Morgan Stanley's market research indicates a tenfold increase in worldwide bioplastic production capacity since 2007, surpassing two million metric tons in 2017.
The adoption of biodegradable plastics not only addresses plastic pollution but also offers environmental benefits. Valderrama highlights in the European Polymer Journal in 2019 that certain production processes of bioplastics use carbon dioxide as feedstock, contributing to positive environmental outcomes. Kim et al. 2023 expand on the environmental benefits, noting that biodegradable mulching films in agriculture can actually enhance soil health by increasing soil carbon during decomposition.
Biodegradable plastics offer a practical and economically viable substitute for traditional plastics, effectively addressing environmental concerns. Valderrama 2019 describes a technology geared towards achieving competitive monomer production costs at scale, ranging from €1-2/kg. It's essential to view the damage already inflicted on the environment as a sunk cost, focusing instead on future environmental impacts. With a compound annual growth rate of 21.3% for the size of the global biodegradable plastics market according to Market and Markets, increasing environmental awareness, and decreasing production costs, biodegradable plastics are bound to replace harmful plastics in the long run in the current trajectory.
■Subpoint B – Impacts
The first is the adoption of alternatives such as paper — exemplified by the current shift to paper in items like straws, food containers, and bags, harming the environment. Thompson, reporting for NBC News in 2007, quantifies that paper production emits 70% more air pollution than plastic bag production and 50 times more water pollutants. Lilienfield further compares, indicating that paper production releases 80% more greenhouse gases, consumes three times as much water, and generates 80% more solid waste.
The second impact revolves around hindering the research and commercialization of biodegradable plastics. With the ban on single-use plastics, companies have reduced incentives to invest in the research and development of biodegradable plastics. The economic viability and market demand for biodegradable alternatives will decrease, slowing down progress in finding environmentally beneficial solutions for plastic usage.
# Contention 2 - Irreplaceability
■Subpoint A – Agriculture
In agriculture, plastic films play a crucial role. As highlighted by Valderrama in 2019, these films are extensively employed in various applications, including greenhouses, silage covers, and mulching. They fulfill essential functions in insect and weed control, elevate air and soil temperatures, and contribute to the reduction of soil erosion and minimized water evaporation. These films are exclusively composed of plastic, necessitated by the specific thermal and mechanical properties essential for their intended applications. Furthermore, they must be single use since these films are contaminated with soil after use and therefore not collected by most recycling facilities.
Banning single-use plastics would impede the use of plastic films in agriculture. In a study published by Xiao et al. in the Journal of Agricultural Water Management, it was found that plastic film mulching significantly increases crop yield by 39.5% and water use efficiency by 37.9%. Removing plastic mulching films would result in a substantial decrease in crop yield, approximately 28%, posing a significant impact on food supply.
■ Subpoint B – Food Service
Single-use plastics play a crucial role in ensuring food safety. As we've demonstrated, alternative materials like single use paper for food service ware can have severe environmental consequences. Consequently, if single-use plastics are banned, the only viable option for food service locations aiming to minimize environmental impact would be to transition to reusable food service ware. However, we now present evidence that this shift poses risks to food safety.
According to Professor David A McDowell in 2020, “single use food service ware is rendered commercially sterile during the production process, and subsequently protected in delivery packs until just before use. This means that single use items are unlikely to be cross-contaminated, and do not present an environment which will can support the growth of fungi or bacteria.” Professor Morton S. Hilbert at University of Michigan School of Public Health highlights the risk of reusable food service ware: “The total plate count microorganism levels for reusable food service items was consistently higher than for disposable items sampled in this study.
The percentage of reusable samples with detectable microorganisms was approximately two times that of disposable items.” A case study focusing on Salmonella by Zhu et al. in 2019 found that Salmonella can persist on RPCs over extended time periods and survive sanitation. The impact of transitioning away from single-use plastics in food service is a heightened risk of foodborne illnesses.
McDowell articulates that "banning or reducing the use of food service disposables will lead to greater persistence and circulation of foodborne pathogens within the human food chain, increasing the risks of human foodborne illness in our community." The repercussions are severe, as he elaborates that foodborne illnesses can result in long-term health issues such as temporary or persistent paralysis, nervous system damage, dysfunction of the nervous system and brain, or even fatal outcomes like kidney or liver failure.
Works Cited
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm#:~:text=Causes%20pollution%3A%20Paper%20production%20emits,gases%20%5Bsource%3A%20Lilienfield%5D. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377422005704
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/bioplastics-single-use-plastic
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bioplastics-pha-pla-companies-invest-billions/
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/biodegradable-plastics-93.html
【竞赛报名/项目咨询请加微信：mollywei007】
