JAN 2014 LD Topic : Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource ex

I will rebut Pro's case at this time. Firstly, Con defines solely the BRIC nations, but if we look at the UN's lists of developing states, "developing nations" included a far more wide ranging panoply of states than Con's definitions suggest. [1] Con's definition of Ecotourism is faulty. It assumes, erroneously, that it is responsible. Consider, I am an ecotourist on an outing in the jungle. Without thinking, I throw a wrapper from my food onto the ground and march on, never consciously realizing I did it. That's not responsible, but I'm still engaging in ecotourism. This small example can be applied on a larger scale, whereby nations intend to be responsible, but inadvertently do more harm than good. My opponents value is very atypical, but I'll role with it. The main problem is gauging how best to promote future generations--predicting outcomes can be very hard to do. Therefore, we should prefer more immediate and less nebulous impacts coming from my own value. As no criterion was offered, you must utilize mine. C1: Ecotourism Firstly, Pro is running a plan. Even if it solves for Pro's value, it only addresses a fraction of the resolution. The topic is about the broad subject of "environmental protection" not the narrow one of "Ecotourism." Pro is not addressing the entirety of the resolution. But, there are also problems with ecotourism. "The potential of ecotourism as a wildlife conservation strategy is limited by its inability to insure [sic] the long-term protection of environmental assets and by its tendency to contribute directly to environmental degradation. Ecotourism is the proxy market designed to align consumers' preferences for recreation with the protection of environmental assets. Because it does not necessarily address the direct protection of those assets, it is prone to market failure. Pressures on governments and firms involved in providing ecotourism services will impair their ability to minimize detrimental effects of human economic behavior....Ecotourism itself may contain negative externalities--costs imposed on others and ignored in the operation of market exchange....Some of the external costs include damage to the living resources ecotourism is intended to protect. In Canada, tourists...harass polar bears by approaching too closely. Whales have been harassed and even killed in Quebec and the Canary Islands. Wildlife observers drive cheetahs off Kenyan reserves, exposing the cats to danger and the risk on inbreeding...tourists' feeding of wildlife ha led to increased dependency on humans. Habitat deterioration is also a concern as land is converted to tourist facilities. Deforestation has compromised habitat for butterflies in Mexico and squirrel monkeys in Costa Rica. Campsite development has resulted in the loss of woody species in Uganda. Increased tourist traffic can result in conflicts between indigenous cultures and other local groups....government agencies charged with administering natural resources are burdened by a multiplicity of oft-conflicting goals and so may not be relied upon to focus on continued adherence to the stated principles of ecotourism. " [2] Clearly, ecotourism is not the panacea Pro describes. Insofar as parks are merely an extension of the ecotourist idea, cross-apply this evidence to Pro's C2. Cross-apply my case to his C3 and C4--my points directly clash here. I also agree that R.E. conflicts with, and imposes force on, nature. The resolution even says "when they conflict." But a handful of examples don't outweigh my massive statistical and empirical impacts, and so we can vote Con on the basis of a utility analysis today. Thank you. Over to Pro... SOURCES 1 - http://unstats.un.org... 2 - Jack Coburn Isaacs, "The Limited Potential of Ecotourism to Contribute to Wildlife Conservation" Wild Life Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1 (2000) p. 61-69. Available on Jstor.