Liberals' DDO Tournament R1: Poverty and the Enviroment

Thanks to Lordgrae for his responses. I will use this round to rebut Con's case.CON's CASEWe concur on definitions. A: WaterPoint 1: Here I think it is important to point out that I am not forsaking the environment. I am arguing that, when the two policies conflict, poverty reduction should be prioritized over environmental protections. When the policies do not conflict, I fully support both helping the environment and reducing poverty in equal measure.Moreover, look at Con's second source. Ocean Sentry is a politically-motivated action group which has a clear agenda in publishing articles that overemphasize environmental problems. The statistic it cites (2048) is not footnoted to its source, nor is there a link to follow in order to verify the number stated. All Ocean Sentry writes is that "scientists estimate" it. Which scientists? How many? What was their methodology? The answer is: we don't know. Couple this lack of support with the political bias of the website, and we can begin to discredit this information. I would also argue that overfishing is something that individual nation-states should regulate, especially inasmuch as fishing rarely takes place in international waters, compared to national waters. For example, in the U.S., commercial fishing vessels are overseen and assisted by our national coastguard. [1] International treaties are good too--but such treaties are not necessarily under UN purview. Keep in mind that the UN is the actor in this resolution. Overfishing is a problem, but it's not the sort of problem that the UN should become embroiled with.Point 2: I would argue that a lack of sanitation and a lack of clean drinking water are caused by poverty. If we can improve the economic status of an area, denizens of that area will have money to invest in better sanitation and better drinking water. In this way, addressing poverty is a prerequisite to improved health. Look at Contention One, Sub-point C of my case for further analysis on this point.B: Human PopulationFirstly, Con does not explain why reducing the human population can be achieved through environmental means. In fact, Con himself points out that, "in poorer areas, they are having more and more children." It seems, therefore, that if we alleviate poverty in those regions, that those regions' inhabitants will have fewer children. There is a correlation, then, between birth rates and income levels [2]; so if we can ameliorate poverty, then we can reduce or stabilize population growth and birth rates [2]. In other words, if we want to solve the population dilemma, we should focus on poverty reduction.C: What is Poverty?I don't deny that not everyone is severely impacted by the ravages of poverty, but, as noted in Contention One of my case, millions are negatively impacted by poverty. To outweigh my impacts, Con would have to show that environmental troubles are having greater, and more immediate, negative impacts on humanity than poverty is. Since Con offers no competing statistics, it is harder for him to outweigh my numbers. Therefore, it looks as if right now the UN should be prioritizing poverty relief as it is the more pressing issue; the problem of poverty is so enormous and grave that it must be tackled now.Thank you! I eagerly await Con's replies!SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.cgdev.org...