environmental protection

Definitions In all reality, the current understanding of definitions is abusive and is just a asking for a free win. So to make the resolution actually arguable, we will be arguing for coerced (or forced) conservation. Rebuttals My opponent’s main contention is we need conservation. For my opponent to even have a point, he must prove it is effective in helping the environment. Which it isn’t. New studies have come to conclusions that conservation or environmental protection just wont cut it. Its expensive, hurts the economy, and worst of all will have no impact on the environment. It is not going to stop damage, and therefore is wasted money [1]. Further, decreasing consumption of leather and other items that might potentially hurt endangered animals has not been successful. For many reasons. Firstly, in places where it has been tried, tourist merchandise becomes less plentiful and hurts the economy, and there is no evidence it actually does anything useful [2]. Why mandate things that don’t work? The case against coercion 1. Property rights One of the main objections to forced protection is loss of rights – specifically property rights – as it forces property owners to do things they don’t want to do. This is an infringement on the rights of people. In peoples own property, coercive government agencies such as the EPA prevent people from building their own homes, taking peoples homes, forcing people to change their homes, prevented farmers from farming, etc. All on their own property. This is all an infringement upon property rights and is darn near, aw what the hell, it is unconstitutional [3]. Don’t hurt the owl! Its right to life is more then your legal rights, and your right to a home… and farming food to feed the world… and build a fence… and no glass windows, they might hit them. My rights > other things 2. Other options Most environmental problems needn’t be solved via governmental agencies that really like to take away your rights. Many smaller private companies in small towns have been successful in cleanups and preventing pollution. They have also been effective in conservation efforts, without coercion. They have also been shown to be more efficient, and their reforms seem to be more effective then current EPA policies and possible future proposals [4][5]. The CATO institute notes, “Given that market economies are, on average, 2.75 times more energy efficient per $1,000 of GNP than are centrally planned economies (a margin of difference that has grown steadily over time), it should be abundantly clear to all that consumers are better able to provide for efficient energy use than are central planners.”[5] As we can see, increases efficiency is a large benefit to a free-market option. CATO and the independent institute find a private option would be more effective and less freedom robbing then the current coercive system. The biggest upside: more freedom. 3. Hurts the economy “Ow that hurt, you cut my oil” – Economy after regulation The U.S. Senate environmental committee concludes similar things as me, they note: “As you know, proponents of your EPA’s aggressive agenda claim that regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket will somehow be good for the American people. We come to this issue as medical doctors and would like to offer our “second opinion”: EPA’s regulatory regime will devastate communities that rely on affordable energy, children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay for higher energy costs. The result for public health will be disastrous in ways not seen since the Great Depression. … [Later, doctors concluded] “These are just a few examples of the numerous reports warning of a looming public health crisis due to unemployment.”[6] I cut out a lot of that mumbo jumbo, though if you want to read it I encourage a look. It basically said the laws are inefficient, provide no benefits, and increase health risk as children of unemployed parents are unhealthier etc etc. And sicker people is bad. Bad bad bad, no es bueno. Ok I have had my fun. Basically it raises unemployment and hurts public health which means more ER visits which I hope you taxpayers don’t mind paying. Conclusion: :):) [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.int-res.com... [3] http://cei.org... [4] http://www.independent.org... [5] http://www.cato.org... [6] http://epw.senate.gov...