Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

I'll go ahead and address each point my opponent made one by one. Then, I will provide voting issues.Definitions and ObservationsMy opponent notes that resource extraction is any way of obtaining a resource. I would agree with this statement completely. However, we have to realize that not all forms of resource extraction do damage to the earth. I am not restricting my opponent to any certain type of resource extraction, however, if the form of resource extraction does not come into conflict with environmental protection then it is out of the scope of the resolution.Example: So, obtaining water could be considered resource extraction, but if it doesn't cause conflict with environmental protection then it is not an issue. If it does, then obviously the process of extracting water would not be taken away. Rather, developing countries would find a way to prioritize environmental protection by finding a more green method of obtaining water.Opponent's ArgumentsSurplus MoneyI'll address each point made here.P1: Resource extraction is used to create surplus wealth.P2: Resource extraction costs money.P3: Green technology can be and almost always is more expensive than base technology.C1: Developing Nations should create surplus wealth before buying green technology.Here, my opponent is assuming that developing countries have no money to prioritize environmental protection. I'll make a few points:1. As the resolution says, we are debating instances where environmental protection and resource extraction are in conflict. The reason they are in conflict is because the resource is giving the country money... As my opponent says, resource extraction creates surplus wealth. So if the two are in conflict, we can assume that is because money comes from resource extraction (if the resource made no money, what would be the point of extraction?)2. This surplus wealth (whether the resource is causing environmental problems or not) is mostly going to the elite of society. The impoverished are not benefited.3. Some of the surplus wealth SHOULD be used to prioritize environmental protection if that certain type of resource extraction is causing environmental issues.Remember, developing countries also obtain surplus money from resources that do not hurt the environment. Because of corruption, the money doesn't go where it should. Realistically, if a government is corrupt, environmental protection is probably not a priority. However, this debate is over whether developing countries SHOULD prioritize environmental protection (rather than if they will).My opponent then goes on to explain that I cannot claim environmental protection/resource extraction scenarios are too broad to answer. I would agree with this. However, this does not change the fact that every developing country has different issues. Some issues are a simple fix, while others are more complex/expensive. As I explained above, developing countries can use the surplus wealth from resources for environmental protection. If the issue is to complex for the country to resolve on it's own, then often developed countries will step in. My opponent has provided absolutely no examples of a developing country that was unable to prioritize environmental protection due to lack of money, nor has he provided a country that was negatively impacted by environmental protection. Thus, my BoP is upheld.P1: If nations had money to be green they would.P2: Nations who don't have money to be green, need to make money.C1: Developing countries should prioritize making money before trying to be green.To summarize what I've said before... An environmental protection/resource extraction conflict implies that surplus wealth is coming from the resource. Developing countries can use this money to be green.Environmentalist RhetoricMy opponent explains that making money is step one and becoming green is step two. I agree. However, developing countries do have money. It may not be a huge amount but (given that resources are being extracted) there will be some degree of surplus wealth. This should be spent on environmental protection if the resource extraction is hurting the environment. My opponent shows that trading commodities are the only available market for developing countries. We have to remember that the prioritization of environmental protection does not result in such commodities being taken away. Prioritization simply means putting something first. Also, my opponent has not showed whether or not these commodities directly hurt the environment, so many of them could be out of the scope of the resolution and a way of providing surplus wealth for the country to develop/protect the environment. The reason developing countries are so poor is that the money is going to the wrong place.Being green doesn't make developing countries money.I agree that resource extraction will make the most profit. The problem is, this money is not going to the right places. I have shown in R2 and R3 that due to the resource curse, development is not achieved through resource extraction. The money from resource extraction doesn't even help the people in the country who desperately need it. I have also shown that it is very possible to prioritize environmental protection if it does come into conflict with resource extraction. The most beneficial option is the prioritization of environmental protection because the benefits (as I have said many times) can be felt by nearly everyone. 25% of developing country's wealth comes from the environment. Obviously, it is worth something. Look to my Guatemala example in R3. They lost literally 25% of their GDP due to environmental problems. These issues not only affect people, but affect developing nations wealth as well.My opponent goes on to say this...P1: Being green supports the endeavor of making money.This debate is only over being "green" in relation to resource extraction. Being green supports the endeavor of making money while keeping the environment safe to get rid of the negative impacts that come from hurting the environment.P2: Being green does not actually make money itself.1/4 of all developing nations' wealth comes from the environment. In fact, environmental protection can enable citizens to farm. This will help make the impoverished money (as I showed in the case of Albania).C1: Being green is not a priority to stimulating wealth.It is really the only way that poor citizens can benefit. My ArgumentsChina did not alleviate poverty through resource extraction.My opponent completely misunderstood my argument. I agree that harvesting is resource extraction. However, China alleviated poverty with resource extraction methods that did not come into conflict with environmental protection. Therefore, China's growth in the past cannot be used as an example by my opponent. Resource PreservationI did not intend for this to be a major point in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address it. My opponent concedes that resources will inevitably run out. The point I am trying to make is that if developing countries are relying on the rapid extraction of nonrenewable resources, not only can this negatively impact the earth, but the country will lose the surplus wealth they once counted on when the resources run out. So, if environmental protection slightly slows down the extraction process, this is not a bad thing. The protection of the environment does give developing countries some wealth, and obviously the extraction of nonrenewable resources would not be abolished during the prioritization of resource extraction.My Conclusion1. Resource extraction (when in conflict with environmental protection) kills.We can't afford to be "more green later" when lives are in question. Unclean water and air pollution (which I have shown can be a cause of resource extraction) kill thousands every year. Excessive deforestation will hurt the 1 billion that rely on forest based assets to live. The prioritization of environmental protection will ultimately strive to undo the damage done.2. DevelopmentSocial development is achieved with environmental protection. As I showed in R2, the Millennium Development goals are best achieved through the prioritization of environmental protection. Economic development is also achieved because it positively impacts developing countries GDP. My opponent goes on and on about how developing countries do not have enough money to prioritize environmental protection, however he provides absolutely no examples of a developing country with such a problem. There is not one piece of evidence that has shown a developing country being negatively impacted by the prioritization of environmental protection when in conflict with resource extraction.3. Corruption Never once in this debate has my opponent touched on this point. The money from resource extraction is not going towards development or poverty alleviation. It is going towards the elite in society. The impact is: If the impoverished are to benefit, environmental protection should be prioritized to attempt to preserve clean water and air (which will save lives) and preserve forest based assets that people all around the world need to survive. Environmental protection is the one action that will help everyone, despite the effects of corruption. For these reasons, vote pro. Thank you to ChosenWolff for a great debate!! And thank you to anyone who reads this.