Jan/Feb 2014 A!

2 Case
I stand in rm a!rmation of the resolution Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conict. For clarication, I o"er the following denitions: Developing Countries: a poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially (Oxford Dictionary) Should: used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do (Cambridge) Prioritize: establish status in order of importance or urgency (wordnet.princeton.edu) Environmental Protection: any activity to maintain or restore the quality of environmental media through preventing the emission of pollutants or reducing the presence of polluting substances in environmental media. It may consist of: (a) changes in characteristics of goods and services, (b) changes in consumption patterns, (c) changes in production techniques, (d) treatment or disposal of residuals in separate environmental protection facilities, (e) recycling, and (f) prevention of degradation of the landscape and ecosystems. (OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD.org) Resource Extraction: any action which removes or separates resources from the places in which they exist, with resource being dened as a source of supply or support (Merriam-Webster) Conict: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles (Merriam-Webster)

Observation 1: Because the resolution explicitly states the prioritization of environmental protection over resource extraction only when the two are in conict, we must be looking at natural resources that are being extracted. Observation 2: The a" is not trying to prove that natural resources should never be excavated. Only when the two are in conict must we prioritize environmental protection. Once a necessary amount protected, the rest can be extracted. The a" is only here to ensure a protection of needed resources for the future. As dened, a developing country is one that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially. Because developing countries are ones that are focused on moving forward, the value of this round is Quality of the Future. Dened as doing not necessarily whats best for now but denitely will benet us later, it is only by looking towards the future and what creates the best scenario possible that we can decide what is right and wrong in terms of this resolution. In order to determine the best Quality of the Future a developing country can have, I o"er the criterion of consequentalism. Dened as the idea the value and especially the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences. Therefore, in order to decide on this resolution we must look to what the consequences are. When we do it is very easy to see that the a!rmation is the side to best ensure a greater Quality of Future for developing countries. Contention 1: Resource extraction directly devastates the environment The rst consequence we must look at is the destruction of the natural resources that are so essential to improving a developing countrys economy. Amanda Beckrich said:

Deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, groundwater depletion, soil erosion, ozone depletion, water contamination, photochemical smog - most environmental problems can be traced to human population growth and consumption patterns. With each additional person comes increased demand for land, food, water, and natural resources in general. (THE SCIENCE TEACHER, September 2013) Mark Strauss of the SMITHSONIAN said: The world is on track for disaster. So says Australian physicist Graham Turner, who revisited perhaps the most groundbreaking academic work of the 1970s, the Limits to Growth. Written by MIT researchers the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030 (SMITHSONIAN, April 2012) It is clear to see that if we look at the consequences of our actions, by judging through the criterion of consequentialism, that the only way to assure a sound Quality of Future is through the a!rmation. Otherwise, we risk global economic collapse and precipitous population decline in a malthusian catastrophe for these developing countries. Contention 2: Resource extraction is not the solution to economic problems While considering the Future for a developing country we have to look at the economic benets to problems. When we do, the negative consequences of prioritizing resource extraction far outweigh the benets. Subpoint A: Resource extraction hurts economic stability

Chris Ceiregat (Deputy Division Chief, IMFs Finance Department) & Susan Yang (Sr. Economist, IMFs Research Department) said: Countries that export natural resources, particularly oil, must deal with considerable volatility in export prices [] Fiscal policy tends to swing in sync with commodity prices. The result is that government revenues have, on average, been 60% more volatile in resource-rich countries, and spending volatility has been even greater. (FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT, September 2013) The only way to experience economic stability with prioritized resource extraction is to have well-developed domestic nancial markets, which is something that currently developing countries lack. In the case of this resolution we cannot prioritize something that has the negative consequence of economic instability. History has proven that resource extraction does not help the economy. Andrew Warner (Resident Scholar, IMFs Research Department) said: In my research, I examined boom period in 20 economies (other than those mentioned above) and found that only 3 of 20 0 Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Mozambique - achieved signicant positive growth. Of the rest, 13 su"ered negative growth in the non-resource part of the economy. These results challenge commonly used economic models that assume countries will automatically grown whenever public capital investment increases. The GDP growth data hints at negative returns. Despite huge resource revenues (and signicant domestic investment outside the natural resource sector) growth has been disappointing in resource-rich countries. (FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT, September 2013) 85% of countries fail to show growth under a resource extraction prioritized economy, with 64% even experiencing negative growth. We simply cannot prioritize resource extraction when we examine the consequences. The future will not be of

worth for these countries that so much need economic growth. On the other hand, environmental protection serves a much better purpose for the economy. Subpoint B: A green economy stimulates economic growth In the long run, when we look at what makes a quality future, it is through transitioning to a green economy where we can have economic development hand in hand with investing in and protecting the environment. This is a way to better economic stability for developing countries. Positive consequences. Achim Steiner continues saying: Indeed, a green economy o"ers multiple opportunities for developing countries, including least developed countries (LDCs), to increase livelihoods and preserve the natural environment. Our current economic growth model and the associated development approach have failed to reduce poverty and generate employment among poor communities. In some developing countries, up to 90% of GDP in linked to nature or natural capital, such as forests and freshwater. (INTERNATIONAL TRADE FORUM, January-March, 2012) When environmental resources are such an important piece of capital, they must be protected rst in order to ensure a quality future for developing countries. It is only through a transition to a green economy from our current economic growth model that we can have hope of having positive consequences in places so desperately in need of economic stability In Conclusion:

When we look at this resolution through consequentialism in order to decide what will give developing countries a greater quality of future it is clear that we must a!rm. When not only Resource Extraction hurts the economy, but transitioning to a green economy will stimulate the economy, its clear that the right choice for the futures of developing countries is to prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conict. There is no other way to better ensure the quality of the future for them.

Denition of a Green Economy Sidi Diarra (UN Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States): Pursuing a green economy entails a global transition away from prevailing ecologically destabilizing patterns of development to modes of development based on environmental protection. With a view to undertaking such a transition, a mix of policies and measures tailored to each countrys needs and preferences will be required. For these vulnerable countries, many of which have not experienced carbon intensive and heavy industrialization, consumption and production, the notion of a green economy o"ers and opens up many prospects. (UN CHRONICLE, March-June 2012)

Arguments against Social Contract on Neg side Gustavo Jononovich:

Since the early 1990s Latin America has seen signicant growth in foreign investment in mining and agriculture. Land has been opened up to multinational companies with few protections for the people who live on it. (NIEMAN REPORTS, Summer 2012) Governments advocating prioritization of resource extraction over environmental protection are hurting their people, as in this case. The social contract is thus void. Larry Diamond (Director, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford) & Jack Mosbacher (Stanford): Equatorial Guinea has exported as many as 400000 barrels of oil a day since 1995, a bonanza that has made the country wealthier, in terms of GDP per capita, than France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Little of this wealth however, has helped the vast majority of Equatorial Guineas 700,000 people: today, three out of every four Equatorial Guineans live on less than $2 a day, and infant mortality rates in the country have barely budged since oil was rst discovered there. (FOREIGN AFFAIRS, September-October, 2013) There is no evidence that prioritizing resource extraction actually helps the developing countries citizens and is able to fulll the social contract. Social contract = void.