Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

We have to balance environmental needs with business needsSome ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.Poverty is usually bad for the environment. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much for the amount of benefit they produce. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for expensive government programs. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideasOne EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs. There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways. A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war. We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can't spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.Poverty is usually bad for the environmentReasons to agree:When people can't affording plumbing their urine and feces end up in drinking water.When people are desperate, they don't care about the environment as much. The most polluted places are in the poorest places, and so poverty is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in green energy. Every country is beginning to recognize the value of a clean environment for tourism, quality of life, health of their population, and efficiency. While it is true more money results in more consumption, we are getting better at producing products and energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Poor native Americans used to set fire to the prairie, running bison off cliffs, so they could eat a small portion of the meat. This is a good example of the bad affects of poverty on the environment. Poor people cook their meat with fire. That is much worse for the environment than natural gas, or electricity.Poor people burn garbage to keep warm releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. Nothing that happens to the environment matters, except to the extent that mankind is able to take ourselves and as much biodiversity off this planet with us, because the sun will burn out, and destroy all life on this planet. Reasons to disagree:Wealth can lead to more children. More people are bad for the environment.Wealthy people export their pollution, and so just because poor places It takes money to invest in weapons of war. War is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in products. The production of bigger houses, and more consumables such as TVs, computers, cars, electronics, beauty products, steaks, lobster all result in damage to the environment. Japan is raping the ocean, and they are some of the richest people on the planet. Conclusion: This argument can help us organize our thinking, but most of these assumptions must be tested by scientist, and economist.