Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Looking forward to a great LD-style debate!Today, I’ll be taking a negative stand on Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction. I’ll jump right into my case and then refute the Aff. For reference, all definitions come from the Oxford Dictionary V/C Framework: Value: Sustainability – able to be maintained at a certain rate or level Criterion: Utilitarianism – I accept Aff’s definition Other Definitions: Environmental: relating to the natural world and the impact of human activity on its condition Protection: the action of protecting, or the state of being protected Protect: keep safe from harm or injury Regulate: control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly Observations: 1. In weighing on this debate, it’s important to account for the difference between the acts of “protecting” and “regulating” (see definitions). The Aff, with the burden of upholding the resolution, is committed to the act of preventing environmental harm. 2. “Environmental protection” & “resource extraction” are naturally at odds given that “resource extraction” results in some amount of harm to the environment, whereas “environmental protection” is meant to prevent such harm. Moving forward, I will demonstrate that achieving economic and environmental sustainability for the greater good can only be achieved through the prioritization of resource extraction under the guidance of environmental regulation. C1: Economic development requires resources Developing countries require access to natural resources and a focus on resource extraction. Most significantly, extracting natural resources available within a country’s territory can promote economic sovereignty. Past mistakes with resource extraction shouldn’t prevent these countries from reaping the benefits of their own natural resources. As Oxfam International (2009) explains: “For those countries that depend on extractive industries, the income generated by this sector could be transformed into an opportunity if it is used properly. According to estimates by Intermón Oxfam (see Table 3, Annex 29), countries such as Angola, Chad, Nigeria, Ecuador, and Venezuela could use hydrocarbon exports to significantly increase their public spending per capita on education and health by 2015, investing 20 per cent of estimated tax revenues in education and 16 per cent in health… Indonesia and Norway are good examples of countries with significant revenue from natural resource extraction, where public spending is aligned coherently with long-term development goals.” As we can see, long-term development quite often relies on the benefits reaped from extractive industries in developing nations. To prioritize environmental protection would mean to reduce or eliminate these benefits, and thus harm the greater good of the population. C2: Reducing scarcity/environmental degradation requires economic growth/sustainability Current research continues to find an interesting link between environmental impact and economic growth. For example, in terms of population, current findings indicate that levels of population slowly decrease with economic growth: “Whenever long-term data exists, it shows the pollution decelerates over decades of economic growth. Even global aggregate data, which puts together different stages of development and different economic systems working in opposite directions, still shows marked deceleration of emissions.” Berstam (1990). As well, reducing environmental degradation requires technological development, which in turn requires economic sustainability. According to Edward Barbier (2013), “new frontiers” of natural resources and adapted economic development are required. In other words, economic development is necessary to pursue alternative forms of energy and less damaging forms of production. Overall, we can’t prioritize environmental protection without harming the very means of technological/economic development that improves the impact on our environment. C3: The future of fighting environmental degradation requires integrated regulation Current research into environmental management recognizes that operational and environmental management must be integrated (Srivastava, 2007). The idea of the “green supply chain management” (Beamon, 1999) calls for environmental regulation to occur within the operational management of a manufacturing supply chain. Whereas previous environmental protection measures have been segregated from manufacturing processes such as resource extraction, both industry and environmental professionals are realizing that the only true path to a better, more sustainable future is to integrate environmental regulation with supply chain processes. Prioritizing environmental protection for developing nations would only sustain the status quo of separate environmental and industrial priorities. In order to maintain the necessary economic development for environmental regulation, integrated regulation is necessary over the preference for environmental protection. Moving on to the Aff case… V/C Clashes: my opponent offers a value of utilitarianism and no criterion. In this debate, it’s important to recognize that the definition of utilitarianism functions as a criterion for measuring morality, but doesn’t advance a distinct value. Whichever side brings a greater good to the majority will be the most moral. However, what this “greater good” is for the Aff remains undefined without a clear value like “security”, “autonomy”, or “utility”. Since I the value of “sustainability”, I argue that this is the only legitimate value in play for this debate, and the Aff’s stated value functions as a mechanism for upholding an unstated value. C1: This contention merely sets the stage for an environment that faces an uncertain future. All three of my contentions demonstrate A. we can’t reduce the extraction/use of natural resources if we want continued economic growth for more environmentally friendly technologies & processes, and B. current environmental management thought is focusing on a future of integrated regulation over environmental protection. C2: First, apply my C1 is this contention. Many of the issues the Aff cites come from poor conditions and political unrest. Any future development that could combat these issues will require the priority of resource extraction. Second, even this contention recognizes that environmental damage isn’t necessarily an inevitable outcome of resource extraction. Environmental regulation tied with better resource extraction processes/technologies offers a better future than attempting to protect the environment from harm. C3: First, while risks with resource extraction always exist, it’s important to realize that a country’s ability to clean up and protect the environment is dependent on the country’s economic stability. Second, it’s important to recognize that the idea of the “resource curse” is still heavily contested in academic circles. For one, there is a noticeable lack of agreement on the exact cause of this curse (Ross, 1999). Most agree, however, that resource management is the blame (i.e. a sudden boon is resources creates a shortsightedness in policymakers) instead of resource extraction. Can policymakers do better? Of course, but prioritizing environmental protection won’t fix issues with resource management. Furthermore, in a literature review on “resource curse” research, Brunnschweiler & Bulte (2007) found that “resource abundance” is A. more often confused for “resource dependence” and B. positively affects growth and institutional quality. Finally, apply my C1 & C2 as reasoning for why access to any amount of natural resources is a necessary component for economic and environmental sustainability. For these reasons, I urge for a vote in negation of the resolution.