Arguement112=美丽G程小组=小组第一次作业 by Melody

claire530UID: 2363559

112.The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City
Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."


From the argument cites above, I sense that there are a few irrationalities as follows.

For one thing, is building the new runways could solve the flight delays problems? I’m afraid it is groundless as few evidences would be of help to prove it. Considering that the airport is located on the bay, the capacity of the airport is not the only reason for the flight delays and there might be a handful of other reasons exist. Weather conditions, for example, as one of these reasons, should be paid much more attention to. Because of the location of the airport, it is more frequently to be influent by the abominate weather than any others. Tornados, fogs, storms etc. are potlucks to the bay and they undoubtedly have made numerous problems for the airport as considering about security the flights have to be delayed. Besides the weather condition, the administration mechanism needs to be reformed as well. The flight delay reflects not only the intense capacity of the airport but also the negligence of the management structure. Due to the illogicality of the flight arrangement, the time clash between different flights occurs frequently, which is another reason of the flight delay.

Furthermore, the airport claims that if it is permitted to fill 900 acres of the bay they would fund the restoration of the 1,000 acres local damaged wetlands and they thought this would be adopted as it benefits both the airport and the environment. However, I think this argument is also unfounded. Does restore the damaged wetland would offset the harm to the wild life and tidal patterns disruption? Does the tidal disarrangement would cause disastrous attacks to the human beings? We could not figure it out on the basis of 900 and 1000 acres. Whereas, it is no doubt that building new runways would make us keep losing the natural land and induce more and more wild lives habitat loss. In that case, what we do is constantly breaking the balance of ecosystem. Although wetlands mean the same to us, after the restoration, does the new wetland would be enough to solve the wild lives problem? No one is certain about that. In addition, only having the fund is not going to work with the damaged wetland problem. How about the wetland has been totally frustrated and nothing would be of help to make it up? Considering that the natural disruption has already caused grave consequences, it seems keep destroying it is extremely unadvisable. In that case, nothing would be more essential than drawing a moral and ceasing our action.