Developing Countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Affirmative Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It"s not."- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax Definitions courtesy of jurist.law.pitt.edu Developing Countries: any country that wants to advance economically and socially Prioritize: to organize things so that the most important thing is dealt with first Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation or priority Environmental Protection: refers to any activity to maintain or restore the quality of environmental media through preventing the emission of pollutants or reducing the presence of polluting substances in environmental media. Resource Extraction: any action which removes or separates resources from the places in which they exist Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates Resources: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain. Resolutional Analysis Observation 1: When we look at this resolution, we must look at the wording of the resolution, and a few of the word choices. Take for example, the word prioritize. The resolution is asking us to hold one thing above another to choose what is best, environmental protection or resource extraction. Observation 2: Because this is Lincoln-Douglas debate and is based off of morality, we have to find out not only what is moral for us, but what is moral for the environment also. When we find what is moral for the environment, we also unlock what is moral to ourselves too. Observation 3: Because of the fact that no country can ever be perfect, or fully developed, we have to include countries that some people consider fully developed, like China, Brazil, and the United States. Any country that wants to advance socially or economically should not be ignored in this debate, because every country will want to further themselves. Framework: Because we are weighing two things against each other, we must see what the benefits of either side are. In order for the negative side to win, they must show that the benefits of resource extraction outweigh those of the benefits of environmental protection. The negative side cannot show equality between the two because they differ so much from each other, so it is impossible for the two systems to coexist. The affirmative side must show that environmental protection has more benefits than that of the benefits of resource extraction. My value for this round will be life, which is the quality of being. My criterion for this round will be environmentalism, which is the mindset of wanting to protect the environment. If we don"t protect the environment, then we don"t live. We die. Contention 1: Harming Nature Reserves Big oil corporations and builders are officially allowed to build and drill for oil on nature reserves, which harms one of our only "protected" areas of land. Sub-Point A: Building on Nature Reserves According to the Telegraph, builders are allowed to bulldoze and then build on nature reserves, despite the fact that these are supposed to be protected areas. When they do build, they are supposed to offset the damage elsewhere, which means that they also have to build somewhere else, which means that we are effectively destroying the environment every second that we build on these places. Sub-Point B: Drilling for Oil According to takepart.org, oil companies are drilling for oil in national parks, which destroys landmarks and endangers animals. Take for example, a national park in Florida, where there is a species of endangered Florida panther that is harmed by drilling for oil. There"s a national park in New Mexico that is home to a 900-year-old Ancestral Great Pueblo House. Glen Canyon, another national park, is next on the list for future drilling sites. While only 12 out of the 397 United States National Parks are being drilled in, there are plans to continue drilling in other national parks, to the point where the damage would be so widespread, you"d be lucky to find a national park left. Contention 2: African Resources While some sources say that extracting resources is beneficial to Africa, the World Bank has admitted that resource extraction is bleeding Africa dry. So-called economic growth in Africa is effectively destroying the environment and not benefitting the people of Africa at all. This "growth" is highly dependent on relatively few commodities sold for export, including oil, metal, and minerals. Countries like Angola and Nigeria depended on oil for up to 97% of all exports. When we deplete a country of resources like this, we kill the environment, and in most cases, don"t benefit the people at all, which is a loss for both sides. Contention 3: Decline of Prosper Sub-Point A: African Nations Four African countries have an opportunity to make some profit off of natural resources, the countries being Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania, and Mozambique. But they"re better off not harvesting these resources, mostly because almost every country that goes to harvest natural resources grows more slowly with greater inequality-which is the exact opposite of what someone would expect. Some of the curses that come along with natural resources are: "Resource rich countries tend to have strong currencies, which impedes other exports. "Because resource extraction often entails little job creation, unemployment rates rise. "Volatile resource prices cause growth to be unstable We can see that there are downfalls that all slow or even stop country growth completely. A good example of not harvesting resources and growing is South Korea. South Korea had a comparative advantage in growing rice. Had it stuck to that strength, it would not be the industrial giant that it is today. They sure would be the most efficient rice growers in the world, but would still be stuck in poverty- The Guardian As we can see, letting go of the things that we think might promote progress, really just impede growth and don"t let us expand our horizons to other options. Contention 4: Israel Sub-point A: Health and Social Benefits Health Benefits: These can also be interpreted as social benefits, but given the strategic importance to health of the enhanced environmental protection, they are assessed as a separate category. Direct benefits to public health include for example: a reduction in the cases of illness and the avoidance of premature mortality arising from water-borne diseases, and a reduction in respiratory and cardio-pulmonary diseases and premature mortality associated with poor air quality. Social Benefits: Benefits to individuals and society at large, including for example: the safeguarding of, and access to, the natural and cultural heritage (avoided pollution damage to historic buildings or the destruction of historic landscapes), recreational opportunities (e.g., fishing and bathing), benefits of trust in quality environmental service provision (e.g., water quality), social cohesion due to support for employment, social learning and the development of civil society (due to increased information provision, consultation and involvement). Sub-Point B: Environmental and Economic Benefits Environmental Benefits: Are the positive impacts on the natural environment of meeting environmental targets. For example, if the target of secondary treatment of all urban waste water would be reached, this would result in environmental benefits, such as improved surface water quality and avoidance of eutrophication, which is the excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen. Economic Benefits: Benefits include for example: economic benefits from natural resources (e.g. tourism benefits relating to protected areas, landscape, beaches, coral reefs), eco-efficiency gains (e.g. improved fish provision from enhanced ecosystems that support fisheries directly and indirectly), avoided costs (e.g. avoided costs of hospitalization and lost days at work from health impacts; avoided climate change impacts), the development of new and existing industries/sectors of the economy (e.g. renewable energy), balance of payments and trade effects (e.g. reduced imports of primary material as more waste is reused and recycled), increased employment through environmental investments (e.g., potential from developing the waste collection sector, from growth in eco-tourism). In conclusion, we can see that growth still occurs even when resource extraction doesn"t happen. By my definition of resources, we can see that food and water are not classified as resources, and therefore don"t count as a part of resource extraction. Thus, when looking at resource extraction and calling it a necessity isn"t true. Protecting the environment isn"t what everything thinks, we still make progress while protecting the environment. Vote Affirmative.