The Instigator
Brian1025
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LeighMelb
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

THBT protecting the environment is more important than developing the economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 72942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Brian1025

Pro

Hi!
This is a debate about environment vs economy.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Crossfire
Round 4: Closing paragraphs
LeighMelb

Con

Thank you for this raising this debate. I look forward to arguing the idea that the development of an economy takes precedent over the environment.
Debate Round No. 1
Brian1025

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate.

Definitions for this debate:

Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.

Economy: the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.

The points that I will explain:
1.Health for People
2.The need to save resources

First, I will talk about the health of people.
A health environment will have clean water, fresh air, and no harmful chemicals. However, today, most cities are filled with smog and polluted water.

You can refer to the site below"
https://www.healthypeople.gov...

I would like to analyze and restate some of the topics from this article.

The article states that poor air quality is a major factor in many diseases such as cancer or respiratory failure.

Also, shale gas has also placed many harmful effects in neighborhoods near extracting locations. Shale gas is natural gas occurring within or extracted from shale. Shale gas was a great discovery because it improved the economy of many countries and dropped the oil price worldwide.

But, human health must come before material gain. In 2008, a hydrologist found benzene in water wells in Wyoming above where fracking of shale gas was occurring.
Fracking also uses a tremendous amount of water that contains chemicals and other environmentally damaging materials. The runoff from fracking operations also causes tremendous environmental harm.

But along with this, there is one of the most common examples in some countries. For example, yellow dust or micro particles in many east-Asian countries.

Micro particles were named as the most toxic carcinogen according to the World health organization.
According to a research paper and studies held in Korea about yellow dust, they said "There has been yellow dust coming from these regions to Korea for many generations. However, due to the deforestation that has occurred in Mongolia and China, along with the increased industrialization and resulting pollution in China, the yellow dust storms have been occurring with increasing frequency and with greater and greater negative effects. For the past few years, the dust storms often carry oxides (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and silicon) and toxic waste thus increasing the risks of respiratory and skin reactions.
In sufficient concentration, the fine particles can obscure visibility, irritate soft tissues in the eyes, nose, mouth and throat. Because of the high concentration of minerals and other pollutants, it can cause or exacerbate respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Pinkeye is a common side effect in both adults and children. The dust can also damage sensitive equipment, such as computers, etc. ".

My second argument will be the need to save resources.

Below is a speech from a leader of the EU and his opinion on the need to save the environment. This will clear up all questions about environment issues in the EU.
http://europa.eu...

For all these reasons above, I think that environment is much more important than economy.

A point that opposition must explain is "Why is the high unemployment rates or the amount of jobs available in the country more important than the health of all citizens around the world?"

Thank you.
LeighMelb

Con

LeighMelb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brian1025

Pro

Brian1025 forfeited this round.
LeighMelb

Con

LeighMelb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Brian1025

Pro

Because Con forfeited all rounds so far and didn't present any arguments, I don't have any arguments to refute against. I forfeited last round on accident because I had no time remaining.

I hope con makes their arguments in the next round.

Firstly, I would like to restate that this motion of the debate isn't suggesting that we will only protect environment and make any good changes to economy. We will also work on improving our economy, but we will think of environment-healthy ways of doing so because the protection of environment is a very important factor in the health of citizens worldwide.

I would also like Con side to answer what is so bad about trying to protect people's health. Like I have said before, we aren't trying to abandon the economy, but we will implement programs such as cap-and-trade to help reduce the amount of pollution and help improve the environment.
LeighMelb

Con

LeighMelb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by justinp23 1 year ago
justinp23
Why did con forfeit all rounds?
Posted by justinp23 1 year ago
justinp23
Why did con forfeit all rounds?
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Economic development and environmental protection aren't mutually exclusive. If by 'economic development', you include external costs (such as by looking at green GDPs), it's easy to argue that environmental destruction in excess is economically unsound.
Posted by justinp23 1 year ago
justinp23
The pro will pwn the con
No votes have been placed for this debate.