When in Conflict we should prioritize, Global Poverty Reduction over environmental protection

Global warming is a threat to our existence as human beings on this Earth; therefore it should always be our top priority. If we try to save the environment before we focus directly on poverty, we will end up solving poverty in the process of saving the environment by producing green jobs and ending the zero sum game that traps developing nations in cycles of poverty. If we do not focus our attention on the environment now the effects will be far worse than the current effects of poverty, there is no way around it. That's why we negate the resolution resolved When in Conflict the we should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection. Global warming is a higher priority than poverty, because if we do not solve Global Warming first more poverty and deaths will result. Global Warming will melt glaciers all around the world causing severe water shortages. According to Emily Wax with The Toronto Star on August 8th , 2009 In 50 years the Glaciers in the Himalayas will melt cutting off 1.3 billion people's water supply, the most basic need for human beings, killing them all. Shirley V. Scott from Melbourne Journal of International Law on October 2008 stated that, Another thing that the melting glaciers will do is cause sea levels to rise putting many coastal cities under water, leaving no room for the residents of those regions. For example if the sea levels rise New York will go under water, leaving about 20 million people with out homes or jobs. The bacteria that would develop in the abandon areas could bring us into a new Dark Age killing ridiculous numbers of people all across the world before we could ever create an antidote for them. It wouldn't be just one disease ether it would be more then half a dozen. Anyone the new diseases didn't kill it would send them into poverty from all the things that they would need to buy to keep them from getting sick or there medical bills if they did get sick, if they survived. Our second contention is that if you start to focus on environmental solutions, in the end they will benefit all of us and help reduce poverty. According to Michael Renner with the World Watch Institution on July 8th, 2008, the wind power industry already employs 300 thousand people. The solar power industry employs about 800 thousand people. More then 1 million people could be employed in new biomass and biofuel sectors. Green jobs have the potential to put millions and millions of people to work in the green energy sector as developing nations move toward green energy. More people employed means that more people have an income, more income equals less poverty. Also, because these are renewable energy sources these jobs will always exist, unlike oil which will eventually run out leaving millions unemployed. The other economic benefit of environmental solutions is that we can end the struggle for energy resources that currently separates the rich from the poor. In the status quo countries compete for a limited supply of oil. The riches nations (like the US) are able to buy the lion's share of oil leaving developing countries unable to tap the energy they need to develop their economies. With renewable sources of energy every country could produce the energy they need without competing with the developing world, ending the zero-sum energy game and allowing developing nations to emerge into a bright future with a high standard of living and minimal negative impact on the environment. As you can see, the key to solving the problems of the developing world is to invest in a green future. That is why I stand in firm opposition to today's resolution.