"As an environmentalist, This House regrets the incoming Duterte Presidency"
Duterte already planned on road widenings, addition of roads and plans on converting some lands into roads. Base on the site balita.ph, he said that the government might consider expanding the city roads, also observed that the suburban roads are too tight that they need expansion. He explained that the govenment must buy a portion of properties needed for the road expansion which for me, can affect much on the environment. "Government must agree to provisions to buy prtions of the farmland that will be affected by the road widening activities. It goes beyond simply spending on construction materials, labor and equipment" - Rodrigo Duterte.
Trees are going to be cut down and lands abundant with grass and environmental species are going to be converted into roads. It is really harmful to the environment and may lead to more pollution. Trees are giving us oxygen and fresh air and I do not want to let it be converted into something that can harm the environment more. In cebu where a German expert, Dr. Manfred Poppe said "Road widening projects are not totally solving the problem. I dont think the streets need to be widened because it is negatively affecting public spaces". For me what he said is true, road widening is not the real solution but instead reducing car ownership, which Dr. Manfred suggested as a solution for traffics.
Cutting down even just one tree is already too much. Like how one life would be taken away is not less but it is much more. Road widenings can also lead to more cars which can lead to more carbon dioxide released in the earth's atmosphere and harm the environment. Duterte also said about coal plants construction. "You open the Philippines for all power players, I guarantee you the electricity will become cheaper" - Duterte said. Coal plants have great impacts on the environment, mainly air pollution. Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. In United States, coal plants are the leading source of Sulfur dioxide pollution which takes a major impact on public health and can form small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain which damages crops, forests and soil. Nitrogen oxide pollution also caused by coal plants causes ground level ozone or smog. Particulate matter still released by coal plants can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma and premature death. Coal plants are also responsible for mercury emissions. Construction of coal plants cause great harm to the environment. "We need energy to develop, we are just a developing nation"- Duterte said. Yes we may be a developing nation but we do not need to harm the environment to develop. The environment is already at aharmful state and coal plants could lead to a horrifying scenario on the environment. It can affect not only the environment but also the people, affecting or harming the environment which leads to health problems, complexions, sickness, diseases. Harming the environment is harming the world and everything in it. We need to lessen the release of greenhouse gases. Coal plants, road widenings aren't helping the environment to recover. If these coal plants are constructed then the environment is at a bad state. So why as an environmentalist, I fear the incoming Duterte presidency? Because first, road widenings can convert nature, can cut trees, can lead to more cars which releases more carbon dioxide and causes air pollution. Second, coal plants are a big deal to the environment's atmosphere. It is unhealth not only for the environment but also to us people.
References:
http://balita.ph/2010/12/28/duterte-eyes-expansion-of-city-roads/
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/business/2015/11/19/road-widening-not-solution-442443
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/22/1565436/nothing-wrong-coal-plants-duterte
(http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.V0mc3fnvOM8
"This house believes that conscious consumerism has done more harm than good towards the beneficiaries of these campaigns/advocacies".
Conscious consumerism is the ability to decide how to spend your money and what products to buy, where the products come from and how the companies handle your money. It may do harm cause people who are waiting for its benefits may become dependent which lead to worse cases. But for me it can do more good for it will not only help the beneficiaries but also help the consumers for being conscious of the products they buy and conscious to the environment. You are not called conscious consumer if you just buy products without even knowing the backgrounds of it. The companies can also benefit from it. If companies are also socially conscious/responsible, for example, "A coffee corporation imports coffees from a country divided into two, evil land and fair land. Evil land offer their coffees at a cheaper price which is not fair for their coffee farmers. They are the only ones who can benefit it, not the farmers. Fair land offer their coffees at a fair price which helps not only them but also their coffee farmers. Because that coffee corp. imports only those expensive but responsibly sourced coffees so not only them can benefit but also the consumers and others.(Sir I forgot and I cannot find the site of my reference for this example sir sorry, but clearly this isn't my example.). For me conscious consumerism is best not only for the environment but for the world. I would prefer to be on the opposition side than the government.
"This house would revoke architecture licenses from architects of establishments that significantly damage the environment"
Architectural license takes hard work, sweat, standing from failures, lack of sleep, just to acquire it. We architecture students need to study for 5 years to know about architecture. When we become architects and we already have projects, our proposal and plans of the projects undergo on processes and investigations to the government and others who checks up our plans. So when they see something about our plans that can damage the environment they should have reject the project in the first place than letting the architects build the structure then revoking their license when it damages the environment. Fair and clean process from those who investigate the architects' proposals and plans is also a need. Because as what the government side debated that it may lead to corruption when licenses are not revoked because they can just put prices just to establish things. So we also need fair and clean processes. For me I prefer to side the Opposition than the government.
"This house believes that countries that are governed by religious laws that prohibit women from getting an education should send their girls to school"
As what sir Yasi have said, that even if sending the girls to school, the point of view of those countries to their women will never change. So we need to change their point of view to their women first before the case of sending them to school inorder to strengthen the rights of women. The talents/abilities of women will be wasted if those countries continue to believe on their religious laws. Their views toward women may change if the capabilities and rights of women are proven. Laws which prohibit women from getting an educatuon should also be changed. For me I would side on the government than the opposition.
"This house would force and finance the children of farmers to take agriculture-related courses and pursue agricultural careers".
The children of farmers already has an experience in farming and may have know about it for they are living in a farming area. If they take up agri-related course and pursue agricultural careers they may even own a land or own the land of their parents if they are educated enough about agriculture. But not all children of farmers want to take up agriculture. You cannot force someone to take up something or do something they don't even want to do. We all have human rights and we have the right of freedom. Their children can still help in agriculture throught their own ways. It is hard for them to do things they don't want to and it might even end up on a worse case scenario. For me we should not force them, we should just stop tenancy. Dividing the lands properly and the income. Mostly tenants own all the income and no share is given to the farmers that is why most of the farmers are discouraged to do more of what they are doing. Then the problem of losing farmers in the future will be out of the picture. For me I prefer to be the Opposition team than the government.
"This house would use biological weaponries against terrorist groups that destroy the environment".
As the government side debated that biological weapons would be cheaper if used, and non-lethal gases will be used inorder not to kill civilians around the area but only paralyzes them and they also propose more number antidotes than biological weapons. But still we cannot assure nothing will happen even when no civilians will be killed. It may traumatize the civilian, it may also lead to complexions of sickness when they are paralyzed. Terrorists nowadays cannot easily be tracked or found, they can be one of any people around an area or a place. So it is hard to use bioligical weapons when they are hard to be determined and with civilians around. Terrorists can even have the possibility to acquire those bioligical weapons which is a more disastrous scenario, which is nowadays terrorists are the ones who are already using those kind of weapons. For me I would prefer to be the opposition than the government.
"This house would not accept refugees from affected countries in an instance of global pandemics wherein virus/diseases are highly contagious". For me we should accept refugees even from affected countries but with investigations and checkups. Our help will reflect soon when this pandemics happen to our country. Yes our government may not able to handle if refugees are in big numbers, but not literally all of the refugees should be accepted, only some of it due to lack of facilities. That's why organizations exist inorder to help the government from handling the refugees. I understand that refugees are not necessarily accepted just to help them, we can help by sending them needs, or helping them relocate to other countries/places who can help them more than us. But If we will accept them and help them, then by the time comes, soon, they will also help us in times of global pandemics. They are humans and they have human rights. For me I prefer to be the Opposition than to be the Government.
