Roundtable discussions: Summary

Group 2

Group 2 discussed about the adoption of green chemistry in biodegradable plastic production. The supporting side pointed out that the production process of biodegradable plastic with green chemistry will actually consume less energy and produces much less harmful elements as compared to normal plastic, making them a more efficient and less polluting product. Also, they would not pose any disposal problem in landfills or incinerators since they are biodegradable. The against side argues that it is not viable to manufacture biodegradable plastic at a large scale due to its high cost and doing so will lead to inflation of plastic cost. This cost inflation will make consumers to choose conventional plastic over the biodegradable plastic and hence, defeat the purpose. The supporting side responded by stating that subsidies and supports from government can resolve the above problem and it will determine the potential of biodegradable plastic production in the future.

I believe that the technology in biodegradable plastic production has not reach the final stage yet, as to produce the plastics economically. However, it possess great potential to replace the current plastic which are toxic and non-degradable. More R&D could be done on it to harvest its maximum potential. Also, we should consider also the impact of using new resources to make the plastics. Some technology using food as the ingredient might raise concerns over the rising food prices and the shortages of food worldwide.


Group 3

The third group discussed whether governments and institutions should govern the use of genetic engineering in human reproduction. The supporting side states that the parents have the right to decide what is the best for their son or daughter to be, and that they would definitely choose the best path for them since they would dote on him/her. He also mentioned that genetic engineering can reduce hereditary diseases in many of us to build a healthier population around the globe. The against side argues that it could lead to gender imbalance around the globe and the high cost of genetic engineering would only allow the rich to take part in it, making the gap between the rich and the poor even bigger. Also, they argue that the right of choosing the right path or future does not lie on the parents hand, but instead depends on the baby himself. By utilizing genetic engineering, the parents are stripping the human rights of the baby by choosing what they want, which might not be what the baby wants.

Genetic engineering is a very sensitive issue, which concerns a lot about ethics and human rights. However, I personally think the natural selection has its own way of doing things and we should not impulsively try to change it. Doing so might result in unexpected and possibly disastrous consequences, such as mutation or development of new fatal diseases.


Group 4

Group 4 discussed the viability of using carbon capture & storage technology (CCS) to curb global warming by capturing and storing away the CO2 in the atmosphere. The supporting side explains that CCS allows the civilization to use fossil fuel still to power their power plants and yet, reduce the concentration fo CO2 in the atmosphere, and ultimately lead to a cooler earth. They also shows that there are possible safe storage sites and new technology to ensure no leakage at the storage sites of CO2. The against side debate that the storage site could increase in site indefinitely if CCS is to be implemented and CO2 emission is not limited. They also mentioned the possibility of natural disasters such as earthquake or volcano eruption that might affect the storage site, causing a leak which could lead to the deaths of thousands or more. Also, countries with limited land will have problem with storing the CO2 captured. The for side suggested that pacts can be made between countries to allow storage of CO2 in other countries in return for a certain amount of remuneration or so.

I would say the curbing the root, which is limiting the emission of CO2 is the key to our problem rather than just removing the CO2 emitted without any concerns over the possible future complications. Also, CCS technology is still developing with no promises on its future viability; it might requires certain amount of energy and hence, made it energy inefficient. Rather than letting the problem loose and hoping for an unknown results from the CCS development, we should act now to reduce the emission of CO2, in order to slow down the already serious global warming problem that we are facing.