Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

I affirm, developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. The following definitions are from Oxford Dictionary Developing Country- poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially Environmental Protection- Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans. ... Resource Extraction- Natural resources occur naturally within environments that exist relatively undisturbed by humanity, in a natural form I value morality. Arbor states, http://www.treesaregood.com... We like trees around us because they make life more pleasant. Most of us respond to the presence of trees beyond simply observing their beauty. We feel serene, peaceful, restful, and tranquil in a grove of trees. We are "at home" there. Hospital patients have been shown to recover from surgery more quickly when their hospital room offered a view of trees. The strong ties between people and trees are most evident in the resistance of community residents to removing trees to widen streets. Or we note the heroic efforts of individuals and organizations to save particularly large or historic trees in a community. The stature, strength, and endurance of trees give them a cathedral-like quality. Because of their potential for long life, trees frequently are planted as living memorials. We often become personally attached to trees that we or those we love have planted. This means that trees make us feel at peace during our time on earth and help us with particular things such as recovering from surgery. Trees are like to us our mothers when we were young and were sick. Arbor 2, Trees alter the environment in which we live by moderating climate, improving air quality, conserving water, and harboring wildlife. Climate control is obtained by moderating the effects of sun, wind, and rain. Radiant energy from the sun is absorbed or deflected by leaves on deciduous trees in the summer and is only filtered by branches of deciduous trees in winter. We are cooler when we stand in the shade of trees and are not exposed to direct sunlight. In winter, we value the sun"s radiant energy. Therefore, we should plant only small or deciduous trees on the south side of homes. Wind speed and direction can be affected by trees. The more compact the foliage on the tree or group of trees, the greater the influence of the windbreak. The downward fall of rain, sleet, and hail is initially absorbed or deflected by trees, which provides some protection for people, pets, and buildings. Trees intercept water, store some of it, and reduce storm runoff and the possibility of flooding. Dew and frost are less common under trees because less radiant energy is released from the soil in those areas at night. Temperature in the vicinity of trees is cooler than that away from trees. The larger the tree, the greater the cooling. By using trees in the cities, we are able to moderate the heat-island effect caused by pavement and buildings in commercial areas. Air quality can be improved through the use of trees, shrubs, and turf. Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing dust and other particulates. Rain then washes the pollutants to the ground. Leaves absorb carbon dioxide from the air to form carbohydrates that are used in the plant"s structure and function. In this process, leaves also absorb other air pollutants"such as ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide"and give off oxygen. By planting trees and shrubs, we return to a more natural, less artificial environment. Birds and other wildlife are attracted to the area. The natural cycles of plant growth, reproduction, and decomposition are again present, both above and below ground. Natural harmony is restored to the urban environment. This means that trees offer many positive benefits to humans. Epstein, http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au... Life on Earth depends on plants, algae and fungi. For humanity, all seven billion of us, they are the major source of food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Our fossil fuels were formed by them. They clean our air and water, store carbon, and protect us from floods and drought. This shows that humans cannot survive without the plants that make up our environment. Even drastically changing the amount of trees and plants that make up our environment can be fatal. Marine Conservation Institute, Because the oceans are the largest ecosystems on Earth, they are the Earth"s largest life support systems. To survive and prosper, we all need healthy oceans. Oceans generate half of the oxygen people breathe. At any given moment, more than 97% of the world"s water resides in oceans. Oceans provide a sixth of the animal protein people eat. They"re the most promising source of new medicines to combat cancer, pain and bacterial diseases. Living oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reduce the impact of climate change This shows that oceans are vital for humans to continue to live on Earth. Thus, the standard is decreasing harmful resource production. C1: Resource Extraction harms the Environment NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT. Liam Downey [associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder], Eric Bonds [doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Boulder], and Katherine Clark [graduate student in environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder], "Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation", Organic Environ. 2010 December, vol. 23(4):417-445. Moreover, because natural resources are the ultimate source of all the energy and goods we produce, consume, and throw away, natural resource extraction harms the environment not only at the "point of extraction" but globally as well. Thus, the grave environmental problems associated with industrial production and consumption (in both capitalist and noncapitalist societies) would not exist, or would not exist in their current form, if industrial societies were unable to efficiently extract and safely transport vast quantities of natural resources. This shows that natural resource extraction harms our environment we live in and we must reduce or get rid of industries in their current system of extracting resources. ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION CAUSES EXTINCTION Anne Ehrlich & Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Biology and Senior Research Scientist at Stanford, 1/9/13 (Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?,Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280) But today, for the first time, humanity"s global civilization"the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded"is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as "an act of suicide on a grand scale" [4], facing what the UK"s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a "perfect storm" of environmental problems [5]. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the epidemiological environment (factors that make human populations susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7], including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate problems; rather they interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and the human socio-economic system. The negative manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as "the human predicament" [10], and determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity. The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens" aggregate consumption [11"17]. How far the human population size now is above the planet"s long-term carrying capacity is suggested (conservatively) by ecological footprint analysis [18"20]. It shows that to support today"s population of seven billion sustainably (i.e. with business as usual, including current technologies and standards of living) would require roughly half an additional planet; to do so, if all citizens of Earth consumed resources at the US level would take four to five more Earths. Adding the projected 2.5 billion more people by 2050 would make the human assault on civilization"s life-support systems disproportionately worse, because almost everywhere people face systems with nonlinear responses [11,21"23], in which environmental damage increases at a rate that becomes faster with each additional person. Of course, the claim is often made that humanity will expand Earth"s carrying capacity dramatically with technological innovation [24], but it is widely recognized that technologies can both add and subtract from carrying capacity. The plough evidently first expanded it and now appears to be reducing it [3]. Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us [25] or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use [26] Since resource extraction is harming the environment, and if the environment keeps getting worse due to resource extraction, the human race may no longer exist. All plants and animals will be wiped out and oceans will be ruined. Also, many resources needed for human survival will disappear C2: Resource Extraction harms oceans. OIL SPILLS WILL POLLUTE ENTIRE OCEANS Allen, 12 (Greg, NPR, "U.S. Watches Closely As Oil Drilling Begins Off Cuba", 2/13, http://www.npr.org...) There are big plans for oil exploration in the Caribbean, not far off the coast of Florida. A Spanish company recently began drilling in Cuban waters " just 55 miles from Key West. The well is the first of several exploratory wells planned in Cuba and the Bahamas. The drilling has officials and researchers in Florida scrambling to make plans for how they'll respond in case of a spill. The U.S. currently doesn't allow any drilling for oil off its Atlantic coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. One reason is what's at stake. Florida's tourism-based economy depends on its beaches, fishing and clear Caribbean water. Environmental Concerns The U.S. ban on drilling off of Florida, however, doesn't affect America's Caribbean neighbors. The exploratory well being drilled off of Cuba has many here concerned, including people like Richard Dodge. Dodge is the dean of Nova Southeastern University's Oceanographic Center in Dania Beach, near Fort Lauderdale, and what he's really concerned about is coral. At the school, Dodge and his graduate students raise staghorn coral in outdoor saltwater tanks. Live coral grow in the crystal-clear water, some just finger length. "These are relatively new ones that we're starting out," Dodge says. "But over here, these are ones we'll be transplanting to the wild." In another tank, large branches of coral will soon be used to help restore damaged reefs. Florida is home to more than three-quarters of the nation's coral reefs " and they haven't been doing so well. Development and warming oceans have already weakened many. On a map, Dodge points out the location of what he believes is an even bigger potential threat " the spot where Cuba has approved offshore oil drilling. "The site that will be drilled," he says, "is only about 50 miles from Key West." The rig drilling off Cuba's northern coast is operating in water that is more than a mile deep. But it's not the depth that concerns Dodge. In the case of a blowout, it's the operation's proximity to the Gulf Stream. "We're worried that it could get into that stream fast and therefore, within days, impact our coastal ecosystem and coastline," Dodge says. A spill could potentially affect hundreds of miles of beaches, mangroves and estuaries from the Keys to Palm Beach. Dodge and other marine scientists in Florida are asking the federal government to fund research that would help identify the resources most at risk, and develop guidelines to protect them. Embargo Could Complicate Cleanup Complicating matters is the fact that this new well is being drilled in the waters of a country that's under a strict U.S. embargo. Unless they apply for and receive special permission from the government, U.S. companies are banned from doing any work on the well " even if there's a spill.. Oil is a natural resource, and this is one case in which people are worried that oil can ruin the oceans and the ecosystems that are very essential to Earth. And without these ecosystems from the ocean, the human race is in danger of extinction.