Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

I negate, Resolved: Developed countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. For clarification, I offer the following definitions: From Oxford Dictionary Prioritize- designate or treat as more important than other things From OECD Environmental protection- to maintain or restore the quality of the environment From Merriam- Webster Resource- a source of supply or support Extraction- the act or process of extracting something Observation 1: The Aff and the Neg must consider all types of resources in this round. Observation 2: The Aff must show that environmental protection doesn"t require economic aid in order to win this round. The value for this round shall be country"s framework. This shall be the value because a civilization cannot function properly without a good economy and austere social programs. This should be valued because it allows for developing countries to progress by having more and more in similar with developed countries. The criterion shall be strengthening a country"s foundation. The criterion allows for the value of country"s framework to be achieved because by strengthening the basic components of a country, we are creating a better framework for the developing countries to work on. Thus by strengthening a country"s foundation, we can achieve the value of country"s framework. CONTENTION 1: Economic development is necessary to solve many of the environmental issues of developing countries. Walter, Ugelow "79: "The available evidence seems to suggest that environmental policy in developing countries remains comparatively permissive. The developing countries do have major environmental problems, but most of them are the product of poverty rather than affluence. Non-separation of storm and sanitary sewers and the use of open fires for cooking and heating, for example, serve to create environmental problems in developing country urban centers that rival the worst conditions in the advanced nations. Yet only economic growth can generate the real resources required to alleviate such conditions. This fact, together with myriad competing social needs far more pressing than pollution control, contributes to a generally permissive set of environmental attitudes in developing countries. Nevertheless, there is substantial variance among developing countries in environmental policy, partly because of differences in levels of development and partly because of differences in environmental preferences-and environmental attitudes have sometimes demonstrated rapid change. Past environmental "disasters" like the dramatic losses in the Peruvian cotton crop after introduction of pesticides, the stripping of the Haitian mahogany forestand the ecological effects of the Aswan Dam in Egypt are not as likely to be repeated quite as readily in the future. In general, though, environmental constraints specifically in the extractive sector are not likely to serve as a major obstacle to growth of the industry. " Environmental protection is important; however, for developing countries to protect the environment, money is necessary and money comes from economic development. Resource extraction is a great contributor to helping the economy, thus resource extraction is needed in order to produce the money needed for protecting the environment. By creating a better economy, the developing countries will achieve the criterion of strengthening the country"s foundation, therefore the value of country"s framework is achieved. CONTENTION 2: Economic growth is required to achieve environmental protection. Beckerman "92: "The important environmental problems for the 75% of the world"s population that live in developing countries are local problems of access to safe drinking water or decent sanitation, and urban degradation. Furthermore there is clear evidence that , although economic growth usually leads to environmental deterioration in the early stages of the process, in the end the best- and probably the only- way to attain a decent environment in most countries is to become rich. " This is a good time to go back to the old clich": the ends justify the means. A developing country can only protect the environment by spending money and resource extraction produces money. In the beginning, it may harm the environment, but in the end, enough money will be available to supply funds for environmental protection programs. Environmental protection shouldn"t be prioritized over resource extraction because resource extraction is required for environmental protection to occur therefore resource extraction must come before protecting the environment. By growing the economy, a developing country can achieve the criterion of strengthening the country"s foundation, therefore the value is achieved. CONTENTION 3: Extracted renewable energy is correlated to less poverty, better health services, and improved education, such as cases in Sub- Saharan Africa. Kammen and Kirubi "08: "After five decades of rural electrification, less than 5% of the rural population has access to the central grid in SSA, and new connections barely keep pace with population growth (TABLE 1). The patterns of regional energy production and consumption are far from uniform, however. North Africa is heavily dependent on oil and gas and the Republic of South Africa, on coal and nuclear power; in the rest of SSA, biomass (charcoal, fuelwood, dung, and crop residues) supplies 70%"" 90% of energy demand. The Republic of South Africa accounts for 50% of installed electricity generation on the continent. Moreover, energy use and energy investments SSA are clearly mismatched. Despite serving a minority, large-scale conventional energy sectors (electricity and petroleum) receive most energy investments. This is at the expense of the abundant, mature, and cost-effective small-scale renewable energy technologies, such as microhydro, solar energy, and improved biomass cookstoves. Many studies in SSA and elsewhere demonstrate strong empirical linkages between renewable energy technologies and a wide range of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, including reduced child and maternal mortality, poverty alleviation, improved education, and health services. " Extracted resources can help create better hospitals, better schools, and more jobs. Environmental protection may create more jobs but it spends more money than it can bring in and therefore cannot create better schools and hospitals. This is why environmental protection shouldn"t be prioritized over resource extraction. Resource extraction has more benefits to a developing country than environmental protection does. In order to strengthen the country"s foundation, its government must create better social services and create more jobs and this can be done better by resource extraction rather than environmental protection. By achieving the criterion we have achieved the value. ATTACKS: The value: It is not moral to deny the citizens of a country better education, better hospitals, and more jobs in an excuse to protect the environment when resource extraction allows for all those benefits and in the end allows for environmental protection. Standard/Criterion: It states decreasing resource production; however, the con is extracting resources not producing resources, so the standard doesn't justify the prioritization of environmental protection over resource extraction. Also, when the aff's contentions don't decrease resource extraction but rather decrease resource production, the con's viewpoint remains untouched and the aff's arguments are atopical. Contention 1: 1)As I said in my case, resource extraction does harm the environment in the beginning, but in the end it allows for more environmental protection than could've been possible before and so the end justifies the means. 2)And are poor countries to stop developing their countries for their countries and therefore leave most of the citizens in poverty. This is not moral and therefore the aff doesn't acheive its value.3) I would like to say extinction is good and will offer the following arguments as to why: " The version of progress enunciated in Hawking's story of cosmic colonisation presents a view whereby the solution to the negative consequences of technological action is to create new forms of technology, new forms of action. Does his mode of reflection pay enough attention to the irredeemable moments of destruction, harm, pain and suffering inflicted historically by human action upon the non-human world? There are, after all, a variety of negative consequences of human action, moments of destruction, moments of suffering, which may not be redeemable or ever made better. What we try to do paper is to draw out some of the consequences of reflecting more broadly upon the negative costs of human activity in the context of environmental catastrophe. This involves re-thinking a general idea of progress through the historical and conceptual lenses of speciesism the only appropriate moral response to a history of human destructive action is to give up our claims to biological supremacy and to sacrifice our form of life so as to give an eternal gift to others. From the outset it is important to make clear that the argument for the global suicide of humanity is presented as a thought experiment. The purpose of such a proposal in response to Hawking is to help show how a certain conception of modernity, of which his approach is representative, is problematic. Taking seriously the idea of global suicide is one way of throwing into question an ideology or dominant discourse of modernist-humanist action. [3] By imagining an alternative to the existing state of affairs, absurd as it may seem to some readers by its nihilistic and radical 'solution', we wish to open up a ground for a critical discussion of modernity and its negative impacts on both human an