THBT the government ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection -2 PDF

Preview

Summary

This is all the information you would need for this debate in the class...

Description

Government ● Poverty, according to the United Nations, is more than the lack of income and resources to ensure a sustainable livelihood ● Its manifestations include: ○ hunger and malnutrition ○ limited access to education and other basic services ○ social discrimination, ○ and exclusion ● Before arguing as to why the House ought to consider the importance of global poverty reduction over environmental protection, ○ the Government would like to stress that in no way, shape, or form are we undermining the moral obligation humans have to protecting their environment or the great challenge the global community faces in its resolve to restore the environment to it’s pre-Industrial condition ● With that said, however, the Government is ardent in its belief that eradicating poverty and the dehumanizing conditions that accompany it is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development ● Accordingly, the Government seeks to convince the House that the issue of global poverty reduction is a far more consequential and urgent matter than that of environmental protection on the premises that: ○ Governments are supposed to protect people first and foremost ○ Poverty directly affects humans as opposed to the far-fetched consequences of environmental change and ○ The effects of climate change can be alleviated when due attention is given to individuals in poverty stricken areas ● One of the purposes of government, as ascribed in the Preamble of our Constitution, is to “promote the general Welfare” ● Our constitutional model of what the Government’s inherent purpose is transcends internationally, meaning Governments are generally instituted to protect the welfare of the people  in their jurisdiction ● Government is but an organized group of individuals, with certain powers and responsibilities bestowed upon it by the people ● Global poverty is having an extremely deleterious impact now , whereas climate change only might  have a comparably negative impact in the future . Because it is more important to prioritize problems that are most immediate to humans, the Government should prioritize global poverty reduction first and foremost ● Although the United Nations Development Program estimates that extreme poverty rates have been cut by more than half since 1990, ○ one in five people in developing regions still live on less than $1.90 a day, which places them in the arena of extreme poverty ○ It’s important to consider that this statistic discounts individuals who lay barely above the impoverished bracket and risk falling back due to economic shocks ○ When considering them, the percentage increases dramatically

● These astounding numbers may come as a shock to many, but they certainly convey the dire situation many are in and should further the House’s resolve that global poverty reduction should be prioritized over environmental protection ● It’s important to further note that according to the American Psychological Association, living in poverty is linked with negative conditions such as substandard housing, homelessness, inadequate nutrition and food insecurity, inadequate child care, lack of access to health care, unsafe neighborhoods, and under resourced schools which adversely impact children ● In fact, according to the National Poverty Center, child poverty costs an estimated $500 billion a year to the U.S. economy ● Globally, the economic toll of poverty is far more extensive, especially in Asia and Africa, where in many regions, according to the Pew Research Center, more than 90% of the population earns less than $10 a day ● Global poverty directly plagues a significant portion of the world and causes extreme suffering, while global climate change may not directly impact standards of living and survival to such an alarming extent ● With that said, however, the Government believes that the goals of environmental protection and global poverty reduction could go hand-in-hand if the House decided to prioritize the former first ● For example, let’s look at deforestation, a subject of much concern to environmental protectionists ● Deforestation and poverty are locked in a harmful relationship. ● According to the Human Development Report the UNDP released in 2015, for the 1.3 billion people worldwide who live in extreme poverty on less than $1.25 a day, forests directly contribute to 90 percent of their livelihoods. ● To survive, some of these people clear the land for subsistence agriculture, chopping down even protected forests to grow food for their families while others rely on it as an illegal source of revenue ● Reducing this dependence on forests for a living could greatly reduce rates of deforestation in critically endangered forests in the Amazon, India, and elsewhere ● However, this cannot be accomplished without progressing those in need forward, and it’s for this reason that it’s imperative to tackle poverty first, as an unintentional consequence would be the improvement of the environment ● The same HDR report explicitly stated that “it is often the case that people and countries make an explicit trade off, accepting long-term environmental degradation to meet their immediate needs. In many marginal, rural areas growing populations inevitably lead to daily degradation of the environment for subsistence, depleting not only the current environment but also future availability.” ● As the Government has proved, the interaction of poverty and environmental degradation sets off a downward spiral of ecological deterioration that threatens the physical security, economic well being and health of many of the region’s poorest people ○ Yet such consequences can be deterred if the Government chooses to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection and carry out their

fundamental duty to protect and center policy around the direct needs of the peoples in their jurisdiction

Specific Rebuttals (for Government) ● I extend my gratitude to the valid points just presented by the Opposition. The Government will now directly address several components of the Opposition’s argument. ○ Start each point with: (Now the Government may mention/has mentioned) ● Issue of climate change is as important as poverty, if not more important ○ Again, the Government isn’t attempting to downplay the effects of climate change and will concede that the concerns brought forth by the Opposition are tangible and need to be addressed ○ However we just want to reaffirm the fact that, we the Government, have been instituted in order to protect people and foremost ○ That is where our primary obligation is ○ Private organizations and people can band together to accomplish goals that overdo that of which we the Government have thus far accomplished ○ The facts are that we, the Government, are and have been trying to fight climate change ○ Although our current President, unfortunately had us reject the Paris agreement, we have made several improvements ○ According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. ○ That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union. ○ Here’s what the Opposition has failed to recognize ○ By prioritizing global poverty reduction, many of our efforts would contribute to indirectly improving the environment, as the 2 are essentially related ● Climate change directly affects the poor and we can’t fix poverty without first helping the environment ○ The Government agrees that global poverty reduction and environmental protection go hand-in-hand, however, the Government’s primary responsibility is to its people ○ Here’s the problem with the Opposition’s argument ○ They fail to recognize that direct intervention into impoverished regions will yield more benefits than if we were to simply wait for long term improvements with environmental protection ○ This is what the House ought to do. We ought to: ■ Engage directly with community leaders in impoverished regions ■ Focus on improving trade opportunities for the poor ■ Provide some sort of work incentive ■ And encourage investment into impoverished regions ○ Those actions, in the Government’s view, will tackle poverty and climate change ○ So yes, although environmental protection policies may help the impoverished to some extent, direct intervention will surely be more beneficial ● Disease outbreaks in impoverished regions are a result of poor environmental protection policy

○ Although the Government will concede that disease outbreaks can often be correlated with a warmer climate, it’s important to note that the best way to save people in those situations is to evacuate and educate ○ Evacuating them will move them out of harm’s way and education on natural disasters will allow them to act more efficiently in a state of crisis ○ It’s important to further note that, according to the organization Health Poverty Action, lack of education on diseases can lead to a spike in HIV and pneumonia rates ○ The Government therefore believes that, instead of focusing on environmental protection, the best way to tackle the spread of disease is to evacuate the impoverished and give them the resources to understand epidemics like this ○ If we were to prioritize global poverty reduction, we’d lift millions from shambles and make them less susceptible to disease in the first place ● There have been improvements with poverty and not with environmental protection ○ Yes, it is true that there have been significant improvements with poverty reduction, as the UN estimates global poverty rates have been cut in half since 1990 ○ However, that doesn’t mean the government should disregard poverty reduction in favor of environmental protection ○ We, as the international community, must live up to our Social Development goals for the year 2030 and completely eradicate poverty ○ Only then can we restore the integrity to the lives of millions across the world who desperately need our aid ○ And hopefully, by prioritizing global poverty, we can not only eradicate poverty worldwide, but create a more hospitable global environment in so doing

Main Rebuttal (Government) ● As the Government has proven, it’s imperative that the House take measures to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection as we would not only live up to our sustainable development goals but improve directly the lives of millions living in dehumanized conditions worthy of great concern

Opposition ● Before the Opposition begins, we’d like to stress to the House that we don’t intend on downplaying the detrimental effects of poverty on the humanity of an individual, as poverty is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges our century faces ● With that said, however, the Opposition believes that the mounting evidence on the threat of climate change rightfully makes environmental protection a legislative priority as well ● The Opposition would like to point out that, as the resolution is quite loose-ended, we intend on arguing why the House should give equal  prioritization to environmental protection and global poverty reduction, not favoring the former over the latter ● The Opposition’s resolve is as such because: ○ Climate change is a crisis as urgent as poverty ○ The goals of environmental protection and poverty reduction are complementary ○ The effects of climate change will hit impoverished communities hardest ○ And paying attention to environmental protection as well can help reduce global conflict over scarce resources, a conflict that disproportionately hurts the poor ● Let’s understand that climate change is set to exacerbate poverty both directly and indirectly ● Extreme weather events can cause direct damage to agriculture, people’s property, lives, livelihoods and infrastructure ● The frequency of climate-related disasters has been increasing and their amplitude growing. ● Not only can they have grave consequences for productivity when they occur, but there may be serious repercussions for post-disaster reconstruction and resilience of the natural environment and infrastructure. ● Indirectly, there can be long term effects on economic growth and social development. ● And impoverished people are most vulnerable to this ● According to environmental experts at NASA, in comparison to Earth’s ancient, or paleoclimate, current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming ● The rate of climate change has been steadily accelerating so much so that according to NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. ● They also found that 2016 was the warmest year on record ● The repercussions of these worrisome statistics have resulted in shrinking ice sheets, warmer oceans, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, and a marked increase in extreme weather events ● Here’s where it becomes even more troublesome though ● Although the global community has made significant strides to combat poverty, the same cannot be said about environmental protection ● The United Nations Development Program estimates that extreme poverty rates have been cut by more than half since 1990 ● Meanwhile, nations haven’t lived up to their environmental protection goals

● The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize at 450 ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4 degrees C. ● In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, we’d need to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 ● However, only a handful of European countries have achieved any  reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol ● As a result, the global community will not be able to sustain its goal on reducing climate change, yet we already have taken significant strides with poverty as aforementioned ● What further complicates the situation is that, while the U.S. and European nations make efforts to reduce their emissions, rapidly industrializing nations like China are causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation ● And although President Xi Jinping a couple months ago revealed an ambitious plan to curb climate change that galvanized environmental protectionists, here are the facts ○ Like the West before it, China built its development on the back of dirty energy: petroleum burned by vehicles and coal burned in power plants and industrial facilities ● According to the Yale Press and the American Chemical Society, in China, the widespread production and consumption of toxic chemicals in industrialization and agricultural production have polluted water and air and contaminated farmland, contributing to the emergence of as many as 400  so-called “cancer villages,” in areas where rates of cancer are unusually high. ● Overall, China has had an 80 percent increase in cancer rates compared with 30 years ago ● Yes, a lot of the impacts of climate change have affected urban centers in China, but many poorer farmers have also been hurt by these toxins, with many of their waters becoming too contaminated for personal and efficient crop use and they’ve had to suffer premature deaths ● So here’s the thing ● We can go ahead and focus on poverty reduction first, but that won’t change the fact that climate change makes it difficult for poorer farmers across the world to properly do their jobs ● They can’t produce the right crop yield due to that, and then there you have it, the cycle of poverty is further propagated ● We need to pay more attention to environmental protection, now o r else we’re just making conditions worse for the impoverished across the world, China standing as a prime example of that ● The truth is that climate change is an acute threat to global development and efforts to end poverty, yet the Government doesn’t seem to understand that ● The UN released a haunting report in 2016, stating that up to 122 million persons could be forced to extreme poverty by 2030 due to climate change ● The report stated that climate change is “a major and growing threat to global food security”

● In addition, as aforementioned, NASA reported that the recent increase in extreme weather events can be attributed to a rise in global temperatures ● As is obvious, the poor are most impacted by this, and the World Bank estimates that 26 million individuals are pushed into poverty annually bc of natural disasters ● You can’t defend the indefensible. ● Let’s be frank here. ● Tackling climate change could perhaps be the most instrumental policy in preventing this increase in extreme poverty, a dire problem indeed ● It’s the inherent failure of the international community to produce a cohesive platform on climate change that has lead to these horrendous statistics, occuring now, and worsening in our near future ● Even today, according to the World Bank, climate events are already involved in many cases where households fall into poverty. ● An example the World Bank cites is the Russian drought of 2010, where wheat prices rose 90%, a price shock that left many Russian croppers in shambles ● How can we expect the impoverished to bounce back from events like that when they’re more impacted by these negative shocks, lose more when affected as a proportion of their income, receive less support from family, friends, and community, and have less access to financial tools or social safety nets to help prevent, prepare for, and manage impacts? ● And all that disregards the health shocks these people may undergo as they’re more susceptible to disease in the upcoming decades ● According to Harvard’s Center for Global Health and the environment, warming may be causing malaria, for instance, to spread to higher elevations on mountains in East Africa and waterborne infections will become more common in impoverished regions if we don’t develop a comprehensive environmental protection platform ● These infections most often cause diarrheal illness and flourish in the wake of heavy rainfalls as runoff from land enters into and may contaminate water supplies. Many pathogens that cause these diseases reproduce more quickly in warmer conditions as well ● If we go ahead and prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection, we’d be making a dreadful mistake and in fact exacerbate the problem more ● If we don’t address these features of climate change worldwide first and foremost, hand-in-hand with global poverty reduction, our efforts will be futile, as you can’t reduce poverty without bettering these environmental conditions

● The Government’s proposition is dangerous, as we’d simply be delaying the worst, and the environment would continue to worsen along with poverty rates that, as we’ve demonstrated, can be quite dependent on environmental conditions ● And here we are, debating whether the Government should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection ● Well, here’s the truth. As the Opposition has demonstrated, ○ Without widespread adoption of sustainable land, water, fisheries and forestry practices, global poverty cannot be eradicated ● So how can the Government try to prioritize global poverty reduction, when that can’t be accomplished by making environmental protection an equal, if not more important point of policy?

Specific Rebuttal (for Opposition) ● I extend my gratitude to the valid points just presented by the Government. The Opposition will now directly address several components of the Opposition’s argument. ○ Start each point with: (Now the Opposition may mention/has mentioned) ● Poverty is a greater threat to international peace than climate change and more urgent ○ Although the Opposition isn’t downplaying the effects of poverty, as the concerns put forth by the Government are imperative to address, we wholly disagree ○ The reason for much international conflict is competition for scarce resources, e...