Experts' Tier FINALE: Environmental Protections vs. Resource Extraction

Hi! Thanks again to Bench! I apologize in advance for any formatting errors due to C/Ping from Word. I also apologize for the brevity of my set-up--I've been up for 38 hours straight and just came from judging a CFL Qualifying Tournament, so I may be a bit frazzled. In this speech, I will offer definitions, remark briefly on the evaluative framework for the round, and then proceed to my arguments.DEFINITIONSShould – used to express what is right or what ought to be doneEnvironment – the natural world, especially as affected by human activityProtection – to protect something; to shield it from harmResource – a natural resource; industrial and raw materials supplied by natureExtraction – the action of obtaining a substance or resource from somethingConflict – to be in oppositionThese are all from Merriam Webster [1] or American Heritage Dictionary.FRAMEWORKAccording to Prof. Gary Woller: “Appeals to a priori moral principles…often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense…the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that…their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society.”In other words, governmental actors--in this case, developing nations--must make evaluations based on a utilitarian/cost-benefit paradigm in order to remain fair and just in their decision-making.PRO's CASEI will argue that it is net beneficial to prioritize environmental protections over resource extraction through three contentions. I submit that, under the framework laid out above, that because environmental protections are to the "overall advantage of society" and thus should be pursued and prioritized above resource extraction by developing nations.CONTENTION ONE: Environmental protections are key for poverty reduction.Sub-point A: Poverty kills millions.Prof. James Gilligan asserts, “The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by [poverty] compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths…to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II [where] an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, [occurred]…In other words...every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed” in WWII. Sub-point B: Protections are a prerequisite to poverty reduction.There is “strong evidence that environmental hazards are major contributors to poverty…Low income is a risk factor not only for exposure to environmental hazards but also for possibilities of rapid and effective treatment because of the lack of healthcare services…where low-income groups are concentrated…Such hazards impose large burdens on such groups in terms of ill health, injury, and premature death. These health burdens are a major cause or contributor to poverty….Controlling occupational exposure is particularly important, from large factories down to small, backstreet shops.” [2] Therefore, the problem of poverty cannot be solved without first improving the environment.CONTENTION TWO: Environmental protections promote public health.Sub-point A: Environmental degradation increase disease.“Air pollution causes respiratory infections. Water pollution causes…water-borne diseases, such as cholera. Marine pollution contributes to infectious disease problems created by algal blooms. Deforestation brings humans into contact with new pathogenic microbes, alters ecosystems so that disease vectors (for example, mosquitoes, rats) multiply, and destroys biodiversity that could be critical to the development of new antimicrobial products. The depletion of the ozone layer…will lead to ultraviolet radiation damaging the human immune system, thus creating more opportunities for infectious diseases.” [3] “The one lesson that we can take away from the emergence of HIV and hepatitis…is that the microbial world will continue to adapt to human-induced changes in the global ecology. Thus, the greater the degree of degradation that humanity visits upon fragile ecosystems, the more unpredictable the response from the microbial world.” [4]Sub-point B: Disease has huge economic and survival implications.“Infectious disease rates show a significant negative correlation with macroeconomic national indicators such as per capita GNP, per capita government expenditure, and net long-term capital inflow…[diseases] adversely affect…the general quality of the labor force, the formation and maintenance of human capital, and various sectors of the economy. It is logical to conclude that these microeconomic effects will, through multiplier effects, generate significant negative macroeconomic outcomes. Direct costs to the economy will be enormous, and indirect costs will include output lost as a result of increasing mortality and…disease-induced morbidity.” [4] “Significant environmental health risks are responsible for as much as one-fifth of the total burden of disease in the developing world—more than the combined impacts of malnutrition and all other preventable risk factors and groups of diseases. Most at risk from environmental pollution are the 1.3 billion people in the developing countries of Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa—almost one quarter of the world’s population.” [5]CONTENTION THREE: Resource extraction fails.Sub-point A: Resource extraction harms the environment.“Natural resource extraction can also generate negative externalities. The degradation of natural services undermines human welfare and often necessitates costly remedial actions. Many extractive activities, such as mining or commercial-scale logging, generate a host of negative externalities.” [6] “People in Africa, Asia, and Latin America…face very serious environmental hazards in their homes…and in their workplaces…The environmental impacts of solid, liquid, and airborne pollutants and wastes can be transferred to the surrounding region. Problems include the damage of fisheries by untreated liquid wastes, land and groundwater pollution from inadequately designed and managed solid waste dumps, and acid precipitation in the areas surrounding many of the larger…cities.” [2] These problems are all occurring in the developing world at exponentially higher rates than in the developed one, as a result of unchecked resource exploitation. “The destruction of wildlife is occurring so rapidly that one-fifth of all existing species will be extinct by the same year…This threat to wildlife species comes from multiple sources, such as pollution and destruction of natural habitats, [and] illegal wildlife trading.” [7] Consequently, by degrading the environment, resource extraction promotes disease and entrenches poverty.Sub-point B: Extraction is unsustainable.“Figures…note that ‘the discovery, extraction and processing of…resources is widely regarded as one of the most environmentally and socially disruptive activities undertaken by business’.” For example, “mining contributes around 1 per cent of global GDP, it consumes between 7 and 10 per cent of global energy and is responsible for 13 per cent of sulphur dioxide emissions. Some 39 per cent of threatened forest margins are at risk because of mining activities.” [8] Finally, “if all the strains on the biosphere—apart from environmental pollution—are added up and converted into area magnitudes, it is possible to quantify the ecological footprint that humans leave on the planet. In the past forty years this indicator has changed dramatically: the global ecological footprint increased by more than 150 percent between 1960 and 2000. If this is related to the biologically productive area of the world…it turns out that since the second half of the 1980s the footprint has been larger than the biologically productive area, currently 25 percent larger.” [9] Simply put, humans are extracting far more resources than nature can renew. Because environmental protections are a prerequisite to poverty reduction and promote public health, and because resource extraction policies fail to produce positive results, developing nations should priotize environment protections. Thus, I affirm the resolution.SOURCES1 - merriam-webster.com/2 - http://www.jstor.org...3 - Fidler, David, 1999 [Law Professor University of Indiana] International Law and Infectious Diseases, p. 2454 - Price-Smith, Andrew T., 2001 [Professor Political Science University of North Dakota] Plagues and Politics: infectious disease and international policy, ed. Andrew Price-Smith, p. 35 - http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org...6 - OECD, 2008, Natural Resources and Pro-Poor Growth: The Economics and Politics, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), p. 177 - Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2003: [Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2003, Mara E. Zimmerman, Law Student, 36:1657, p. 1660-1]8 - Bebbington, Anthony, et al., 2008, [Professor of Nature, Society and Development, University of Manchester] "Contention and Ambiguity: Mining and the Possibilities of Development," Development and Change, Vol, 39, Issue 6, p. 9019 - Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2005, Fair Future: Resource, Conflicts, Security & Global Justice, eds. W. Sachs & T. Santarius, p. 25-6