Datasets:

sonny-dev

/

inters-qdu

like 0

[ "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008" ]

[ 0 ]

[ 1 ]

[ "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Being vegetarian helps the environment Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1] The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2] As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6] With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat. [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 . [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009. [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997. [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003 [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production. British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.” He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2] [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010 [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1] Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows. [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc. [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition &amp; Well-Being’", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2] Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3] Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way. [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010. [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth. [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.", " <=SEP=> Since this meat is often sold unlabeled, this affects everyone Meat from animals slaughtered without stunning can turn up anywhere. Some parts of each animal are not used in kosher food, and they are generally sold on the normal market. This means any supermarket product could turn out to have such meat in it. Halal food is even more common, and many places serve halal meat as standard. [1] So we cannot just consider the religious community: this meat reaches everyone. People with concerns about the way their food is produced would be distressed if they knew they were eating meat which had been inhumanely slaughtered. The fact that they don’t actually know is neither here nor there – we should bear in mind their ethical positions. Everyone is eating the meat, so everyone has a say. Banning the production of this meat would remove it from the food chain and help make sure people know what they’re eating. [1] Fagge, Nick, ‘Halal Britain: Schools and institutions serving up ritually slaughtered meat’, Daily Mail, 25 January 2011,", "ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse <=SEP=> Environmental Damage Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] . [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’ [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Vegetarianism is healthier There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron. [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild. Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.", " <=SEP=> Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs.\" Union of Concerned Scientists", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Humans can choose their own nutrition plan Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.", " <=SEP=> Environmental risks There are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project. For one thing, the Pipeline will mostly extract Oil from Tar Sands. Extracting oil from tar sands is much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the Canadian Environmental Ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions. [1] Former NASA Climatologist James Hansen has suggested that if the Pipeline is completed it is “Game Over for the Planet”. [2] Furthermore, the path of the proposed Pipeline will bring it close to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides 30% of the United States’ total irrigation supply and 82% of the drinking water to the 2.3 million people who live within the region it serves. Furthermore, within that region is just under 20% of all US agricultural production.[3] A major spill along the Pipeline would have the potential to render the entire Aquifer unusable. [1] Girling, Russell K., ‘The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly’, The Hill’s Congress Blog, 13 July 2011, [2] Mayer, Jane, ‘Taking it to the streets’, The New Yorker, 28 November 2011, [3] US Geological Survey, ‘High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study’,", " <=SEP=> Nuclear energy goes against Green World In order not to harm environment, not to cause climate changes, renewable power plants (wind, water, solar) should be used. However, these do not work together with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants – giant very hot machines – are designed to operate at full speed (85%) all the time. They are not designed to change the output quickly. Since they are very expensive to build, they are not economic unless operated at full speed (also turning off and on is expensive). Solar and wind power plants are not stable (output varies because of natural factors) and thus need a backup, called a baseload. Nuclear plants are not a good backup for renewables. We need nimble plants in order to support wind and solar plants. Nuclear power stations do not work with solar, wind and water power stations, because they are running at full speed all the time (because of economic and technical reasons). Instead gas plants that can be powered up and down as required are needed to balance power generation. If we want to move towards Green World – nuclear energy does not help us to do so. [1] It is generally agreed that we want more renewable power generation in Europe even if there are disagreements about where plants should be situated or how much must come from renewable sources. The European Union aims to have 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. [2] And if it is to meet CO2 reduction targets far more will be needed in following decades. Nuclear is also not as helpful as renewables in meeting these CO2 reduction targets. It is estimated that renewables produce 10-40g of CO2 pre kWh of electricity produced, but nuclear is currently much higher at 90-140g/kWh, though still only a tenth of coal. And as mining becomes more difficult it is estimated that this could double making nuclear no better for reducing CO2 than gas power. [3] [1] Nelder, Chris, ‘Why baseload power is doomed’, smartplanet, 28 March 2012, [2] European Commission, ‘Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’, Europa.eu, 17 October 2012, [3] ‘CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations’, Time for change, May 2012,", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?", " <=SEP=> It might be that under theoretical conditions, free markets match up supply and demand in the long run, but as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes said: “in the long run we are all dead”. Even if a stable equilibrium is theoretically possible, in practice, it almost never happens, with high fluctuations in price, shortages and excesses as a consequence (A Tract on Monetary Reform, 2000). An example of a market never reaching equilibrium is the so-called, empirically observed, ‘Pork Cycle’. When prices for pork meat are high, producers flock to the market. Since it takes a while, anywhere from months to over a year, to raise pigs before slaughter, prices will continue to rise and producers continue to join – until suddenly, the new supply reaches maturity and there is a sudden excess of pork meat on the market. This excess will then last for a longer period, since many producers are ‘locked in’, waiting for their pigs to mature. The same dynamics operate in the market for skilled labour, since getting the required vocational training also takes time. Even if equilibrium is reached, the outcome isn’t necessarily fair. An example is the Irish Great Famine: due to circumstance and bad policy, potato supply in Ireland dropped dramatically. This caused prices to rise beyond the budget of the average Irish citizen, but England could still pay the higher price. The perverse result was that even during the Great Famine, Ireland was actually still a net exporter of food (The Great Irish Famine, 1996).", "economy general international africa house believes women are key africas <=SEP=> Women are the backbone of Africa’s agriculture It sounds dramatic, but when more than 70% percent of the agricultural labor force of Africa is represented by women, and that sector is a third of GDP, one can say that women really are the backbone of Africa’s economy. But the sector does not reach its full potential. Women do most of the work but hold none of the profit; they cannot innovate and receive salaries up to 50% less than men. This is because they cannot own land [1] , they cannot take loans, and therefore cannot invest to increase profits. [2] The way to make women key to Africa’s future therefore is to provide them with rights to their land. This will provide women with an asset that can be used to obtain loans to increase productivity. The Food and Agriculture organisation argues “if women had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20–30 percent. This could raise total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5–4 percent, which could in turn reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12–17 percent.” [3] The bottom line is that women work hard but their work is not recognised and potential not realised. What is true in agriculture is even truer in other sectors where women do not make up the majority of workers where the simple lack of female workers demonstrates wasted potential. The inefficient use of resources reduces the growth of the economy. [1] Oppong-Ansah, Albert, ‘Ghana’s Small Women’s Savings Groups Have Big Impact’, Inter Press Service, 28 February 2014, [2] Mucavele, Saquina, ‘The Role of Rural Women in Africa’, World Farmers Organisation, [3] FAO, ‘Gender Equality and Food Security’, fao.org, 2013, , p.19", " <=SEP=> Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.", " <=SEP=> The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3] The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6] The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case. At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill. [1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012. [2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201 [3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011, [4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648, [5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes &amp; Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013, [6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707", " <=SEP=> Trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy The issue with trans-fat is that there is no better substitute. The fact is that the substitutes are also as bad, if not worse, than trans-fat itself. By banning trans-fat, restaurants will have to adopt these substitute substances, thus undermining the work of the government. This process is a waste of our resources as the government will have to spend huge amount of money to bring about a ban on trans-fat without getting any positive outcome. The trans-fat ban would only have clear benefits if it were to cause a general reduction in the overconsumption of high-fat foods, but a restaurant ban on one ingredient will not achieve this. This will mean that money will be wasted as increased costs will be passed on to the consumer while there is no benefit.(8) Trans fats are not uniquely and excessively unhealthy. Sugar is unhealthy. Salt is unhealthy. Runny eggs, rare meat, processed flour, nearly anything consumed too frequently or excessively is potentially dangerous. We would not ban these foods because they are unhealthy so the same should apply to trans fats. The current obesity crisis within the US is not the result of regulatory failure and will not be solved by a ban on trans fats. Better choices, better parenting, exercise and personal restraint are the keys. None of these behavioural traits can be mandated by government.(9) Even if trans fats were eliminated from food products, overall a ban would do nothing to help individuals develop healthy lifestyles. While the ban would curtail consumption of onion rings (if they were cooked in trans fats), for example, it would remain perfectly legal to gorge oneself on Häagen-Dazs or chocolate, both unhealthy foods that contain no trans-fat.(10) The main alternatives to trans-fat is not even that much healthier. In most cases, food makers will move to saturated fat, which carries all of the same health risks, for example it has been linked to diabetes and cancer.(9) The ban is therefore unlikely to have a perceptible effect on public health. Trans-fats actually serve two useful purposes. Firstly, trans fats serve an important function of extending the shelf life of products.(1) This is necessary for both producers and consumers as it makes producing these foods cheaper and reduces waste. It also means that consumers are less likely to consume spoiled food and become sick as a result. Secondly, trans fats are tasty and offer enjoyment to consumers. Trans fats keep foods from turning rancid on store shelves; give croissants their flakiness, keep muffins moist and satisfy the sweet tooth. The enjoyment of such tasty foods has a qualitative value to one's emotions and happiness.(3) Therefore trans fats are not uniquely unhealthy and a ban would not improve general public health -it would simply remove a useful and tasty substance from the market. Thus a ban is unjustified.", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.", "omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would <=SEP=> Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids. [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,", " <=SEP=> To successfully remove such meat from the food chain, any ban would have to extend to importing such meat. Under this model, Jews and Muslims would literally be forced to become vegetarian – a radical and discriminatory suggestion which significantly breaches their rights. Consumers may very well want to be better informed about their meat. But labeling systems have been proposed which would address this concern without a ban. It also needs to be said that many non-religious abattoirs are also inhumane. To be fully ethical, any such labeling system would have to label all the animals where the stun didn’t work, and should also take account of the way the animals were raised and transported. Banning just religious slaughter is not a consistent moral position, and shouldn’t be government policy.", " <=SEP=> Some of the costs are largely illusionary. Yes we stop food that is tested positive from bovine TB from getting into the food chain but this ignores that the tests are not accurate so there is likely meat that is infected getting into the foodchain anyway. Bovine TB is mostly in parts of cattle that are not eaten and cooking kills the TB bacterium. At the same time almost all milk is pasteurised so again the bacterium is killed posing no risk to human health. [1] The main difficulty with the argument that a cull will prevent TB is that we do not know which way infections run. Do badgers infect cattle or the other way around. Currently the evidence suggests that it is cattle that infect badgers this is why there are areas with high badger populations without bovine TB problems such as the north of England. It is all but certain that any large jumps in infection over large distances are the result of cattle to cattle transmission. [2] Looking at the chart presented it is clear that the biggest jump from under 2000 to over 5000 infected herds occurs immediately after foot and mouth suggesting the increase was a result of cattle movements. [1] ‘expert reaction to TB test-positive cattle entering the food chain’, Science Media Centre, 1 July 2013, [2] Dawson, D.G., ‘Badgers and TB, where is the science?’, University of Birkbeck, March 2013, (6, 10, 11)", " <=SEP=> Natural Flow Theory Natural Flow Theory (NTF) is the concept that every riparian user (land touching the water) has a right to the water unaltered and undiminished [1] . Dams tend not to disrupt water flow directly, however water use and evaporation from the large reservoir upstream from the dam could reduce the flow of the Blue Nile. In turn, this could affect downstream countries. Evaporation from the Aswan dam in Ethiopia amounts to around 14 billion cubic metres [2] . The GERD will face similar problems, meaning that the downstream countries will have a reduced water flow. The reservoir will also become a tempting target for large agricultural businesses as well. These companies, many of them foreign, have taken part in ’land grabbing’ to secure water before for large irrigation projects [3] and could potentially tap in to the large reservoir. A similar example is the Colorado River, where dams and irrigation projects have reduced the flow of the river and impacted heavily on the river delta [4] . These threats to the Blue Nile’s river flow demonstrate the likelihood of decreased access to water in the downstream countries, violating the major principle of NTF. [1] Smolen,M., Mittelstet,A. &amp; Harjo,B. ‘Whose Water is it anyway?’ Southern Region Water Program August 2012 [2] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13 [3] Fisher,S. ‘Africa for Sale’ International Rivers September 2011 [4] Wikipedia ‘Colorado River’ date accessed 12/12/13", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world. The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries. [1] The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary. [1] Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005, , accessed 09/02/2011", " <=SEP=> Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam Ethiopia’s decision to become an energy hub has led to the construction of unnecessary dams in the face of viable alternatives. Ethiopia has already constructed nine dams which produce more energy than the country consumes [1] . A significant disadvantage of these dams is that droughts can lower their energy output which, combined with lower river levels for nine months of the year, results in the dams being ineffective [2] . The Ethiopian government has already announced plans for a geothermal plant being built for 2018 to offset the disadvantages of the current dams [3] . The geothermal plant costs $0.7 billion less than the hydroelectric dam, and the company constructing it claim it will produce twice as much energy as the hydroelectric dam when the latter is at its peak [4] . It would be more viable, therefore, to invest in thermal energy rather than another hydroelectric project. [1] US Energy Information Administration ‘Ethiopia’ 30 April 2013 [2] International Rivers ‘Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts say’ 5 September 2013 [3] Wikipedia ‘Energy in Ethiopia’ data accessed 11/12/13 [4] Maasho,A. ‘Ethiopia to get $4billion investment for leap into geothermal power’, Reuters, 24 October 2013", " <=SEP=> The one child policy is needed for population control The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1 The reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century. Given that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4 1 \"Family Planning in China.\" Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. 2 People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001, 3 Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008. 4 Yardley, Jim. \"China Sticking with One-Child Policy.\"", " <=SEP=> Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively. [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010 [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.", " <=SEP=> This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world. Even in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12. [10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones [11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011. [12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011.", " <=SEP=> Not having children is environmentally friendly The more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment. * Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006,", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> It is immoral to kill animals As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: —crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food. Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself. [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008 [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989", " <=SEP=> Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] . It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] ) [1] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.", "business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon <=SEP=> The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument. [1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013, [2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013,", " <=SEP=> Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8) It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.", " <=SEP=> Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it Although EU countries are using energy more efficiently, demand for energy continues to rise, especially in the new eastern European member states. The demand for electricity is expected to rise by 8-9% by 2020 meaning a much more urgent need for generating capacity [1] . At the same time world energy consumption is projected to expand by 50% from 2005 to 2030 leading to high oil and gas prices [2] . The production of renewable energy is not growing at a fast enough pace to replace fossil fuels; wind, wave and solar simply cannot provide the quantities of energy required. It is possible – indeed, desirable - to combine nuclear power with other renewables, but nuclear energy is a crucial part of that mix as the only option capable of producing the quantity of energy required. Nuclear power is actually more efficient than any other power source: a gram of uranium 235 contains as much energy as four tons of coal [3] . [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] International Energy Outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, June 2008, Chapter 1. [3] Max Schulz. \"Nuclear Power Is the Future\". Wilson Quarterly. Fall, 2006", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems. GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2] Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology. [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011 [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011", " <=SEP=> Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost Nuclear power is the most practical renewable energy source as all the others face major difficulties either in scaling up to provide enough to be a major component of nations energy mix, don't provide energy all the time, the 'base load', or cause other environmental problems. Nuclear is a proven technology with large firms that can build large amounts of nuclear energy generation capacity. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power, however, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped; the subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife1. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China2. Wind, tidal, and solar power are all affected by issues of reliability. The tendency of wind power, in particular, to be a volatile source of energy, means that other power sources such as fossil fuel power stations have to make up the shortfall when wind levels drop. Tidal power technology is still in at an early stage and may take years to become profitable. It also has the potential to cause environmental problems in the marine environment. For a large area of the European Union, there is not the potential to exploit solar power as there are not enough hours of sunlight. \"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.\"3 1 'Environmental Impact of the Aswan High Dam', 2 'Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits' by Jane Macartney, Times Online 27th September 2007, 3\"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\", by Patrick Moore, Washington Post. April 16th, 2006:", "omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would <=SEP=> The dam would power Africa Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4] [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010, p.89 [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013, [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013, [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,", " <=SEP=> This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU (Financial Programming and Budget, 2011) and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India (Press Trust of India, ‘World Bank asks India to cut ‘unproductive’ farm subsidy’, 2007), and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well-off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth (Farmgate: the developmental impact of agricultural subsidies, ukfg.org.uk). It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.", "business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon <=SEP=> It harms the economies of developing world The current model of CAP results in major oversupply of food and beverages. In 2008 the stockpiles of cereals rising to 717 810 tons while the surplus of wine was about 2.3 million hectolitres. [1] This excess of supply is then often sold to developing countries for prices so low that the local producers cannot cope with them. The low prices of European food can be attributed to the higher efficiency of producing food because of use of advanced technologies as well as the CAP. Agriculture makes a small fraction of GDP in Europe, but in developing countries of Africa or Asia it is entirely different with large numbers dependent on much smaller plots of land. Hence, the consequences of CAP and high production in the EU can be the rise of unemployment and decline of self-sufficiency of these affected countries. [1] Castle, Stephen, ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The New York Times, 2 February 2009,", " <=SEP=> Nuclear energy is non-renewable source While nuclear power it is often proclaimed as clean this does not mean it is a renewable resource like wind, wave, or solar power. Nuclear power plants use uranium to produce energy, which, of course, needs to be mined. Currently only 2.3% of uranium used in reactors in EU is mined in the EU [1] . Moreover, the world’s main uranium deposits are located outside the EU. The use of nuclear energy thus undermines energy self-sufficiency of the EU. This may pose a serious threat to the future. Natural (and other) resources are usually used as the first intermediates of diplomatic disputes. When a country wants to exert diplomatic pressure on another country (or bloc of countries like EU), trade bans or embargos are widely used. For example in 2009 Russia stopped gas supply to Ukraine due to trade dispute between their two national gas companies. Therefore, the supply of uranium may be susceptible to diplomatic and trade relations (which are often volatile) and consequently nuclear power may not be reliable. Is it one of the aims of the EU to become less dependent on imported material needed for energy production. [2] As a non renewable resource we also need to think about the possibility of supplies running out. The concept of ‘peak uranium’ is sometimes overblown but there is only a 230 years supply of uranium at current consumption rates. If the price gets high enough then there are other options for production, including from seawater, but this would clearly mean a big increase in cost and concerns that producers will try to keep cheaper uranium to themselves and export for much higher prices. [3] Thus over longer term the nuclear energy may become far more expensive, or even unavailable due to lack of fuel. [1] Euratom, ‘Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2012’, European Commission, 2013, [2] European Commission, ‘Renewable energy’, Europa.eu, 2013, [3] Fetter, Steve, ‘How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?’, Scientific American, 26 January 2009,", " <=SEP=> The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil [1] while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels. [2] [1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012, [2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013,", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night” [1] . Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops. In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations for the “re-use” of their crops. [1] Sample I, Nearly a billion people go hungry every day – can GM crops help feed them?, published 01/23/2009 , accessed 09/05/2011", "omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would <=SEP=> A dam would damage the environment Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1] [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,", " <=SEP=> The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease. In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year. Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated. 1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,", " <=SEP=> Most stunning methods are not reliable The stunning methods in general use can and do go wrong. Electrical stunning requires the right size of charge, applied to the right place for the right amount of time. If done badly, the stun itself can cause pain, and can even fail completely. In one survey of Bristol abattoirs, not a single one was fully compliant with best-practice. Captive bolt stunning must also be done at a specific point on the animal’s head. A 1990 study found that in as many as 6.6% of cases, cattle had been insufficiently stunned, and 2.6% actually had to be shot again (one reported worst-case involved a cow being shot six times). Poultry slaughter often takes place on a mechanized production line, which causes serious concerns. Birds are dragged through an electrically charged water bath to stun them, but a 1993 study showed that 13.5% of birds were receiving shocks prior to being stunned – again, causing needless pain. Some birds lift their heads out of the bath, avoiding the stun completely. [1] Other, similar problems are associated with other stunning methods. Religious slaughter methods ensure that each animal is handled individually, so that it is kept calm, killed quickly and is properly dead. Because of the need to comply with religious law, the overseeing bodies put a large amount of effort into ensuring compliance with best-practice. Requiring them to stun animals actually causes more harm than good. [1] Stevenson, Peter, ‘Animal Welfare Problems in UK Slaughterhouses’, Compassion in World Farming Trust, July 2001,", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use. There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1] Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe. It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2] Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance. [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001, , accessed 09/02/2011 [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues, , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000, , accessed 09/02/2011", " <=SEP=> Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls If animal welfare is the primary concern then consistency requires that if one accepts the raising and slaughter of animals for meat then one should also accept the raising and slaughter of animals for entertainment. “Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers.” [1] To condemn bull fighting is to fail to be sensitive to cultural differences and to the true nature of the sport. First, bull fighting is an integral part of traditional Spanish culture that should therefore be respected in the same way that any other minority activity (such as the slaughtering of animals according to certain Jewish or Muslim ritual laws) would be. Secondly, the bull fight is a symbolic enactment of the battle between man and beast; the matador is a highly trained and highly skilled artist and fighter and takes his life in his hands when he enters the ring - it is a match between man and animal. Finally, since the bull would be killed anyway, it is of little consequence how it is killed. [1] Robert Elms, ‘End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste’.", " <=SEP=> First of all, power plants operating on renewable resources are not as green as one might think. Hydroelectric and tidal power can harm water ecosystems, wind turbines can harm wildlife and solar plants need a large space to be built on and are only really efficient in deserts. Nuclear power stations are relatively green since they do not primary produce any “dirty gases.” The only problem is mining uranium and the nuclear waste, which is increasingly able to be recycled and potentially reused as fuel for more modern nuclear plants. Furthermore, gas stations are operating with non-renewable source of energy – natural gas. Therefore, when speaking about efficiency -nuclear power stations are generally more effective than gas power stations [1] [2] – it is better for environment to operate on few nuclear power stations rather than on many of gas power stations. Nuclear power stations are not flexible, but they can represent the base of needed energy, which does not fluctuate, and the rest of needed energy which varies in time may be supplied with power plants operating on renewable sources and few power plants operating on other non-renewable sources. [1] ‘Cooling power plants’, World Nuclear Association, September 2012, [2] Kirk T. 2007 Physics IB Study Guide, Oxford University Press, p.68", " <=SEP=> Nuclear research is necessary for the future of green energy Historically a lot of the opposition to nuclear power has been about the waste they generate and that it will remain radioactive for tens of millennia. No one therefore wants nuclear waste in their neighbourhood making the pollution from coal and gas plants seem pale by comparison. Yet this is an objection that is increasingly outdated and what had been the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry is being turned into a strength. The EU has a chance to be a world leader in nuclear power generation. With the fourth generation of nuclear reactors which are much safer than current models and create almost no nuclear waste currently being designed. [1] Moreover an even more advanced nuclear plant, this one based upon fusion rather than fission is currently being built in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. It is an experimental reactor that will not produce any waste at all and could help revolutionise clean power. [2] Only if Europe continues investing in nuclear power will we be able to realise the dream of completely clean and completely safe nuclear power. This would then benefit the whole world by enabling such clean energy production elsewhere. [1] Swierk, ‘Visegrad 4 for 4th generation nuclear reactors’, National Centre for nuclear research, 21 July 2013, [2] Iter, ‘The Project’, 2013,", " <=SEP=> Carbon Taxes Are More Progressive both Politically and Economically than Cap and Trade Carbon taxes are progressive and help economically marginalised communities to a much greater extent than cap and trade. Currently, affluent businesses, individuals and legal persons usually emit a much larger amount of carbon than poor people. A flat tax on emissions causes a significant amount of money to be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Moreover, the poorest in society are often the first and worst affected by environmental damage. They lack the capital necessary to move out of areas affected by problems such as smog and water pollution. A carbon tax is a particularly useful system of redistributive justice, because money made from taxing firms can then be reinvested into finding greener energy solutions. Specifically this money can be invested in green energy companies that have already shown progress in producing goods that reduce carbon consumption. As such, a carbon tax not only reduces carbon consumption directly, but can also do so indirectly by investing in technology to prevent carbon consumption in the future. [1] [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009", " <=SEP=> Calling for an \"education campaign\" to inform consumers of what they are eating may sound sufficient, but this is very often just not enough. No matter what the government does, people will simply miss the \"instructional\" information provided by the government and will continue to consume trans fats without full information regarding its negative effects. In such circumstances, it is the government's job to step in a take action through a ban or other measures. Moreover, when a harmful trend such as the use of trans-fats becomes endemic and entrenched, it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to always be aware of the fact that a food has trans fats in them and make the \"choice\" to eat or not to eat them.(15) Producers include trans fats into foods without adjusting labelling, further affecting consumers’ ability to purchase foods that do not include trans-fats. The trans fats hidden in many processed foods are worse for a person's health than saturated fats. In 2005, CHOICE, an Australian watchdog tested more than 50 processed foods and found many contained trans fats at unacceptably high levels. After re-tests it was still clear that, while the fast-food chains had reduced their levels of trans fats, and some of the foods tested previously had eliminated trans fats altogether, others now contained even more than before. Foods such as pies, cakes and doughnuts may contain trans fats without the consumer even knowing about it.(16)", " <=SEP=> The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon <=SEP=> Even the larger companies can have difficulties in a market in which their consumers, the supermarkets, have so much power over prices. The result is often that supermarkets buy their produce at below the cost of production – as is happening with milk in the UK where it costs 30p per litre to produce but they are only being paid 25p per litre. [1] The costs of producing food in Europe even with mechanisation can be high because of the expensive workforce, and smaller farms on average than in the US. Therefore subsidies to larger companies are needed to keep even larger farmers in business. Often the larger companies involve smaller producers who produce the original, unique specialties and enjoy the stability of larger firm. It is hard to say that support of these companies is not useful. [1] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Milk prices row and how the system works’, 23 July 2012,", " <=SEP=> Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns \"devastating\" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,", " <=SEP=> First off, you are appealing to instincts which not everyone has. People who work on farms are happy to slaughter animals. A lot of people do not own pets simply because they do not feel any affection towards animals and care more for material objects. Many people do not care about the clubbing of seals. It is human beings of course who perform these clubbing, murder sharks, poach etc. Furthermore, it is irrational that people care about their pets because cows are equally as sentient as animals yet people are happy to eat veal and battery farmed beef and clearly do not care about the cow. People treat pets as property. They buy and sell them, put them down when they contract illnesses that are too expensive to treat, give them away when they move houses etc. These are things that they certainly wouldn’t do to human beings. If you want to argue according to what humans do instinctively then we instinctively value humans more than animals and are happy to eat and kill animals. Furthermore, we do not think that using a descriptive claim- what humans feel instinctively- means that you can then make a prescriptive claim – that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration. In many ways we treat other human beings as only extrinsically valuable. Neo-Malthusians believe we should allow the poor to die of hunger to ensure that the current population does not suffer from the scarcity that arises from overpopulation. Many wars have involved killing lots of people to achieve political aims. Therefore, we often treat humans as extrinsically valuable.", " <=SEP=> Countercase; Tackling food advertising If the Proposition is so keen to tackle obesity then regulating then it should tackle food advertising rather than the advertising of diets. [1] Banning the promotion of dieting ads while people are sitting in front of the TV munching on the take away food or complaining that the remote is 'all the way' on the other side of the room, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Diets are a response, one of many as Prop is keen to point out, to a serious problem that only government can begin to address. From before we are old enough to walk most people in the developed world are hooked on a fat-, sugar- and salt-rich diet. [2] Going after dieting ads is simply an effort by governments to be seen as doing something in a way that has little electoral impact. People will still use diets because of the gaps, such as the web, already mentioned however it doesn't require government to say anything as risky as “You're fat because you eat rubbish and don't move around much” to the electorate – or worse still, “Your children are fat because you can't put your foot down and tell them they can't have another choc-ice or more chips”. Prop's entire case is tokenism of the highest order. [1] Denis Campbell, ‘Call for ban on TV junk food ads before 9pm watershed’, The Guardian, 4 September 2012, [2] AP, ‘Study: Bad Eating Habits Start Near Age 2’, InteliHealth, 27 October 2003,", " <=SEP=> Newspapers cannot be environmentally sustained. Newspapers have no place in the modern media landscape as they are not environmentally friendly, they are a waste of paper when there are many other my efficient ways in which news can be disseminated. For example a single annual subscription to the New York Times roughly generates 520lb of waste which equates to approximately 4.25 trees being cut down per reader per year 2, when you take into account all the other publications that printed throughout the world this equates to a lot of wastage of increasingly scarce natural resources which could be avoided. Using digital tools to distribute news is more efficient as you only use resources when the content is actually required rather than the print media method in which the product is printed when it may not be necessarily purchased and consumed. 1 ID2 (2011) Facts about Paper and Paper Waste. [online] [accessed 18th June 2011]", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods. The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be. However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen. [1] All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved. [2] [1] Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?, , accessed 09/07/2011 [2] Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?, , accessed 09/02/2011", " <=SEP=> Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal. [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions. [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary", " <=SEP=> The colonial era agreement is outdated and does not apply to the modern world. Ethiopia’s population has now exceeded 90 million, which is more than Egypt’s 83 million, and yet it only has a small claim to the river. Many upstream countries, like Uganda, feel that the downstream countries have constrained and damaged them by denying access to majority of the Nile’s water [1] . These states have created a new agreement the Cooperative Framework Agreement in which there is a “principle of equitable… utilization” and each “state has the right to use within its territory”. [2] The upstream countries argue supersedes the old colonial treaty if it ever had any validity. [3] The Ethiopian government has assured Egypt and Sudan that they will receive enough water to live off comfortably. Sudan has been satisfied by the rearrangements [4] which implies that Ethiopia will not deprive downstream countries of access to the Nile. [1] Schwartzstein, Water Wars [2] ‘Article 3’, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, International Water Law, 2010 [3] Ibrahim, ‘The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement’, p.302 [4] Peppeh,K. ‘Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt meet again to discuss GERD’ Zegabi 8 December 2013", "health general weight house would ban junk food schools <=SEP=> Schools need to practice what they preach Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1] Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] . While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5] With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class. [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010, , accessed 9/11/2011 [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004, , accessed 09/08/2011 [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007 , accessed 09/08/2011 [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011, , accessed 9/11/2011 [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010, , accessed 9/11/2011 [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009, , accessed 9/11/2011", " <=SEP=> There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens. However, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd. Trying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country. Equally local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities. The nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways. In addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd. If the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone. Ultimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind. Pharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.", " <=SEP=> HS2 would damage the England’s green and pleasant land Railways are supposed to be green – they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than cars or planes. Yet many of those benefits are sacrificed by the desire for high speed which makes these trains much less environmentally friendly than normal trains due to the extra power necessary to reach such speeds. The impact on the British countryside will be immense. The railway will run through four Wildlife Trust reserves, 10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), more than 50 ancient woodlands, and HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result will be the fragmentation of populations of insects, bats, birds and mammals. The Wildlife Trusts argue “The very last thing we should be doing is creating new linear barriers to the movement of wildlife.” [1] [1] The Wildlife Trusts, ‘HS2’,", " <=SEP=> The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform It is worth giving the rebate up in exchange for serious reform of the EU budget, particularly of the Common Agricultural Policy which spends 40% of the EU’s budget [1] on 3% of its population. [2] The CAP not only wastes taxpayers’ money, it also raises the cost of food for European consumers, ruins the environment and prevents poor farmers in the developing world from trading their way out of poverty. Even in its own terms it is a disaster, for most CAP money goes to a small number of rich landowners running huge agribusiness estates, not to small-scale peasant farmers preserving the traditional rural way of life. If offering to give up the British rebate helps to get agreement on reform, then it is a sacrifice well worth making. Britain on the other hand favors using CAP more to protect the environment rather than encourage food production. [3] [1] Europa, ‘Budget 2011 in figures’, 2011 [2] Eurobarometer, ‘Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy’, 2007, p.9 [3] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy after 2013’, 2011", "economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards <=SEP=> Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. [1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem. [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008,", "tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax <=SEP=> A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food by specifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend. In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumption – not the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. The reason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly.” [1] Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing of habit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty. [2] Thus while a tax might be useful in reducing things such as the use of cigarettes – which are at heart an unnecessary “luxury” and thus more easily affected by the price – eating food, whether junk or not, is necessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need for a quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for. The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out – and a fat tax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduce other programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy vending machines; [3] increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school, improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging people to burn more calories [4] and, most importantly, proper education on the topic if we want to create lasting change. [5] [1] Tiffin, R., Salois, M., A fat tax is a double whammy for the poor – it will do little to prevent obesity in those on lower incomes, and will hurt them financially, published 9/2/2011, , accessed 9/12/2011 [2] Hitti, M., Top 11 Reasons For Fast Food's Popularity, published 12/3/2008, , accessed 9/14/2011 [3] Yara, S., Best And Worst Vending Machine Snacks, published 10/6/2005, , accessed 9/14/2011 [4] CDC, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, published 7/24/2009, , accessed 9/14/2011 [5] Bunce, L., ‘Fat tax’ solutions ignore wider social factors driving junk food habits, published 8/16/2010, , accessed 9/12/2011", " <=SEP=> Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1] [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005", " <=SEP=> 3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society Industrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies. [20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013. [21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries.", "science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms <=SEP=> Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes. The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions. Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions. [1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation. [2] In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions. [3] [1] Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007, , accessed 09/05/2011 [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa, , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008, , accessed 09/02/2011", " <=SEP=> Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).", " <=SEP=> Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, \"Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost.\" [1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today. [2] Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). [3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, [4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. [5] [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010 [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008, [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004, [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003, [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net", "economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should <=SEP=> Restrictions on migration would benefit people in the cities economically and socially Cities are very appealing to poor people. Even if their living standards in cities might be unacceptable, they get closer to basic goods, such as fresh water, sanitation etc. However, these things exist because there are productive people in the cities who work and pay taxes. What happens when too many people come at the same time is that public money is stretched too thinly and these basic goods can no longer be provided. This leads to severe humanitarian problems such as malnutrition, thirst, lack of medication, etc. However, this humanitarian crisis does not only harm those directly affected, it also creates an unattractive environment for business. Thus, people who enter the city cannot find work, as production does not grow in relation to the people who enter. They become excluded from society and often turn to crime, which further erodes the economy. [1] Limiting migration to reasonable levels give the cities a chance to develop progressively and become the kind of places that people in rural areas currently believe them to be. [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.", "business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon <=SEP=> CAP protects the quality of the food in EU The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP. [1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012,", " <=SEP=> By this argument, no human generation could ever decide that protecting a species is more trouble than its worth and so let it become extinct, as there would always be the theoretical possibility of a future generation that might regret this choice. Every choice we make as a generation constrains and widens the choices available to future generations. If we protect endangered species and therefore limit agricultural and housing land (to protect their environments) we deny future generations more plentiful food supplies and better housing. We may even deny the existence of more humans in the future by not having enough food to feed a population which could grow faster if the food supply was greater. We cannot allow the remote possibility of future regret to cause us to take actions which a great many people will 'regret' in the present.", " <=SEP=> The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil Currently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. [1] Due to political instability and the difficult US relations with these nations, US supplies cannot be considered secure, and with the results of research into alternative sources of energy being decades away from fruition the United States needs alternative sources of oil today. One option is Canada, which is individually already the United States’ single largest energy supplier. Canada’s known reserves total 179 billion barrels, placing it third behind Saudi Arabia, but some estimates have put its total at as high as 2 trillion barrels. [2] The XL Pipeline project would help bring this oil overland into the United States. On the Canadian end, the increased market access would lead to rapid development, which in turn would increase Canadian capacity to the level to which it could reach a much greater portion of US demand. Furthermore, the United States enjoys close relations and an open border with Canada, meaning that this oil will likely arrive without the strings attached that come from buying from Venezuela or the Middle East. In the case of the latter the Pipeline would allow the US to disengage from the region to a degree. Even if hypothetically Canadian relations were to turn frosty, the existence of the pipeline would nevertheless ensure that the US would remain the only viable market. [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, ‘U.S. Imports by Country of Origin’, [2] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, ‘Alberta’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry’,", " <=SEP=> Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products As the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5 This is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6. Similarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety. [5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013. [6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006.", " <=SEP=> The problem is not a significant one The animal welfare movement should be tackling more important things. In the UK, only about 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and 4% of poultry are slaughtered without stunning. [1] Farming and transporting causes the vast majority of the pain in the life of a given animal before it ever arrives at the slaughterhouse. This is a much more important issue, as it affects every animal, not just the small proportion slaughtered without stunning. From the slaughter to the animal actually dying is normally within 20 seconds, and can be as low as 2 seconds, depending on the species of animal. [2] The distress caused by this in not significant in the grand scheme of things. Given that the animal is being slaughtered, some discomfort is inevitable, but religious slaughter – even if it is more painful than slaughter with stunning – can hardly be described as prolonged or systematic cruelty. [1] Rhodes, Andrew, ‘Results of the 2011 FSA animal welfare survey in Great Britain’, Food Standards Agency, 22 May 2012, [2] Grandin, Temple, ‘Welfare During Slaughter without stunning (Kosher or Halal) differences between Sheep and Cattle’, Grandin.com, September 2012,", " <=SEP=> It is not the government's place to force lifestyles on people. There is plenty of information around on what constitutes a balanced and healthy diet; people should be left to make up their own minds about what they buy with their own money. In any case, loss leaders make very little difference to the overall price comparison between processed and fresh food. Fresh food like fruit, vegetables and raw meat is expensive because it will soon rot and so it incurs higher transport and storage costs than processed food with a long shelf life. If governments want to change the balance in costs, they would be better off putting a tax on the unhealthiest foods rather than interfering arbitrarily in the realm of the marketing.", "th health general global law crime policing law general punishment house would <=SEP=> Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away. [1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.” [2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest. [3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining. [4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic. [5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.", "business economic policy africa house believes tunisia should not rely tourism <=SEP=> Tourism causes pollution The tourism industry in Tunisia results in notable damage to the environment. Without sustainability, economic growth will only last in the short term. This is especially pertinent for tourism, where environmental beauty is of particular importance. From the construction of infrastructure and travel, to the general waste produced, tourism is problematic in the sense that it can often cause pollution; which in turn damages the country’s reputation1. Most tourists to the region are from Europe, although there are an increasing number of Russians which means travel becomes a major source of pollution. A return journey via plane from London to Tunis creates around 310 kg of CO2 (standard passenger jets create around 0.17kg of CO2 per km) 2. This is disproportionately damaging compared to other vehicles, but is the most practical way of reaching Tunisia. Other impacts such as overuse of water, land degradation and littering can all cause problems as well3. 1) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Environmental Impacts’ data accessed 28 January 2014 2) BBC, ‘Pollution warning on holiday flights’, 1 May 2000 3) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Tourism’s Three Main Impact Areas’ data accessed 28 January 2014", " <=SEP=> The government should provide information to consumers, not restrict choice Milton Friedman argued in the 1980s: \"If we continue on this path, there is no doubt where it will end. If the government has the responsibility of protecting us from dangerous substances, the logic surely calls for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. . . . Insofar as the government has information not generally available about the merits or demerits of the items we ingest or the activities we engage in, let it give us the information. But let it leave us free to choose what chances we want to take with our own lives.\"(11) George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux asks what a trans-fat ban is a model for: \"Petty tyranny? Or perhaps for similarly inspired bans on other voluntary activities with health risks? Clerking in convenience stores? Walking in the rain?\"(12) Morally the government should be consistent when it bans things, the sale of an undeniably deadly products such as tobacco is sometimes allowed so far less dangerous substances should be allowed.(13) Education should be considered an alternative to banning trans fats or other unhealthy food. There should be aggressive education campaigns to educate consumers as has been done with tobacco.. At the moment consumers are ignorant, they need to know what they are, the dangers and the consequences. Information on trans fats should also be part of a wider program of nutrition awareness which will put it in context. . Many people have rejected tobacco as a result of raised awareness; the same will occur with trans fats. The food industry would respond to consumer demand and reduce the use of trans fats and other ingredients considered ‘bad’.(13) Information on trans-fats is not hard to come by: the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), for example, is happy to inform about the dangers of dietary trans-fat, and has no trouble getting its declarations of doom on television and into newspapers.(11) This consumer pressure is already occurring. In the United States, for example, many fast-food chains and food manufacturers have already eliminated trans fats from their products or have pledged to phase them out. To pick one case, Wal-Mart is going to reduce its sugar, sodium content and remove all trans fats from its food.(14) Left to its own devices, the market will solve this 'problem' in all areas which consumers consider it to be a problem, all without needing an unwieldy government ban. Therefore the government should educate its citizens regarding the health concerns surrounding trans fats, but leave it up to the citizens to choose what they eat.", "economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better <=SEP=> Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2. 1 Adorno, T., &amp; Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011 2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.", " <=SEP=> Many traditions have been defended for their cultural, traditional value. Stoning women for immodesty is one of them. Such tradition-for-tradition's-sake arguments do not actually prove anything, as cultures are constantly evolving and changing -the ban on bullfights can be just one more such change.(11) The bullfighting tradition is based on cruelty to bulls, and so simply being 'old' and 'traditional' is not enough of a justification. Cruelty is cruelty no matter where in the world it happens. Our understanding of animals has improved a great deal in recent times. There is no place in the 21st century for a ‘sport’ which relies on animal cruelty for ‘entertainment’. Moreover, people need not see a bull die in order to understand death. Video, pictures, books, and news reports all make it possible for individuals to learn about and understand death. It's occurring around us naturally all the time. It is completely unnecessary, therefore, to artificially produce death in the bullfighting arena in order to create an appreciation of the cycle of life and death, etc. Nature watching is also a good alternative. Or even hunting or fishing, in which an individual generally attempts to quickly and decently kill an animal that they will then eat. Torturing a bull for entertainment is unnecessary when compared to these outlets for understanding life and death. Furthermore, majorities in bullfighting states oppose it as well. Recent polls have shown that in Spain 67% are not interested in bullfighting, and in France, 69% of people oppose public funding for bullfighting.(3)", "omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would <=SEP=> Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3] [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012, [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013, [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,", " <=SEP=> NAFTA has interfered with Canadian laws concerning environmental protection. Under NAFTA, if foreign investors believe they are being harmed by regulations, they may sue for reparations under special tribunals1. Canada regulates commercial use of its lake and river water2, fearing ecosystem damage, and had previously banned the importation of a gasoline additive MMT3. Due to lawsuits brought by American companies Sun Belt Water Inc. and Ethyl Corporation, the Canadian government was forced to change legislation to allow these companies to conduct business. By compelling Canada to reduce its standards for environmental protection, NAFTA has failed to meet Canada's interests. 1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, \"The Broken Promise of NAFTA,\" New York Times, January 6, 2004. 2 \"The Sun Belt NAFTA Case.\" Sun Belt Water, 2004. 3 Kerr, Jim. \"Auto Tech: MMT: the Controversy Over this Fuel Additive Continues.\" March 10, 2004.", " <=SEP=> Not all politicians are incapable of investing for the long term. After the economic crisis in which the world saw the perils of “living in the moment”, politicians will be more cautious in the way they spend money. Politicians have in the past been able to build visionary projects such as the EU, or high speed rail, or invest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in Europe, domestic greenhouse gas emissions fell by over 15 % between 1990 and 2010, due also to improvements in energy and fuel efficiency, so there is no reason to think they could not do so again.(1) As a result, we do not need a separate group for taking these decisions for the politicians, as they would do it by themselves. (1) European Environment Agency, “Mixed success for European environmental policies”, Spiral, 2012", "business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon <=SEP=> It is unfair to new members of EU Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries. [1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011,", "disease health general house would allow production generic drugs <=SEP=> The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it When a firm directs individuals to mix their labor with its capital or other resources, part of that firm's identity inheres in the product that arises from the effort. This is the origin of, and fundamental philosophical justification for, property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function1. The law protects patent rights in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should. Individuals and firms generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, such as a new drug formula, have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property that can be protected by a patent. Developing a new drug is a very intensive endeavor, taking time, energy, and usually a considerable amount of financial investment2. The cost of developing a new drug varies widely, from a low of $800 million to nearly $2 billion per drug and is rising3. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property, which developing generic drugs is, is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like drug formulae, and in practice they are a necessity to many firms' financial survival. 1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry\". The Congress of the United States. Available: 3 Masia, Neal, 2008, \"The Cost of Developing a New Drug\", Focus on Intellectual Property Rights, America.gov, Available:", " <=SEP=> Giving out money does not encourage people to take responsibility The beauty of direct cash transfers is that it simply adds a new income stream but this is also its Achilles heel. Providing direct cash transfers will create dependency upon the transfers and reduce the incentive to be earning money from elsewhere. There are several reasons for this. First because the transfers from the government will be reliable, unlike much of the income the poorest have, the transfers will become the recipients main form of income. This will mean that there is less incentive to be earning money from other sources, which would often mean hard work, so as a result both harming the individual as they do not earn as much and the economy as they will not be contributing to the economy. Secondly people will take up less work in order to qualify for the transfers; there is no reason to work more if that is simply going to mean that money you would have got from the government is taken away. The advantage of in-kind transfers is that they help avoid expectations of long term assistance or the state essentially providing everything. [1] Dependency has happened with food aid in Ethiopia where more than five million people have been receiving food aid since 1984; far from getting better the food security situation has if anything been declining during this time and there could be much better use made of Ethiopia’s own resources; only 6% of the country’s irrigable land is used for agriculture. [2] [1] Holmes, Rebecca, and Jackson, Adam, ‘Cash transfers in Sierra Leone: Are they appropriate, affordable or feasible?’, Overseas Development Institute, Project Briefing No.8, January 2008, p.2 [2] Elliesen, Tillmann, ‘Imported Dependency, Food Aid Weakens Ethiopia’s Selfhelp Capacity’, Development and Cooperation, No.1, January/February 2002, pp.21-23", " <=SEP=> The ban is necessary to confront the growing problem of obesity in NYC. Although rising obesity levels in the city have been a major issue in New York City recently, any measures already enacted have failed to curb the growing numbers of obese New Yorkers. The Bronx has the largest percentage of overweight adults, a staggering 70 percent; the other four boroughs also have seen increases in the past decade. Sixty-two percent of Staten Island adults are overweight; followed by Brooklyn, at 60 percent; Queens, at 57 percent; and Manhattan, at 47 percent, according to city health data. [1] The New York City Department of Health has enacted several programs promoting healthier living such as health fares in low-income areas and the Adopt A Bodega initiative, through which local bodegas or small delis and groceries agree to sell produce from family-owned, local farms, providing healthier foods to New Yorkers for reasonable prices. But the results, or rather lack of them, show that education and access are not enough. [2] As Mayor Bloomberg has argued, the ban will have an effect because it follows the principle that if some people have smaller portions given to them, they will consequently drink less. The Mayor doesn’t hope to prevent all people from drinking soda. In fact he emphasizes that this ban wouldn’t come close to restricting personal freedoms because people would still be free to order however much soda they would like. The customers would simply have to be served multiple containers. [3] This is not going to eradicate excessive sugar-intake, however a study by Dr. Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of population health and health policy at NYU Langone School of Medicine in New York City, determined that 62% of drinks bought at restaurants were over the size limit and the result would be that the average consumer would take in 63 fewer calories per trip to a fast-food restaurant [4] . [1] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012. [2] ’New York City Healthy Bodegas Initiative 2010 Report’, NYC Department of Health &amp; Mental Hygiene and NYC Center for Economic Opportunity. [3] Briggs, Bill, and Flam, Lisa, ‘Bloomberg defends soda ban plan: We’re not taking away your freedoms’, Health on Today, 1 July 2012. [4] Jaslow, Ryan, ‘Research finds NYC soda ban would cut 63 calories per fast food trip: Would that have any impact?’, CBS News, 24 July 2012.", " <=SEP=> The developed world has the responsibility to help others The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise. [1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much. [2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009,", " <=SEP=> While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allowed to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks.", "climate house believes were too late global climate change <=SEP=> Developing world Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, \"China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature\" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change. 1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.", " <=SEP=> A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. It is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social \"harm\", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming. Further, A cap-and-trade system is \"fair\" because it rewards \"efficient\"-polluters while punishing \"non-efficient\" polluters: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions.", "tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax <=SEP=> An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening. It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age. It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well? [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008, , accessed 9/12/2011 [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008, , accessed 9/12/2011", " <=SEP=> Healthier equivalents of trans fats exist It is easy and inexpensive to replace trans fats with other, less harmful products without significantly altering the taste of the food. Kraft eliminated trans fats from its Oreo cookies, with little public perception of any change in taste.(1) Similarly, the Wendy's restaurant chain tested a new frying oil in 370 franchises, with customers not noticing a difference in taste. Denmark imposed a national ban on trans fats with which even McDonald's has complied.(1) Replacements for trans fats will get cheaper and cheaper with time, as they are used more frequently and as the companies that produce and distribute them increase their sales volumes and are able to sell them for lower prices. Since trans fats are not irreplaceable, objections for the sake of consumer freedom are also unconvincing. As with lead added to paint, trans fats are unnecessary additions to products that can cause significant harm. Most people remain ignorant of the presence of trans-fats in their food, and of their effects. In this area the ban on trans fats differs from restrictions placed on the sale of alcohol and tobacco and so the two kinds of bans are not comparable. Not only are trans fats easy to substitute in foodstuffs, without impairing quality or taste, the presence of trans-fats is hard to detect. It is all-but impossible for informed and conscientious consumers to avoid buying and eating trans-fats. While banning cigarettes and alcohol mean banning an entire product category, banning the ingredient of trans fats means no such thing. Rather, it simply means that readily available replacement ingredients must be used in the preparation of the same foods. And, since these fatty replacements are widespread and cheaply available, food makers and consumers should have little difficulty making the adjustment to making and consuming the same, albeit slightly modified, foods.", "animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that \"There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores\". [2] [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010. [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999", " <=SEP=> The state should ban trans fats to protect the public One of the purposes of government is identify possible threats to health and protect the people from these threats. The fact that some government regulations seem 'silly' or misplaced, or cannot easily be understood by lay-people is not a compelling argument for having no regulations at all, or for not having regulations in the case of trans fat. The commentators who denounce the 'nanny state' do not indicate what, if any, regulations or styles of regulation they approve of. Do they think there should be no inspections of restaurants by health inspectors? No regulation at all of food or drug safety by the Food and Drug Administration? Some commentators think that people should be encouraged to study the dangers of trans fats and make their own judgements about what to eat. But people have limited time to do research on such matters. It makes sense to delegate the research to a central authority, so that instead of 300 million people trying to learn about trans fats and every other lurking menace, a handful of experts can make recommendations based on the likely responses and desires of the average, informed citizen. Non-specialists’ capacity to absorb information on complex chemical and biological subjects is quite limited. The majority of us are reliant on the research of others for most of what we know.(5) The opinion of the experts on the dangers of trans fats is conclusive: trans fats are unsafe. The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers all uses of trans fats to be 'generally regarded as safe.' This allows the use of trans fats in whatever way food producers desire. ’Safe’ for the FDA means 'a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under its intended conditions of use', which no longer applies to trans fats. This 'generally regarded as safe' status should be revoked which in turn would greatly restrict its use in food. The other option would be to allow local jurisdictions to regulate trans fats, but this would be more costly and lead to a patchwork of regulations.(1) The most effective method of controlling the use of trans-fats is through centralised, nationally applicable policy making. The poor and young are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of trans fats; at the very least, the threat posed to these groups justifies the use of informed regulation. Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health said in 2010: \"There are great differences in the amount of trans-fats consumed by different people and we are particularly concerned about young people and those with little disposable income who eat a lot of this type of food. This is a major health inequalities issue.”(6) The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harms that they are not best placed to understand or avoid themselves, and so a ban on trans fats would not only save lives but would also be legitimate under the government's role to protect when citizens cannot reasonably protect themselves.", " <=SEP=> To worry about animal rights more than human rights is not sensible. When the two are compatible, this is a good thing, but in this case the ban would have the effect of forcing Jews and Muslims to choose between keeping their religion and eating meat. This is a more important concern than animal welfare: although eating meat is not an essential part of life, it is not reasonable to deny it to someone." ]

[ 1, 0, 7, 2, 5, 2906, 1021, 6, 4, 2761, 12, 2827, 2792, 8, 3880, 504, 7755, 2930, 3031, 9, 91, 2904, 2845, 2728, 2602, 2727, 7634, 2734, 2706, 5412, 3, 2763, 549, 2833, 2758, 2596, 2760, 79, 7918, 547, 2794, 2936, 2605, 86, 2961, 2912, 2598, 7764, 2791, 2799, 2875, 3032, 7806, 546, 2759, 2884, 3168, 7056, 2595, 2735, 2726, 171, 3662, 7949, 4630, 614, 563, 2741, 2713, 2603, 7923, 7889, 644, 552, 2808, 2822, 2700, 2910, 4125, 1415, 636, 3029, 517, 2836, 89, 4110, 4044, 542, 216, 8148, 2971, 2781, 2958, 63, 2872, 559, 3023, 13, 3026, 2899 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> There is a grea(...TRUNCATED)

[ 4 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> It is immoral t(...TRUNCATED)

[3,2830,2894,4,2887,8,2884,2900,2889,7758,1232,2888,2832,2912,11,2886,2880,2809,1233,7757,2881,2896,(...TRUNCATED)

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> The key to good(...TRUNCATED)

[ 2 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Vegetarianism i(...TRUNCATED)

[6,2,7,0,559,5,12,1,3031,7806,13,7755,2906,3071,2958,4,2904,558,3162,4125,6148,10,2833,3164,3176,319(...TRUNCATED)

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Food safety and(...TRUNCATED)

[ 5 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Being vegetaria(...TRUNCATED)

[7,5,0,6,1,2,2845,2958,2906,7755,3,2912,2904,3031,12,2910,2961,9,2900,2896,4125,2598,4,2894,2833,614(...TRUNCATED)

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> The problems wi(...TRUNCATED)

[ 13 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> There are probl(...TRUNCATED)

[10,13,2,6,0,5,178,1,3032,4119,173,171,1291,8145,5651,3031,125,3399,3025,3026,7,3191,2543,2270,6944,(...TRUNCATED)

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> To suggest that(...TRUNCATED)

[ 8 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Survival of the(...TRUNCATED)

[11,4,2815,8,12,7758,2896,2809,2879,1713,3,2446,1232,2880,2806,2804,1714,2888,2460,5422,2814,7456,77(...TRUNCATED)

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Human evolved a(...TRUNCATED)

[ 9 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics <=SEP=> Humans can choo(...TRUNCATED)

[12,4,2,8,0,5,11,6,2906,7758,7755,9,19,2525,1,2896,7764,2899,2894,7,7754,2833,2880,2884,3,2890,2879,(...TRUNCATED)

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> What then is the interest of the(...TRUNCATED)

[ 14 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> Animal research causes severe ha(...TRUNCATED)

[15,1229,1243,1241,27,1230,14,2523,1234,1247,1242,1236,1228,1239,2830,2894,1240,1237,3,1246,1231,290(...TRUNCATED)

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> There is a moral difference betw(...TRUNCATED)

[ 20 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> It would send out a consistent m(...TRUNCATED)

[17,1231,2900,2830,1246,1234,2910,4,32,2531,2894,1230,16,2524,18,23,1236,29,7759,28,7761,2832,2881,2(...TRUNCATED)

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> The right of a human not to be h(...TRUNCATED)

[ 19 ]

[ 1 ]

["animals science science general ban animal testing junior <=SEP=> Animals shouldn’t be harmed T(...TRUNCATED)

[18,1232,2888,2883,3,2880,2830,2887,7758,1233,2884,2881,2889,19,2525,7757,4,2894,2809,2900,1235,5427(...TRUNCATED)