World Environment issues should be the priority

The pro is arguing that the most important issue currently facing the world is related to its environment. I will be giving several examples of important world issues. If I can prove that at least one of these examples is more important than the world environment I have fulfilled my burden of proof, and therefore I should win. We are humans, therefore the survival of humans and the minimization of human suffering should be our highest priority. The importance of an issue in this debate should be determined by the potential consequences of ignoring the issue. If the consequences of issue X are more severe than issue Y, then issue X becomes the top priority by default. My CaseIssue 1: Maintaining and Improving International Relations. Planet Earth has come a long way in the past couple thousand years. The most notable advancement humans have made is in technology. As of now, Syria, North Korea, and Iran are all in possession of nuclear weapons[1]. Three very unstable nations possessing nuclear weapons which are obviously capable of immense destructive power. If a Nuclear War was ever to occur, the loss of human life would be absolutely devastating. It is estimated that after a nuclear war, more than half of the world’s population would be wiped out[2]. Nuclear war has the greatest potential for severe consequences, therefore avoidance should be our highest priority. Issue 2: The Water Crisis. Currently, 3.5 million people die each year from water-related disease. 84% of the people who die are children between the ages of 0-14[3]. Obviously this is a significant loss of human life. Especially over such a trivial matter such as the availability of water and the sanitation of said water. This is a higher priority over the global environment because this crisis is occurring right this second. The pro’s issue of the global environment is not causing such a significant amount of death as with this crisis. Issue 3: Global OverpopulationDue to advancements in modern medicine, decreased mortality rates, and increased fertility rates; the human population is growing exponentially. This exponential growth will eventually lead to earth reaching its carrying capacity for human beings. What this means is that we will one day reach a point where the Earth will not longer be able to sustain the human population with its resources. This will result in mass starvation and chaos. The average scientific estimate for Earth’s carrying capacity is between 10-15 billion people[4]. Human beings will likely reach 9 billion people by 2050[5]. This is a serious and imminent danger. It may not directly affect us within our lifetime but we have an obligation to prevent human overpopulation because of the amount of suffering and death it would inevitably cause if left to continue.Pro Case Contention 1: Even the current actions aren't doing much to save the environmentI’m not going to dispute the fact that CO2 emissions have been rising, but what are the potential consequences of this? What makes this important enough that it should be the highest priority? The pro needs to make an argument instead of just listing facts.Contention 2: The world is not safe with these issues unsolvedSub point A. oil spillsThe first half of this sub-point touches on the deaths that will be caused to animals. The priority here is human life so unless this disaster could drastically affect human life then it should definitely not be the highest priority. As for the human suffering associated with cleaning up the oil spills, I have to ask how? Do they not wear protective gear when cleaning up a biohazard? Regardless, pro has only stated that it would essentially just cause pain/irritation and MAYBE in some cases cause cancer. The issues I will address in my case supercede this point because the potential consequences are much more deadly to the human populace. Sub point B. decimation of forests."Decimation of forests will soon lead to too much trees being cut down, and we won't have enough trees to use, and the air to be filtered. Air is the necessity of life, but if we cut down too much trees, someday in the future, we won't have enough air for the entire population of the world."I would really like to see a source to verify your claim that someday we won’t have enough air. Until I see evidence this is just a bare assertion and can be dismissed as such. As for the rest of the contention, flash flooding is a very minor issue compared to the ones I have addressed in my own case. Once again, I must ask, what are the potential consequences of ignoring the issue? Pro once again merely has a lengthy list of scientific information and no argumentation. What makes this issue so important that it must be the highest priority? Sub point C. the overall unstable environment of the world"The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988. [6] According to this, our world is not safe enough for us to rely on the atmosphere. Eventually, something really bad will happen because we just keep continuously emitting carbon dioxide, we'll reach a point where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is too high."Eventually, something really bad will happen...Like what? What will happen when we reach this point where the CO2 is too high? Sub point D. the results of all these issuesPro never really addresses the results of ALL the issues listed above. They merely discuss the coming of a second ice age. I’m assuming this is related to the high CO2 emissions mentioned early, but I am not certain. While I must admit that the global environment is an important issue, it is not the most important. It is simply not the highest on our list of priorities. So with that, I eagerly await my opponent's response!