Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir

First I shall extend my case. I concede my points about the U N being a joke and corrupt 1) because they are not important and were just used to get the aff to go on a tangent and not extend his case. 2) they really have nothing to do with case. My definitions stand because they were unrefuted and the affirmative failed to provide them/ My Contention 3 is where I shall start as it is most vital to the resolution. Environmental Degradation leads to poverty is the main point of my case. This is because it is one of the sole causes of poverty and death. According tn AFP article air pollution in Iran's capital of Tehran killed 3,600 people in one month. A new study determined that unseen and odorless, microscopic particles of air pollution wafting overseas and across continents kill 380,000 people each year. Once again I am going to talk about Darfur. The conflict in Darfur has greatly accelerated the processes of environmental degradation that have been undermining subsistence livelihoods in the area over recent decades. The debate over Darfur illustrates a huge conflict. The lowest neighboring tribes and villages displaying a difference in livelihood as resources become scarcer and scarcer. Traditional rules of environmental management have been thrown away and weakened causing more poverty and more death. A study done last year shows the death due to the ozone layer had researcher 2.7 million across the country every year.That is a lot of people that could be saved if we focused on the environmental protection. 29,000 children die every single day because of environmental degradation. What that means is these deaths are avoidable if we could focus and save the environment. Thus environmental degregation causes povety and death, through a negative vote you save lifes and help to end poverty at the same time. I want to go to my 4th contention. The real purpose of United nations is to bring all nations of the world to work together for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of people. These means they are trying to keep peace throughout the world. Develop friendly relationships between nations. and work together to help people better their lives and to stop environmental destruction. That is taken directly from the UN charter. Notice how nothing is said about poverty? Well, that is simply because poverty is preventable through saving the environment from degradation. I will now go to my opponents case. His first contention about the environment fixes itself while poverty entrenches itself is completely dropped. Therefore, I urge that you strike it from the flow. His second contention about the modern environmental protection is at the expense of the people. I am sorry but this was also stricken from the flow as it was not extended. However, I could see as to where one could almost see if they looked hard enough that he did extend it. So to be safe I shall answer it as concisely as possible. In the Nov. 8 Lancet, the Lancet, The British medical journal established in 1823, published weekly from New York and London. Its founder and first editor, Thomas Wakley, considered at the time a radical reformer, stated that the intent of the new journal was to report on hospital lectures and In the Nov 8 the Lancet, the working group predicts that "700,000 avoidable deaths will occur annually" from particulate exposures by 2020 "under the business-as-usual forecasts, when compared with the climate-policy scenario." The cumulative impact between 2000 and 2020 of not adopting sharp climate protection policies could be some 8 million premature deaths, most of them in developing countries. This is important notice how those 8 million deaths are AVOIDABLE by using environmental protection. Thus we can conclude that environmental protection is not at the expense of the people unless you want to be dead. If that be the case then by all means vote affirmative. His refutation on my contention 3 is inadequate. He states that my conention supports poverty reduction and he is absolutely correct but not quite the way he says. Through my contention 3 of protecting the environment we limit poverty. When the environment is harmed it causes death and poverty as shown above. My opponents basis that poverty reduction becomes the priority with this contention is false. It is false because we are focusing on the environmental aspect and by doing so we are able to overcome poverty at the same time. Thus urging a negative ballot. Now seeing as I still have characters left we shall again extend my 3rd contention. That is environmental degradation causes poverty. Both environmental degradation and poverty alleviation are urgent global issues that have a lot in common, but are often treated separately. Consider the following. Human activities are resulting in mass species extinction rates higher than ever before, currently approaching 1000 times the normal rate. Human-induced climate change is threatening an even bleaker future. Nepal and Bangladesh have suffered from various environmental problems such as increasingly devastating floods, often believed to be resulting from large-scale deforestation. Nepal is the poorest country in South Asia and ranks as the twelfth poorest country in the world.Bangladesh belongs to the poorest group of countries in the world.The World Bank's World Development Indicators puts Bangladesh in 170th place (out of 207 countries) in the global ranking. Thus we can see the link from environmental degradation to poverty.Therefore if we save the environment we save the people from poverty. I urge a negative ballot on the resolution Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection Because the affirmative did not extend two arguments. The affirmative attacked the weaker parts of my case that did not matter to the resolution. The main reason to vote for the negative saves lives and stops poverty as well as saving the environment. Thank you, and happy voting