Resolved: A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy.

-> For those judges unfamiliar with LD debate, it is a value centered debate. I'll explain more in the comments section later. As John Muir once said, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." The point being that not only is human life dependent on nature and it's abundance, but all life it co-dependent on each other. Without a strong value placed on the environment, we will not be able to survive. Therefore, I affirm the resolved, that "A just society ought to prioritize environmental concerns over the production of energy." The highest value we can hold when looking at this resolution, would be that of Life. Life is defined by Princeton.edu[1] as "a characteristic state or mode of living". At the core of all human values, we must first hold the value of life, without it we lose our humanity, and other people are simply disposable. Once we realize this crucial fact it cannot be denied life is in fact the highest value to be held. Thus in order to achieve this value, I offer the criterion of the environmental wisdom worldview. This theory contends that nature exists for all the earth's species and we are not in charge of the earth; resources are limited, should not be wasted, and are not all for us; we should encourage earth-sustaining forms of economic growth and discourage earth-degrading forms of economic growth. Essentially through this criterion we discard the faulty idea that humanity is the end-all final creation of nature, accordingly an anthropocentric value of energy is worthless as to all life. It is only through affirmation of the resolution that we can maximize protection of life, and ensure the most life. Going on, before we get into the bulk of the debate, I'm going to offer some framework for clarity. = Definitions = Just[1] "good: of moral excellence" Prioritize[1] "status established in order of importance or urgency" Ought[2] "used to express duty or moral obligation" Concern[3] "Be relevant or important to" = Framework = Observation 1: Conflict- The resolution implies that there must be conflict between these two sides, otherwise we wouldn't have to prioritize one thing over another unless there was an issue between the two. This means that there is no fiat in this round. Observation 2: Environmental Concerns- because the resolution uses the word "Concerns" instead of "issues" we can fairly dictate that "Environmental Concerns" is relevant to issues of pressing importance, and not just anything that has to do with the environment. i.e. I don't have to defend that the green movement is more important that producing electricity. = Contentions = Contention 1: Chernobyl Accident 1986- From the World Nuclear Association; [4]"The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl a nuclear power plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture." " The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning. " In this contention, we begin to see the dire effects on human life when we prioritize the production of energy over environmental concerns. Because of the Cold War, Ukrainian citizens where forced, by any means necessary create energy. Regardless of the effects on the environment, or safety issues. In fact even still today in Chernobyl and surrounding areas, citizens [4]"still suffer from an increased rate of thyroid cancer." When our main goal is production of energy, not only do we destroy our environment; but we throw caution to the wind in regards to matters of safety. Contention 2: Love Canal Disaster- From the Columbia University Press; [5]" section of Niagara Falls, N.Y., that formerly contained a canal that was used as chemical disposal site. In the 1940s and 50s the empty canal was used by a chemical and plastics company to dump nearly 20,000 tons (c.18,000 metric tons) of toxic waste; the waste was sealed in metal drums in a manner that has since been declared illegal. The canal was then filled in and the land given to the expanding city of Niagara Falls by the chemical company. Housing and an elementary school were built on the site. By the late 1970s several hazardous chemicals had leaked through their drums and risen to the surface. Investigations confirmed the existence of toxins in the soil and determined that they were responsible for the area's unusually high rates of birth defects, miscarriages, cancer, illness, and chromosome damage. Families were evacuated from the area in 1978, and in 1980 the Love Canal area was declared a national emergency." Again, we see the effects when we value production of energy over the world we live in. Contention 3: Gulf Oil Spill- Who can forget Gulf Oil Spill, which only one year ago ravaged not only America's pocketbooks, but our lives, and the environment as well? Even with all the exhaustive efforts in cleaning up this huge mess, we can see that still today we're experience the of this environmental disaster. Boston.com asks the question [6]"What is the cost of spilling almost five million barrels of oil into the ocean? How do you measure that cost? In GDP reduction? In lives affected? In environmental impact? And how do you measure the cost when long-term effects are impossible to calculate yet, and when a significant portion of the spilled oil is still unaccounted for? One year since the Deepwater Horizon platform exploded, killing 11 workers, there are measurable effects, and many more unknowns." The site when on to report some devastating effects still lingering today, including [6]"Oil tar balls still washing ashore in L.A., Wildlife dying from poisoning, Shoreline erosion, Human lives lost in oil rig explosion, Businesses suffering from lack of resources, Multiple health problems from unclean water, and many many more." = Conclusion = To conclude, we can see beyond the shadow of a doubt that when in conflict any society that holds a standard of moral excellence, must prioritize Environmental concerns above the production of energy. Until we can do this, we will never be able to maximize the longevity of human life. Finally, I leave you with this question to consider; what good is energy to a dead man? I urge an Affirmative vote in this debate. = Sources = [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] Google Dictionary [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl... [6] http://goo.gl...