Correct
A.
Honourable judges, respected opponents, and fellow students,
We stand firmly in favour of banning plastic bags because they devastate our environment, impose hidden economic burdens, and unnecessary alternatives already exist.
First, plastic bags are a leading source of marine pollution. According to the World Wildlife Fund, an estimated 8 million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans each year, much of it from single‑use bags that persist for centuries, harming wildlife and ecosystems.
Second, the cost of cleaning up plastic waste falls on taxpayers. The UK government spent £263 million in 2022 alone on litter removal, a portion directly attributable to discarded bags.
Third, viable alternatives are proven. In Rwanda, a nationwide ban on plastic bags led to a 90 % reduction in plastic litter within two years, while reusable cloth bags became commonplace.
In summary, the environmental damage, financial strain, and ready alternatives make the ban not only sensible but essential. We therefore urge you to vote "Yes" and support a plastic‑free future.
B.
Honourable judges, respected opponents, and fellow students,
We argue that a prohibition on plastic bags would be counter‑productive, as it would exacerbate environmental problems, increase waste, and ignore proven mitigation strategies.
First, plastic bags are highly recyclable; the European Recycling Council reports that 60 % of used bags are successfully reprocessed into new products, reducing the need for virgin plastic.
Second, the alleged cost of litter removal is overstated. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs allocated only £45 million in 2022 to address plastic litter, a fraction of the total waste management budget, indicating that the issue is manageable without a ban.
Third, case studies from Kenya reveal that after a plastic‑bag ban, residents turned to thicker, non‑degradable polythene sheets for packaging, which are harder to recycle and persist longer in the environment.
In summary, high recycling rates, modest cleanup costs, and the risk of worse substitutes demonstrate that banning plastic bags would do more harm than good. We therefore urge you to vote "No" and keep plastic bags available for responsible use.
C.
Honourable judges, respected opponents, and fellow students,
We oppose any ban on plastic bags because they are indispensable for modern life, provide unmatched convenience, and any restriction would cause greater harm than benefit.
First, recent studies show that most plastic bags decompose within five years when exposed to sunlight, contradicting claims of long‑term pollution. The International Polymer Institute reports that 70 % of discarded bags break down into harmless micro‑fragments within a decade.
Second, the economic impact of a ban would be severe. Small retailers rely on cheap plastic bags to keep costs low; replacing them with pricier alternatives could increase consumer prices by up to £0.15 per purchase, disproportionately affecting low‑income families.
Third, alternatives such as cotton or jute bags have a larger carbon footprint. Manufacturing a single reusable cloth bag emits roughly 2 kg of CO₂, whereas a plastic bag emits only 0.02 kg.
In summary, the rapid degradation of plastic bags, the economic strain of a ban, and the higher environmental cost of alternatives demonstrate that retaining plastic bags is the sensible choice. We therefore urge you to vote "No" and preserve this vital resource.
D.
Honourable judges, respected opponents, and fellow students,
We contend that banning plastic bags would be a misguided policy that overlooks their critical role in public health, safety, and economic stability.
First, plastic bags are essential for maintaining hygiene in food handling. According to the Food Safety Authority, over 85 % of street vendors use plastic bags to prevent contamination, and a ban would increase the risk of food‑borne illnesses.
Second, the financial burden of a ban would fall on local governments. The City Council of Manchester estimated that replacing plastic bags with paper alternatives would cost an additional £120 million annually for waste management and procurement.
Third, evidence from the United States shows that regions which imposed strict plastic‑bag bans experienced a 15 % rise in illegal dumping of heavier waste, leading to greater environmental degradation.
In summary, the health benefits of plastic bags, the substantial fiscal costs of a ban, and the unintended increase in illegal dumping all indicate that maintaining the status quo is the prudent path. We therefore ask you to vote "No" and reject the proposed ban.