THe fact of the matter is that the opposing side claims that without resource extraction, there isn't an economy. Well without an environment, there isn't a government for the economy to be based on because there is no where for this government to be stabilized. Developing countries are constantly being diminished by powerhouses like china, who have caused mudslides in Venezuela, crude oil lakes in Sudan, and Sinopec (oil firm) has explored all in a Gabonese national park; these were all under China's maintenance. With the prioritization of environmental protection, the environment will stay safe and alive for longer, allowing the economy to still be sustained but over longer periods of time based off the fact that with the environment preserved longer, that will just mean the extraction would be taken slower, and on more humane terms. Ultimately creating more jobs for the indigenous people, and saving the environment from destruction, deaths, and disaster.
Conflict between environmental protection and economic benefits happen. Activities like mining, logging, and the like are examples of such conflict. A country must either have the other, it cannot have both at all time. But when that happens, environmental protection must prevail over economic benefits because the former once lost, it's lost forever. On the other hand, there are many activities aside from the above-mentioned that can help a country to enjoy economic success.
Yes because the right to a clean and safe environment is an important and essential human right that should not be denied on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, or position in the global economic system. When resource extraction compromises this essential human right, it worsens the livelihood of people.
Environmental Protection requires Economic Growth
Although we often think of the areas where the economy and the environment clash, we
also must consider that protecting and preserving ecosystems requires proactive
involvement from society—which is not possible with a weak and unstable economy.
The logic here is simple. If developing countries are suffering economically, they are less
likely to focus on cleaning up trash in ecosystems, utilize environmentally friendly green
energies that are more costly, or attempt to reduce harmful emissions from
industrialization. On the flip side, when a developing state first prioritizes strong
economic growth, it then can look to environmental protection. An application
demonstrating the veracity of this contention is Brazil. Brazil has over the past few
decades been one of the fastest developing economies in the world, with increasingly
modern infrastructure, rising employment, and a better standard of living for its citizens.
However this economic growth has allowed Brazil to better protect its environment in a
variety of ways, including huge reductions in harmful carbon emissions by slashing
deforestation. Brazil has prevented 3.2 billions tons of carbon dioxide from being
released into the atmosphere while saving over 33,000 square miles of forests. Clearly,
environmental protection is actually aided when developing countries experience
These people are poor, starving, and we tell them to impose these restrictions. We have more wealth we can bare more of the burden.
But it really wouldn't be that much of a problem if we wouldn't do things like subsidize agriculture and destroy the ability of third world farmers to compete. If we do that and if we eliminate world hunger (which is doable by a coordinated international effort, in some cases giving people food stamps or some equivalent would suffice since famines are rarely ever caused by lack of food, it's lack of affordability) and help turn developing economies into developed ones then we should demand they start cutting emissions.
There should be a balance however being overly concerned with the environmental effects of harvesting resources leads to higher costs and the use of foreign resources that are harvested at the same or even higher cost to the environment. In my opinion very modest regulation on methods should be introduced and enforced however if there is no other way to obtain whatever material then there should be no negative repercussions from using a method of extraction that causes harm.