Summary of debate held at Falmouth marine school 9:20am, 11th November 2008-11-25
”Upholding economic growth”, were the Marine Sports Leisure students.
“The need to conserve the environment”, were the Marine Environment students.
Both sides put forward strong arguments, backed up with sound facts defending their various views. The teams had elected chief representatives, who had disposition fifteen minutes each to put forward their team’s arguments. Each of the students took turns by putting forward a different subject they had researched earlier in the previous weeks heading up to the debate.
Peter had been elected to give the opening speech on behalf of the marine sports student and he discussed a number of issues dealing with, local economy, economic power needed for future growth within the British Isles and a boom or bust theory. The other members on his team dealt with:
Tim- Cruises ships and the dredging of Falmouth’s Harbour and why this would be a good idea for the town in general.
Matt- expansion and modernisation of the marina.
Adam- Planning of a large and exclusive golf resort and complex in the North East of Scotland by Donald Trump, and how this would be a good source of income for the local community in that area. (2007, Guardian)
Joe- Heathrow airport and its alleged proposal to build another runway inside one of London’s most important airports. (2008 Economist)
The Marine Environmental Management students had elected Alex, to not only put forward the teams individual arguments, but also went on to explain how important it was for algae and seaweed, and what it means to the environment in general. The other members of her team dealt with:
Gavin- Aquaculture and overfishing and how this is damaging our waters beyond repair (2008 Grescoe)
Laura- Palm oil plantations and deforestation, and the effect they are having on the health of our planet. (2006 Butler)
Oli- General help and moral support on all the issues brought forward by Alex’s team, which was a vital aid to all involved.
I personally opposed the idea of having Falmouth’s cruise ship and dredging proposal as a boom for the economic growth, pointing out the other side of the story by explaining the damaging effects it would have on the area. I explained that accidental pollution and over shipping could do nothing but damage Falmouth’s waters and the surrounding areas, killing off many of our marine species and generally ruining Falmouth’s natural beauty. (2007 Friends of the Earth)
The conclusion of our debate was an agreement on both sides to find the best way of balancing the economic growth and the conservation of the natural environment. I have put forward and idea, that if a line is drawn too soon, not allowing any disturbance to the natural environment, we could find ourselves loosing out on many positive economic aspects, which could create better futures for our children. On the other hand, if we draw the line too late, we will find ourselves in a devastating position, where by our future situation could be, we have let everything go to far. This could mean, in the future we could find ourselves left with nothing but lifeless sea beds and concrete fields. These outcomes are neither, appealing to the eye or to our health, if this was the case, and we let ourselves go this far, would we find ourselves having to create artificial shaded areas because of the lack of trees? (That in itself is like stamping on our own feet) moreover, what would happen if this becomes a reality? What would be the point?
I believe none of us would find it very appealing to become part of a future, to protect ourselves, from the ever growing hole in the ozone layer, we would have to adapt by wearing all over protection suits and sun creams, just to leave our homes. The increase in carbon emissions of cars, boats and planes, could mean having to wear oxygen masks. All this may sound outrageous but without the correct balance, maybe it is not as far fetched as we think. Humans, the cause of this, either out of greed or out of poverty, (2008 Grescoe) could turn us into the mass assassins of the planet for all other species. Having to don suits and masks just to survive, would turn us into aliens on our own planet. Is this really what we’re aiming for?
To have the correct balance by respecting nature and economic growth is a delicate situation. I believe this a decision that should not be given to an unqualified ‘chosen few’ governmental bodies, but needs to be taken into more serious consideration. Present times favour the rich and powerful political parties and industries that are the main bodies for creating the circumstances we find ourselves in, in the first place.
References.
Butler .2006. Deforestation and Palm oil plantations [online] available at:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0717-indonesia.html.Casson_A.2000
Guardian newspaper “Hemmed in at Heathrow” [online] Available at:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/04/donald-trump-scottish-golf-course
Further reading.
“Aquaculture and deforestation”
Gresco, T., 2008.Bottomfeeder:London:Pan Macmillian Ltd.
“Driven by either greed or poverty”
Gresco, T., 2008.Shrip farming in India is destroying and contaminating land-nothing else can grow.Bottomfeeder:London:Pan Macmillian Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)