Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety I (ENVI I)

 

The first debate starts off with a solid defense speech by Mayka, introducing the concept of a circular economy. She argues the benefits of waste recycling and proposes the measures that her committee produced.  

The resolution is first attacked by Maria, who points out that there is no need for new expert research, due to the much good work that has already been done.

Next up is Tyrell who feels certain liberties of member states and citizens are at stake, when the EU decides to tax unsustainable products. 

In the first round of open debate, the committees still seem slightly hesitant to make their points. Nevertheless, the parliament's debate touches upon the effectiveness of the measures and the affordability of transportation. ENVI I in turn provides feedback on the issues that were raised. Most notably Noah explains how subsidies are intended to encourage people to live more sustainably. 

In the second round, there is clearly more venom, as committees are all fighting to make their point. We hear a delegate raise the issue of a lack of waste management factories. A delegate from CULT asks for some clarification on which products are considered unsustainable. And what happens if EU citizens are not as eager to recycle as some of the delegates present?

The proposing committee responds to the many arguments. Among other things, Isabel says that the committee will make citizens more eager through the usage of media campaigns. Furthermore, the sustainability of a product can be measured by the type of packaging, which can be plastic or paper.

In the last round of debate, there is a refutation of the idea that packaging should determine if a product is sustainable. Meat for example could be packaged sustainably, while still costing much water, causing CO2 emissions, and more.

Finally, we hear the very well-spoken Alexandria, who gives a summation speech. She again urges the parliament to consider the idea that we need to encourage expert research. We must also make it easier for member states to transition to a greener future. 

Next up is Pomclashes who summarizes the clashes of this debate. While many opponents say that there are big costs involved in these measures, the burdens from climate pollution are far worse.

Unfortunately the resolution is not passed, as 12 are in favor, but 19 are against.