There is currently an enviromental crisis in the United States

Foreword to the Debate:Debates are both opportunities for idea sharing and competition. The competitive element of debate reinforces the desire of both parties to present well researched and logically sound analysis of controversial topics. We want to be "right" about our ideas and views... but we also want to develop the ability to explain why we think the way that we do. Debate allows these ideas to compete in an objective forum. In this case, Con is not calmly stating a defensible argument. He is not making the case that, "fears of a widespread environmental crisis are overblown," or "Many well-known environmental causes are misguided." Instead, he is speaking in wild, angry extremes, and arguing that there are no negative environmental events happening anywhere in the US. The language that he is using is polemic, presenting an "all or nothing" doctrine that is well known to students of debate as being impossible to defend. This position states that no "horrible" environmental crises are happening at all... including naturally occurring ones that are not caused by human behavior, pollution or negligence. Even the infamous Koch Brothers would not go quite that far. The resolution is simply too broad and incautious to be defensible. Is there an environmental crisis in the US? My answer to that question is no. The affirmative side lacks the correct evidence to support this claim. The Noah Webster"s dictionary defines crisis as, "an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending." Currently, unless I am incapable of thought, there is nothing horrible in which we need to make a decisive change. He is saying that there are no environmental related crises anywhere in the US, because of air quality regulations by the EPA, pollution capture safegaurds in the coal industry, and new oil discoveries. He also says that the flaws in electrical and geothermal power generation mean that there are no steps that we can take to keep our world clean. No endangered animals, no polluted waterways, no Superfund sites, no radioactive waste, no coastal erosion... and no natural events that negatively impact the environment, such as fire ants. Really? No environmental crises at all? He also suggests that the fuel that we are using is cleaner than it was during the Industrial Revolution. This fact, while reassuring, does not prevent wetland erosion from threatening New Orleans. It also does not replenish the honeybee population. At some point in the debate, Con will be required to admit that there exists somewhere a crisis that is harming something that is not man-made. There is a forest fire or flood somewhere, or a disease. He will have to admit that some animal somewhere is endangered, and should be protected. He will have to concede that oil is becoming more scarce in the US - and that deforestation is causing a loss of jobs. He will have to acknowledge that aquifers that provide drinking water to millions of Americans should not be jeopardized by toxic waste. In short, Pro has taken on an impossible Burden of Proof in this debate. It cannot be argued convincingly that there are no environment related crises occurring in the US at all.