Answer Options
Correct Answer
A.
Honourable adjudicators, today we propose to ban plastic bags - defined as single‑use, non‑biodegradable polymer bags less than 50 µm thick - from all markets. A ban is a legal prohibition that makes the supply or use of such bags punishable by law.
First, plastic bags are a major source of environmental degradation; Nigeria discards over 2 million tonnes of plastic waste each year, with bags accounting for roughly 30 % and choking our rivers and drains. Second, they pose serious health hazards: as bags break down they release micro‑plastics that infiltrate the food chain, contributing to endocrine disorders. Third, viable alternatives exist - locally made reusable cloth and biodegradable bags are now affordable, and a Lagos study showed a modest 15 % rise in waste‑management savings that offsets any price increase for merchants.
Opponents argue the ban will hurt small traders. However, the government can provide subsidies for reusable bags and a phased implementation, as successfully demonstrated in Rwanda, where traders experienced a 5 % boost in sales post‑ban. Therefore, for the sake of our environment, public health, and sustainable commerce, we urge the House to adopt the ban.
B.
Honourable adjudicators, today we argue against banning plastic bags - defined as reusable, thick polymer bags over 80 µm - from all markets. A ban would constitute a criminal penalty for merchants. First, plastic bags are essential for keeping produce fresh, reducing food waste by up to 20 %. Second, the Nigerian economy relies on plastic manufacturing, employing over 200 000 workers; a ban would cause massive job losses. Third, there is no viable local alternative, as biodegradable bags cost twice as much. While opponents say the ban will safeguard health, the evidence shows that micro‑plastics are filtered out during cooking. Hence, the motion should be rejected.
C.
Honourable adjudicators, we support a partial ban on plastic bags - defined as any polymer bag regardless of thickness - only in supermarkets, not all markets. A ban is a temporary suspension, not a permanent prohibition. First, data from the Ministry of Environment indicate that plastic bags contribute less than 1 % to river blockages. Second, health studies in Lagos found no correlation between bag usage and endocrine disorders. Third, a pilot program in Abuja showed that replacing bags with paper increased municipal waste by 30 %. Opponents argue that a full ban is necessary, but a limited ban would avoid the 5 % sales decline projected for traders. Consequently, we propose a targeted restriction rather than an outright ban.
D.
Honourable adjudicators, we oppose the motion to ban plastic bags - defined as single‑use, biodegradable polymer bags less than 30 µm thick - from all markets. A ban would be a voluntary guideline rather than a legal prohibition. First, plastic bags constitute only 5 % of Nigeria's plastic waste, amounting to about 100 000 tonnes annually, a negligible environmental impact. Second, studies show that micro‑plastics from bags are harmless to human health. Third, alternatives such as cloth bags are expensive and not widely available, increasing costs for consumers. Opponents claim the ban will protect the environment, but in reality it would raise prices for shoppers and reduce market accessibility. Therefore, we should reject the ban.
Correct Answer
A
Correct Option:
Honourable adjudicators, today we propose to ban plastic bags - defined as single‑use, non‑biodegradable polymer bags less than 50 µm thick - from all markets. A ban is a legal prohibition that makes the supply or use of such bags punishable by law.
First, plastic bags are a major source of environmental degradation; Nigeria discards over 2 million tonnes of plastic waste each year, with bags accounting for roughly 30 % and choking our rivers and drains. Second, they pose serious health hazards: as bags break down they release micro‑plastics that infiltrate the food chain, contributing to endocrine disorders. Third, viable alternatives exist - locally made reusable cloth and biodegradable bags are now affordable, and a Lagos study showed a modest 15 % rise in waste‑management savings that offsets any price increase for merchants.
Opponents argue the ban will hurt small traders. However, the government can provide subsidies for reusable bags and a phased implementation, as successfully demonstrated in Rwanda, where traders experienced a 5 % boost in sales post‑ban. Therefore, for the sake of our environment, public health, and sustainable commerce, we urge the House to adopt the ban.