Arguments

1.Environmental protection should have priority over economic stability and progress? Pros Cons

The debate question is very ackward. We need to strike a balance between Taking care of millions of people who are We have already wasted and destroyed
environmental and economic benefits. Problem is that this balance is specific to each starving is more important than saving vast amounts of natural resources, and in
situation. You cannot build a chemical plant near a large city b/c population will suffer natural resources, most of which are so doing have put earth at risk. We must
renewable anyway. We cannot expect preserve the earth for our children and
from pollution. But it makes perfect sense to build it in the desert where nobody will be
developing nations to share the green grandchildren. In any case, poverty and
affected.In reality, this analysis is done mathematically, and debate is about numbers concerns of developed countries when environmental damage are often linked.
that are used as inputs. In your "abstract" debate, you can make following points: they are faced with dire poverty and a Destroying the rainforest gives native
constant battle for survival. peoples nowhere to go except urban
- For developing countries and low-income people, economic benefits matter more slums. Polluted water can lead to crop
than environmental ones. Nobody cares about blue sky if they can't get enough to eat. failures. Climate change will turn fertile
Further, it is immoral for us to enjoy blue sky if the price is starving children in China. fields into desert and flood coastal areas
where hundreds of millions live.
Developing countries have to choose
- Environmental benefits will occur long time into the future, where people will have sustainable development if they want a
higher level of life than we do, so why should we suffer to make them even better off? future for their people.
It is like regretting that world economy recovered from Great Depression of 1920s b/c
it caused global warming for us today. The industrialised world’s emphasis on No one wants to stop economic progress
green issues holds back developing that could give millions better lives. But we
- Economic progress typically allows scientific progress, which means better ways of countries. Because this is seen as must insist on sustainable development
preserving the environment. We replaced wood with plastic, developed viable solar interference in their affairs, it also that combines environmental care, social
power, hybrid cars, house insulation, etc. contributes to a greater divide between the justice and economic growth. Earth cannot
First and Third worlds. Many also believe support unrestricted growth. Companies in
it is a deliberate attempt to stop possible developed countries already have higher
- "Harmonious co-existence" of man and nature before industrial age is a myth. First,
economic competitors. After all, the USA costs of production because of rules to
humans have been "destroying" the environment since early days when they hunted and EU already put high tariffs (import protect the environment. It is unfair if they
wooly mammoth and other large animals into extinction. taxes) on products made cheaply in then see their prices undercut by goods
Second, lack of economic growth means a limit on population growth, causes by high developing countries (e.g. canned produced cheaply in developing countries
death rates from diseases and violence. Africa is a bright example. tomatoes, shoes) which could be sold in at the cost of great pollution.
America or Europe. By limiting the
You could argue that Enviromental Protection, if truly a value to the consumer will be development of profitable but polluting
industries like steel or oil refineries we are
priced in to present market forces, giving companies that champion enviromental
forcing nations to remain economically
protection a competitive edge against those who do not. Therefore, the market backward.
sentiment shifts to accommodate the new demand, business practices will shift as
well. A properly functioning economy is essential to the development of this new
Economic development is vital for meeting Unchecked population growth has a
demand. Therefore, economic progress should be encouraged and maintained. the basic needs of the growing negative impact on any nation, as well as
Furthermore, the adjustments made to the economy to accommodate enviromental populations of developing countries. If we on the whole planet. Both the poverty and
reforms deliver a cost to the economy that is not felt evenly through the market. Large, do not allow them to industrialise, these the environmental problems of sub-
more established companies can bear the impact of environmental reform, whereas nations will have to bring in measures to Saharan Africa are largely the result of
smaller companies, who operate with a small spread, cannot adopt these practices as limit population growth just to preserve rapid population growth putting pressure
rapidly. These transitions therefore have an impact not only on the vitality of these vital resources such as water. on limited resources. At the same time
China has become wealthy while following
small companies, but also the workforce they employ; which at present 80% of the US
a “one-child” per couple policy. Limiting
workforce is comprised of small proprietorships. population growth will result in a higher
So it is both irresponsible and determinental to the economy, thereby the eventual standard of living and will preserve the
success of these environmental laws, to apply these protectionist measures. As they environment.
are not properly priced into the market, they inevitably have a negative impact that
spreads deep into the economy, affecting the society as a whole. In the end, the trees Obviously the world would be better if all Nations are losing more from pollution
that were saved by the humans came at the cost of the humans. nations stuck to strict environmental rules. than they are gaining from
The reality is that for many nations such industrialisation. China is a perfect
environmental problems"the most important problem facing this country today." Such rules are not in their interests. For example. Twenty years of uncontrolled
results suggest that the environment is not a marginal concern for Americans, despite example, closing China’s huge Capital economic development have created
being seen as more of a future than current problem. Iron and Steelworks, a major source of serious, chronic air and water pollution.
pollution, would cost 40 000 jobs. The This has increased health problems and
equal application of strict environmental resulted in annual losses to farmers of
The issue of economic growth versus environmental conservation can also be seen as policies would create huge barriers to crops worth billions of dollars. So
developed countries vs developing ones. Industrial countries such as the USA and economic progress, at a risk to political uncontrolled growth is not only bad for the
Germany have depended upon polluting industries for their wealth. Now they fear that stability. environment, it is also makes no economic
uncontrolled economic development in the Third World will lead to environmental sense.
disaster. They point out that massive clearing of tropical rainforest for farming
threatens biodiversity and may affect the global climate. At the same time relying upon Rapid industrialisation does not have to Scientific progress has made people too
heavy industry adds more pollution to the air, soil and water sources, while a richer put more pressure on the environment. confident in their abilities to control their
population demands more energy, often produced from burning dirty fossil fuels such Scientific advances have made industries environment. In just half a century the
as coal. Developing countries such as China and Brazil point out that they must make much less polluting. And developing world’s nuclear industry has had at least
countries can learn from the three serious accidents: Windscale (UK,
industrialisation and economic development a priority because they have to support
environmental mistakes of the developed 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), and
their growing populations. Developing countries must address current problems; they world’s industrial revolution, and from Chernobyl (USSR, 1986). In addition, the
cannot afford to worry about the distant future. They also point out that as First World more recent disasters in communist nuclear power industry still cannot store its
countries are most to blame for current environmental damage, it is unfair to demand countries such as China and the USSR. waste safely. Hydro-power sounds great
that developing nations limit their own growth to solve these problems. For example, efficient new steelworks use but damming rivers is itself damaging to
much less water, raw materials and the environment. It also forces huge
power, while producing much less
pollution than traditional factories. And
nuclear generating plants can provide
more energy than coal while contributing
far less to global warming. We are also
exploring alternative, renewable types of
energy such as solar, wind and hydro-
power.
It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for
rich developed countries to demand that
poorer nations make conservation their
priority. After all, they became rich in the
first place by destroying their environment
in the industrial revolution. Now that they
have cut down their own trees, polluted
their water sources and poured billions of
tons of carbon into the air, they are in no
position to tell others to behave differently.
In any case, as countries become richer
they become more concerned about the
environment, and can afford to do
something about it. For developing
countries conservation can therefore wait
until they are richer.
numbers of people off their land – as in
China’s 3 Gorges project.
Looking after our fragile world has to be a
partnership. Climate change will affect the
whole planet, not just the developed world.
In fact it is likely to have particularly
terrible effects on developing countries as
sea levels rise, deserts advance, and
natural disasters become more common.
It is no use Europe trying to cut its
emissions into the atmosphere if
unchecked growth in China and India
leads to much greater overall pollution.
Instead, developed countries need to
transfer greener technologies to the
developing world, paying for
environmental protection and making
sustainability a condition for aid.
habitats.Seeking a balance between economic development and environmental
protection, NGOs have played a major role in shaping international environmental
treaties, including the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol on
Climate Change, and the Basel Convention, which bans exporting hazardous wastes
from industrialised nations to developing countries.
Yet as the millennium pulls to a close, the political and financial structure of the world
economy, which has become increasingly dominated by powerful multinational
corporations, is directly at odds with efforts to promote a healthy Earth, says Joshua
Karliner, executive director of the Transnational Resource and Action Centre, the San
Francisco-based corporate watchdog.One clear example of this, says Karliner, has
been the success of powerful multinational oil and gas industries in swaying the US
Senate against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, an international treaty
seeking to reduce emissions of heat-trapping 'greenhouse' gases.Scientists believe
that such emissions, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, will warm the Earth and
result in drastic climate change, including increasing the intensity and frequency of
floods, droughts, and storms.If current record-breaking warming trends continue,
average global temperatures could rise between 1 and 3.5 degrees centigrade by the
year 2050, according to expert studies.'The challenge in the 21st century is to replace
the corporate-dominated paradigm that worships the bottom-line with a framework that
puts the environment, human rights, and labour rights first,' says Karliner.

The “Green Revolution” has doubled the The Green Revolution is threatening the In the past several decades, NGOs have applied a diverse array of strategies to
size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down biodiversity of the Third World by replacing
counter corporate power including promoting laws to protect the environment,
more forests to provide more space for native seeds with hybrids. We do not know
crops is no longer necessary. We now what the long-term environmental or developing lawsuits against governments and corporations, and passing company
have the knowledge to feed the world’s economic consequences will be. We do shareholder resolutions.Citizens in Ecuador, who see their own country's court
increasing population without harming the know that in the short run, such hybrid systems as inadequate, for example, have been attempting to hold US oil giant
environment. Genetically modified crops crops can cause environmental problems Texaco accountable for its past operations, by suing the company in US courts.
can also benefit the developing world by by crowding out native plants and the Similar suits have been filed in the US court system against UNOCAL and Chevron for
requiring much less water, fertiliser or wildlife which relies on them. The farmer
their activities abroad.While praising these efforts, Peter Montague, director of the
pesticide use while giving better yields. growing hybrid crops must buy costly new
This is another example of economic seed every year because it cannot be Maryland-based Environmental Research Foundation, says the environmental
development leading to environmental saved to plant the following year’s crops. movement must pay closer attention to how the push for trade liberalisation is eroding
benefits. Farmers using hybrid seeds in what was the power of nation-states.'NGOs will become irrelevant if national governments lose
the richest part of India went bankrupt. As their capacity to govern because power has been transferred to international trade
a result, fertile lands lay idle and bodies,' he says.After the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement
unploughed, resulting in droughts and (NAFTA), for example, a US firm complained that it had been illegally prevented from
desertification.
opening a waste disposal plant because of environmental zoning laws in the Mexican
state of San Luis Potosi.Through NAFTA, Metalclad corporation sought some $90
million in damages since it said state authorities were - against trade rules - prohibiting
  Motions
it from making a profit since they declared the site an ecological zone and refused to
This House believes development trumps the environment allow the firm to reopen the facility.Similarly, many domestic environmental regulations
This House believes that going green can wait until we can afford it
This House believes that economic development should always take priority - which NGOs have worked very hard to pass into law - have been challenged through
  the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and hence weakened or abolished, warn
over environmental concerns in both the First and Third Worlds
That economic growth, even at the expense of some environmental damage, is environmentalists.
justified by the need to feed the rising world population

One of the biggest challenges facing governments as the new century unfolds is how
to balance environmental protection with the demands of powerful multinational
corporations.
December 1999
Washington: If deterioration of the global environment over the past several decades is
any guide, the coming century does not hold out much promise for reversing these
trends, many environmentalists are warning as the millennium comes to a close.Rising
Earth temperatures, record losses in biodiversity and species extinction, increasing
demands and dwindling supplies of fresh water, only seem to be getting worse.'If I look
at the global environmental trends that we have been tracking since we first launched
the Worldwatch Institute 25 years ago, and if I simply extrapolate these trends a few
years into the next century, the outlook is alarming to say the least,' says Lester
Brown, president of the Washington-based think-tank.On the up-side, the past several
decades has seen citizens and environmental groups, or non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), worldwide pulling together in unprecedented numbers to
pressure governments to pass laws to protect the ozone layer, ban toxic chemicals in
the environment, reduce air and water pollution, and protect endangered species and
The United States, for instance, gutted provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, the Clean Air Act, and its Endangered Species Act after these environmental
policies were challenged before the WTO, according to a recent report released by
Public Citizen, a Washington-based NGO founded by consumer advocate Ralph
Nader.'This undemocratic trend must be reversed and power must be returned to
governments,' says Montague.Citizen groups and environmental organisations have
been trying to guide global trade by pressuring governments to attach environmental
provisions to trade agreements and pressure international financial institutions like the
World Bank, to adopt minimal environmental and social standards for funding
projects.'In terms of reforms at the World Bank, I would say, depending on how you
look at it, the glass is half empty or half full,' says Bruce Rich, senior attorney for the
Environmental Defense Fund.While many destructive projects will not be funded by
the Bank since environmentalists like Rich pressured the institution to adopt minimal
guidelines, the Bank is still a large centralised institution which favours large loans -
which often go toward large controversial energy projects, he says.
Some investment projects funded by global financial institutions 'are what is fuelling
climate change and losses in biodiversity', says Rich.Using lessons from studying
these institutions, environmental groups, including Indonesia-based Bioforum and
Friends of the Earth Japan, have begun a new campaign to reform public export-credit
lending agencies which operate without social and environmental standards.Designed
to help a nation's firms compete for business abroad, these agencies provide publicly
backed loans, guarantees and insurance to corporations seeking to do business in
developing countries. 'These agencies are often financing projects - many riddled with
corruption - that other taxpayer-supported agencies like the World Bank reject as
environmentally and economically unsustainable,' says Rich.Another challenge in the
coming decades is genetic modification and environmentalists say they will keep a
close watch on companies such as Novartis and Monsanto, which are heavily pushing
their new technological innovations in biological engineering.'We are in the midst of a
radical, historic transition - from the Industrial Age to the Biotechnical Age,' says
Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends in
his book, The Biotech Century.
Environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists,
worry that the mass release of thousands of genetically engineered crops into the
environment will cause 'super-weeds' through unintentional cross-breeding and hence
irreversible damage to the Earth. Mass extinction of plant, animal and insect species
will also be a trend environmentalists hope to reverse.John Tuxill, a researcher at the
Worldwatch Institute, says that as critical habitat is logged or developed, extinction
rates have accelerated this century to at least 1,000 species per year.
'These numbers indicate we now live in a time of mass extinction - a global
evolutionary upheaval in the diversity and composition of life,' he says.'What we need
now is a rapid shift in consciousness, a dawning awareness in people everywhere that
we have to shift quickly to a sustainable economy if we want to avoid damaging our
natural support systems beyond repair,' says the Institute's founder Lester
Brown.Danny Kennedy, director of Project Underground, the California-based
international mining watchdog, says for such a shift to happen, environmental
organisations need to focus on organising people at the community level and working
closely with other social movements, such as the human rights and civil rights
movements.'The power of civil disobedience and mass movements has been
harnessed and then forgotten at different points in the century,' he says.
But the huge upcoming challenge, adds Karliner, will be to ensure that discontent with
corporate-led globalisation is not captured by nationalist xenophobic responses such
as the rise of right-wing militia groups in the United States, India's BJP party or
France's Jean-Marie Le Pen.Instead, environmental and related movements need to
work hard to harness the discontent with corporate power to promote democratic
responses that value human rights and multi-racial and multi-ethnic responses to
solving the problems.'We need to take the lessons learned from some of the horrors of
the 20th century and apply them to building an alternative to globalisation in the 21st
century,' says Karliner. Otherwise, he says, we may repeat some of the past centuries'
more profound mistakes. - Third World Network Features/IPS
'As the recent controversy over the Seattle meeting of the WTO has shown, the issue
of how trade liberalisation affects the environment remains highly contested and this
book is therefore very timely. It provides an up-to-date summary of the debate over the
links between trade and the environment and between economic growth and the
environment, together with an excellent account of the post-war developments in
international policy dealing with trade and environmental issues. Matthew Cole also
provides an insightful empirical analysis of the links between growth and the
environment, using a more extensive data set than earlier studies, and uses this
analysis to assess the impact on the environment of the Uruguay Round of trade
liberalisation.
Drawing on this analysis he makes a number of proposals for how international
agencies might better resolve disputes between trade liberalisation and environmental
protection, addressing the issues currently on the agenda of the WTO. Written in a
clear and non-technical style the book will be of benefit to policymakers and students
wishing to understand the issues behind the current controversy. This book analyses
and quantifies the environmental impact of two closely related phenomena: economic
growth and the environment. Previous work in this area tends to address only the
impact of trade or economic growth on the environment, yet, as Matthew Cole shows,
the two are inextricably linked.
The issue of economic growth versus environmental conservation can also be seen as
developed countries vs developing ones. Industrial countries such as the USA and
Germany have depended upon polluting industries for their wealth. Now they fear that
uncontrolled economic development in the Third World will lead to environmental
disaster. They point out that massive clearing of tropical rainforest for farming
threatens biodiversity and may affect the global climate. At the same time relying upon
heavy industry adds more pollution to the air, soil and water sources, while a richer
population demands more energy, often produced from burning dirty fossil fuels such
as coal. Developing countries such as China and Brazil point out that they must make
industrialisation and economic development a priority because they have to support
their growing populations. Developing countries must address current problems; they
cannot afford to worry about the distant future. They also point out that as First World
countries are most to blame for current environmental damage, it is unfair to demand
that developing nations limit their own growth to solve these problems. Developing
countries just give priority to economic development,they don't ignore enviorenmental
development.for example,china has a policy that says economics and enviorenment
should be developed at the same time and in harmony. We need to pin down
environmental externalities paid by society, that don not show up on balance sheets.
Capitalism need not have a negative impact on the environment. In fact, quite the
opposite. As an system, capitalism is all about forcing people to pay the cost of their
actions. Thus, giving them incentives to conserve and find ways of utilizing resources
more efficiently.
However, natural resources (wood, oil, minerals, ecosystems) are not valued
according to the function they are currently serving withing our biosphere. Their are
capitalist overlay mechanisms to correct this to some degree, such as the Kyoto
Protocol. Sometimes this mechanism is refereed to as the "cap-in-trade system." This
will serve to place monetary value on negative industrial byproducts, which is a
beginning for refining capitalism.As a system for orchestrating societal living
peacefully, and as naturally as possible, capitalism is the most sophisticated
systematic effort devised. We need to preserve its strengths and refine it loopholes.
This requires viewing our economies as systems. Instead of viewing the components
in isolation, seeing how they relate to the other components, and how all the
components for the whole. Its called systems thinking. Its unwise to start judging the
components of a system without acknowledging they are components of a
system.Capitalism or the environment represents a false dichotomy. Capitalism is
nothing but a word describing a gigantic incentive system. It sounds like the idea is
that some of the incentives need re-thinking.
One of the problems with capitalism is that of scale. See the incentive system induced
production methods that raised the standard of living so much that the worlds
populations have exponentially grown in the last hundred years. So using something
like oil for the population of 1800s wasn't that big of a deal. But it enabled us to keep
using our new found advantages to make more children. Just think "Baby Boomer's."
So on this scale, an oil infrastructure isn't sustainable.See its not the system as a
whole that intrinsically harms the environment. Its how we respond to the system. A
case can easily be build that proper balance between ourselves and our environment
will never stick without an educated population. Business people are eco illiterate, and
natural scientists are economically illiterate, and voters just want everything, without
paying anything. Abraham Lincoln said: "A nation that wants to both be ignorant and
free. Wants what never was, and never will be." We need to stop blaming systems that
we know nothing about like capitalism and start re-thinking the way we live our lives. If
we care, then its time to build up the knowledge and skills to be a part of the solution,
not the problem. Because not all the resources are sustainable,we'd better not
sacrifice the environment and waste up all the resources for the economic
development. Now, it seems that we should weight the importance of economic
development and environment.
I would choose environment. I know that great economic development causes
environmental disruption in the past times. So, from that experience, we should
consider how we can develop economics with less affecting the environment. In this
time, the economic rapidly grows in China, Brazil, but too rapid growth will distrupt
environment. Now, it's the time we can seek for environmentally friendly development.