Champion Briefs

Copyright 2013 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.

The$Evidence$Standard$$ $ January$2014$!

Champion)Briefs) ) 3$

$The$Evidence!Standard$

!!

Speech!and!Debate!provides!a!meaningful!and!educational!experience!to!all!who!are!involved.!

We,!as!educators!in!the!community,!believe!that!it!is!our!responsibility!to!provide!resources!that!

uphold!the!foundation!of!the!Speech!and!Debate!activity.!Champion!Briefs,!its!employees,!

managers,!and!associates!take!an!oath!to!uphold!the!following!Evidence!Standard:!

!

1. We!will!never!falsify!facts,!opinions,!dissents,!or!any!other!information.!

2. We!will!never!knowingly!distribute!information!that!has!been!proven!to!be!inaccurate,!

even!if!the!source!of!the!information!is!legitimate.!

3. We!will!actively!fight!the!dissemination!of!false!information!and!will!provide!the!

community!with!clarity!if!we!learn!that!a!thirdEparty!has!attempted!to!commit!deception.!

4. We!will!never!support!or!distribute!studies,!news!articles,!or!other!materials!that!use!

inaccurate!methodologies!to!reach!a!conclusion!or!prove!a!point.!

5. We!will!provide!meaningful!clarification!to!any!who!question!the!legitimacy!of!

information!distributed!by!ourselves!or!by!any!thirdEparty.!

6. We!will!actively!contribute!to!students’!understanding!of!the!world!by!using!evidence!

from!a!multitude!of!perspectives!and!schools!of!thought.!

7. We!will,!within!our!power,!assist!the!community!as!a!whole!in!its!mission!to!achieve!the!

goals!and!vision!of!this!activity.!

!

These!seven!statements,!while!seemingly!simple,!represent!the!complex!notion!of!what!it!means!

to!advance!students’!understanding!of!the!world!around!them,!as!is!the!purpose!of!educators.!

Table&of&Contents&& & Jan/Feb&2013&!!

Champion)Briefs) ) 4&

Table&of&Contents&&

The Evidence Standard ______________________________ 3 Topic Analyses ____________________________________ 12

Topic Analysis by Michael Fried ________________________________ 13 Topic Analysis by Brian Hodge _________________________________ 25 Topic Analysis by Paige MacKenzie _____________________________ 34 Topic Analysis by Josh Roberts _________________________________ 42 Topic Analysis by Jack Ave ____________________________________ 49

Frameworks ______________________________________ 56 Evidence for the Affirmative _________________________ 62 Monitoring the Environment ___________________________ 63 Developing countries cant and wont monitor their emissions – international backlash and low tech. _______________________________ 63 Rich countries haven’t given the developing countries the cash needed. ___ 64 There is no enforcement mechanism. _______________________________ 65 Developing governments’ focus on resources harms international mining companies. ____________________________________________________ 66 Foreign economic investment will happen with focus on resources. _______ 67 Developing countries are hurt the worst by environmental issues. ________ 68 The polluter should pay for the impacts of the pollution. _______________ 69 There are many competing interests when it comes to environmental policy in developing countries. ____________________________________ 70 It is often difficult to identify the indigenous peoples of a region where resources are being extracted. _____________________________________ 71 Environmental Impacts _______________________________ 72 Global warming causes global resource wars. ________________________ 72



Without environmental protection, climate change can cause massive war of resources, which could escalate into large conflict. __________________ 74 Even a small rise in global temperature would lead to mass starvation despite CO2 fertilization—the result is extinction. ____________________ 76 Deforestation has drastic global consequences. _______________________ 77 Developing countries are the most heavily affected by global warming based on GDP. _________________________________________________ 79 Developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change – multiple reasons. ______________________________________________________ 80 No resources without an environment in developing countries – they control food production, which is a key internal link to economic growth. Lack of environmental protections means disaster. ____________________ 81 The polluter-pays principle solves for environmental harms. ____________ 83 Environmental protection is key to keeping a stable economy. ___________ 84 Environmental protection can save lives and help the economy. _________ 85 Extraction Harms the Environment _____________________ 86 Stopping resource extraction can stop deforestation. __________________ 86 Extraction, specifically oil booms, can be devastating for development. ___ 87 African development will be atrocious – will create authoritarianism if they tap their oil reserves. ________________________________________ 88 Literally no oil state in Africa has avoided an increase into corruption after tapping into oil. It’s democratic backsliding. ____________________ 89 Sustainable African extraction requires a power-to-the-people system that has not yet been established. __________________________________ 90 Resource curse is real – six reasons. ________________________________ 91 Biotic resource extraction can lead to over-extraction and decreased yield. Fishing as a case study. _____________________________________ 92 Resource extraction always creates environmental harms. ______________ 93 Resource extraction causes socio-political harms. _____________________ 94 River water quality goes down with economic development. ____________ 95 Economic development fails to decrease carbon emission levels. _________ 96 In Nigeria, oil drilling has led to negative utilitarian impacts. ___________ 97 Oil spills in Nigeria have had horrible ecological consequences for locals. __ 98



Extraction Unequally Harms People ____________________ 100 Resource extraction unequally harms individuals based on social class and geographic location. ________________________________________ 100 When nations prioritize resource extraction, human environmental rights abuses occur because of the prioritization of national interests over individuals. ___________________________________________________ 101 Policy makers justify hazardous actions by distancing themselves from the people who are harmed. _____________________________________ 102 Scientific research is used to distance policy makers from the negative effects their policies have on the environment. _______________________ 103 Population growth (development) empirically leads to deforestation. ____ 105 Extraction trades off with public goods – kills growth. ________________ 107 Developing countries more likely to use violence, but this violence props up an unequal exchange and allows rich countries to appear unaccountable. ________________________________________________ 108 Studies have found a correlation between oil extraction and authoritarianism in the Middle East. ______________________________ 110 Resource extraction leads to financial instability. ____________________ 111 Focus on resources is inversely correlated with education levels. ________ 112 Focus on resource extraction stops social class movement. _____________ 113 Focus on resource extraction creates an economic cycle that only causes more harm to the environment. __________________________________ 114 The environmental consequences of resource usage harm the poor who cannot keep up. _______________________________________________ 115 Resource extraction in Rwanda leads to a vicious cycle of poverty. ______ 116 The nature of certain pharmacological extraction methods means that justice may not be distributive. ___________________________________ 117

Extraction Favors Capitalism and Western Domination ____ 118 While seeking resources, countries assert their domination. This is the root cause of human right abuses. ________________________________ 118 Resource extraction is aggressive exploitation that links to capitalism. ___ 119 Ecological degradation is a result of capitalism, so extraction ultimately just entrenches the domination of the already rich country. ____________ 120



The global economic system robs third world countries blind when it comes to resource extraction – prioritizing resources dooms the developing countries from the start. _______________________________ 122 Rapid extraction can cement existing power relations and can subjugate different peoples. ______________________________________________ 124 Developing countries are threatened into resource extraction. __________ 125 Resource extraction is historically associated with violence. ____________ 126 Developing countries perceive it as a rich countries problem – they want it to be an issue of fairness. ______________________________________ 128 Resource extraction can lead to government corruption. ______________ 129 Developed countries use developing countries for cheap resources at the cost of the environment. ________________________________________ 130 The African diamond industry has been taken over by non-state actors. __ 131 Resource extraction in Africa allows militias to commit acts of violence. __ 132 Fear of nationalization means resource extraction firms will try to stop economic development. _________________________________________ 133 Resource extraction harms democratically elected governments. ________ 134 The resource extraction industry re-entrenches authoritarian regimes. __ 135 International Agreements are Key ______________________ 136 International agreements are key to success of environmental protections – developing countries cant solve on their own. ______________________ 136 Transparency initiatives are a good first step, but they can’t solve the corruption. ___________________________________________________ 137 Tariffs in developed countries destroy the economic benefits of resource extraction. ___________________________________________________ 138 The nature of developing governments deters economic benefits of resource extraction. ____________________________________________ 139 Prioritizing the Environment is Obligatory _______________ 140 Reliance on resources strips the planet because of perceived human needs; we must acknowledge the value of nature. ____________________ 140 Protecting the environment is crucial. We don’t have time to spare because the effects may become irreversible. ________________________ 141 Businesses have a moral obligation to be ecologically sustainable. _______ 142



By prioritizing resource extraction, we view the Earth as an instrument for human ends in which we can abuse; this is the root cause of the environmental crisis. ___________________________________________ 143 A focus on the developing countries helping the environment is misguided – this is a global issue. __________________________________________ 145 Poor countries cannot just wave a magic wand to create environmental protections, they need funding. ___________________________________ 146 The amount of natural resources in developing countries has a negative relationship with economic development. ___________________________ 147 Developing countries need to focus on the environment, advanced countries will be fine either way. __________________________________ 148 Aquaculture waste creates a cycle that destroys biotic natural resources. _ 149 Aquaculture harms native biodiversity. ____________________________ 150 !Evidence for the Negative __________________________ 152 A/T Environmental Degradation Claims ________________ 153 Studies of environmental degradation must take sociology into account. __ 153 There may not be a direct correlation between development and environmental degradation. _______________________________________ 154 Natural gas doesn’t solve the Co2 problem – other countries, the market, and methane leaks make the switch to Co2 benign. ____________________ 155 Economic growth solves environmental degradation in the developing world—creates incentives for more efficient use of natural resources. ____ 156 Environmental degradation poses the largest threat to developing countries. ______________________________________________________ 157 Attempts to curb environmental destruction globally would cost developing countries more than developed countries. __________________ 159 Addressing climate change is creating more problems than its solving. ___ 160 Extraction is Key ___________________________________ 162 Developing countries cannot secure the environment without a stable middle class – nearly impossible without securing economic growth; they need resources first. ______________________________________________ 162



No link between resource extraction and conflict. _____________________ 163 International monitoring can solve oil money exploitation. _____________ 164 Small-scale mining decreases the gender gap in employment. ___________ 165 Small-scale mining is the key to alleviating poverty in developing countries. ______________________________________________________ 166 There are alternatives to ‘dirty’ resource extraction that can be effective. _ 167 Studies prove that resource extraction can be environmentally friendly. __ 168 Finding and extracting resources leads to long-term economic growth – empirics prove. __________________________________________________ 169 Lack of restrictions on resource extraction is key to solve overpopulation. 170 Mineral extraction aids the GNP of developing countries. ______________ 171 The economic benefits of resource extraction outweigh environmental concerns. _______________________________________________________ 172 Focus on resource extraction leads to increased levels of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). _______________________________________________ 173 Africa can fight poverty with resource extraction and still protect the environment. ___________________________________________________ 174 Lack of resources leads to war – Several countries prove. ______________ 175 Lack of resources leads to war – Rwanda proves. _____________________ 176 Resource extraction has fueled the economy of developing countries for years. __________________________________________________________ 177 Resource extraction increases transnational communication and helps state recognize national interests.___________________________________ 178 Science helps even resource competition for developing countries. _______ 179 Research investments will stop rapid depletion of resources. U.S. case study. __________________________________________________________ 181 In the United States, resource extraction aided economic development. ___ 182 Conflict Between Nations _____________________________ 183 Developing countries are lagging because they expected the US to care. ___ 183 Western countries believe that developing countries are the problem and they hurt western nations – they think Western intervention is key. ______ 184



Poor countries see the West as colonialist in their environmental policies; the West sees poorer countries as dangerous. _________________________ 185 Capitalism is good for the environment _____________________________ 186 It’s unreasonable to force poor people in developing countries to adapt environmental policies. ___________________________________________ 187 The word ‘Developing’ creates a perception that creates an unfair situation. _______________________________________________________ 188 Portraying developing nations as a homogenous, poor entity disables developed nations to compare their decision-making calculus. __________ 189 Environmental protection is a tool of consumerism – used to fuel the global capitalist economy. _________________________________________ 191 Resource endowed countries do not run out of natural resources. ________ 193 Peru is effectively utilizing its mineral resources. _____________________ 194 The Economy is the Top Priority _______________________ 195 Developing countries only want to act when they see an economic benefit. 195 Developed countries are abandoning their environmental policies because of the economy. _________________________________________________ 196 China isn’t fixing it right now either; could be because of developed countries backpedaling. __________________________________________ 197 Chinese emissions high now but may decrease. _______________________ 198 China will only change for economic reasons – tangible reasons are key. __ 199 Brazil is also changing for economic reasons. Ball _____________________ 200 Developing countries unwilling to protect the environment without growth. ________________________________________________________ 201 Research shows that environmental quality rises with increased income of a country. Therefore, the economy is key in order to fight environmental problems. ______________________________________________________ 202 A strong economy is key to promoting environmental protection. ________ 203 Environmental protection is impossible without a stable economy. _______ 204 Economic growth causes rising living standards without sacrificing the health of the environment. ________________________________________ 205 Developing countries should focus on protection from the environment rather than protection of the environment. __________________________ 206



There is no resource curse if it’s accompanied by domestic investments. America is a prime example. ______________________________________ 208 Protection Ignores Key Groups ________________________ 209 Environmental protections have ignored minorities. ___________________ 209 Small-scale mining has empirical benefits across cultures and nations. ___ 210 Blind environmental protection may lead to human rights abuses. _______ 211 Environmental Protection Fails _______________________ 212 The “hand of the free market” is increasingly recognized as a myth, consensus is that the market can’t solve environmental destruction. ______ 212 Neo-classical models of the economy have destroyed the environment, modern standards of economic growth always crowd out issues of ecological health. ________________________________________________ 213 Sustainable development is a myth. _________________________________ 214 Polluter-pays fails and doesn’t protect the environment. Market solutions have mixed and often unpredictable results. _________________________ 215 A focus on global environmental protection statutes wouldn’t help developing countries. _____________________________________________ 217 Creating laws to protect the environment don’t work in a vacuum. They have to be assigned on a case-by-case basis. __________________________ 219 When dealing with environmental protection, forcing countries to adhere to policies may have negative side effects. ____________________________ 220 Western Environmental Policies hurt the people of developing countries – DDT ban proves. ________________________________________________ 221 Environmental protections are a mask – they seek to limit the ability for countries to develop. _____________________________________________ 222 Environmental legislation can be devastating if done incorrectly – usually by NGOS. ______________________________________________________ 223 End green protection now – its an issue of principles for the U.S. ________ 224

Topic&Analysis&by&Michael&Fried& Jan/Feb&2014&!!


Topic&Analysis&by&Michael&Fried&

Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource

extraction when the two are in conflict.

Introduction

The 2013 January/February resolution also acts as the Tournament of Champions topic so

it entails a longer period of debate. I noticed as a competitor that longer debates mean that Aff

cases I could win with in January were different than those that I could win with in April. This

fact personally altered the types of strategies I would be inclined to run during the totality of the

Jan/Feb topic. Personally, I would save the positions that I thought were the most strategic for

the TOC, and engage on more topical debates during Jan/Feb tournaments to have a refined

understanding of the best stock arguments. My topic analysis will, thus, explore dual-

interpretations of the topic: “developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over

resource extraction when the two conflict,” as some interpretations will be best suited for stock

topical debate, while others may be appropriate in isolated strategic circumstances.

Basic structural features about phrases in the resolution make this topic good for debaters

who want to run unique interpretations in rounds. I never debated a topic that used the word

“should,” so that initially stuck out to me after a first reading of the topic. “Should” functions as

the evaluative term for this resolution. Evaluative terms are verbs that generate the source of

burdens for both debaters. Typically, at least in the days of my debate career, resolutions used

words or phrases like: ought, ought not, justified, unjustified, is permissible, is not permissible.

Never have I ever seen a topic use the word “should”; so, to be honest, I initially laughed at the

resolution thinking about the new ways debaters can spin the evaluative term “should” to alter

traditional affirmative and negative burdens. Minimally, debaters need to be prepared to

precisely define “should” to offset their opponent’s definition.



On a more general note, however, the resolution seems extremely broad—another reason

why interpretative issues will remain highly important. The resolution gives us the terms,

“environmental protection,” and “resource extraction.” The vagueness of protection and

extraction means that the resolution does not have many natural topical limits. There are infinite

policies that states can justify in the name of environmental protection or resource extraction;

this resolution uniquely allows debaters to employ radically distinct ground under topical

interpretations of these terms as they seek fit. In this way, the core substance of the resolution is

itself up for debate—in thinking about the topic then, debaters should feel prepared to discuss,

research, and investigate a plethora of different types of examples of protecting the environment

and extracting resources. Indeed, the vagueness of these terms should force debaters to think

about crafting uniquely strategic cases that get out of traditional pitfalls that stock debate entails

for their respective side.

Finally, the phrase “when the two conflict” confuses me for multiple reasons, and I’m sure

will provide for non-clashing debates. The resolution employs two conceivable plural subjects,

first a plural subject “developing countries” and a double comparison between “environmental

protection” and “resource extraction.” As such, the pronoun “two” at the end of the resolution, in

the phrase “when the two conflict” becomes unclear—what exactly is the conflict of the

resolution? Is the conflict between two developing countries, or is it a general conflict between

environment and economy? There are multiple different types of cases that different

interpretations of the phrase “when the two conflict” can bring about. As such, debaters must

take the time to carefully choose interpretations of the NFL’s 2013 Jan/Feb resolution.

Key Terms

Developing Countries: This term will be the source of many T and kritikal positions. Negs will

run topicality based upon what particular conception of developing countries the Aff chooses to

defend in round. There are multiple interpretations of “developing countries.” On the one hand,

developing countries are states that are developing, so the resolution may be a question about the

obligations of all states in the world. In topic literature however, the term of art “developing



countries” seems to be exclusive of developed countries, in which the modifier “developing”

carries the connotation of that the country is “less-developed.” Under such an interpretation, the

Aff would defend the resolution as a question only about third world nations. In this sense,

topicality can inevitably be run on which of the two interpretations of “developing countries” the

Aff chooses to defend. More importantly, the latter interpretation of “developing countries,”

which paints these countries as having lesser or worse off living standards than first world

countries, seems to open up good kritikal and possibly even pre-fiat ground for negatives to

criticize affirmative’s discourse. To compensate, many Affs will specify a group of countries

internationally recognized as and considered to be developing. Specification of particular

developing countries will be very common for the duration of the topic so debaters should feel

the need to explore countries they are interested in and think about unique cases for those

countries. The most substantively engaging positions will be ones that are the most in-depth and

use great empirical evidence.

My favorite thing about the new resolution is the use of a new evaluative term, should.

This topic forces debaters to come up with new round-applicable interpretations of the word

“should.” “Should” implies there is reason that motivates action. The substance of the reason that

motivates action is not a specified condition of the word should. In this sense, “should” differs

from words like ought, because ought seems to imply a moral obligation so fuels the normativity

of morality in debate rounds. Should does not seem to imply morality. This leaves the gaping

question, what type of reason is sufficient to argue for the prioritization of environmental

protection over resource extraction? Because of this, I think this topic uniquely encourages

debaters to investigate different political theories that motivate state action. Arguments about the

cosmopolitan, realist, or moral nature of the state should be clarified or defended in frameworks

of affirmative cases, otherwise I think debates may lack clash. Additionally, I think both sides

can make new types of permissibility arguments regarding the nature of should, and, as such,

new clash over permissibility will exist on this topic. Debaters should challenge themselves to

think of warrants for permissibility for each side based off the word should, and be prepared to

defend against converse interpretations.



On a different note, “should” seems to imply a very straight forward efficacy-based

interpretation of the resolution, so “should” can be argued to wholly justify a comparative worlds

util-based policy approach to adjudicating rounds. I suspect this will motivate a great majority of

debaters to run plans.

Prioritize is one of the more straight-forward terms in the resolution as it seems to imply the aff

must show environmental protection should come before issues of resource extraction when the

two conflict. But, debaters can always find a way to problematize even the seemingly most

innocuous word like prioritize. Affirmatives must be careful to watch for negative debaters who

try to argue the resolution is false based upon a nuance in the meaning of the word prioritize.

Environmental Protection is officially defined by the Organisation for Economic co-Operation

and Development:

“Environmental protection refers to 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.” 1

The vast number of actions that qualify as “Environmental Protection” means the

affirmative likely has a lot of ground to cover and should pick a policy that appeals to them.

Alternatively, the resolution may be interpreted as a more general question, in which the

principle of protecting the environment is the source of affirmative ground. In such a case,

specification would be unnecessary as the resolution would be a more abstract question.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=836.!Definition!of!“Environmental!Protection”.!Glossary!of!Environment!Statistics,!Studies!in!Methods,!Series!F,!No.!67,!United!Nations,!New!York,!1997.!



On a different level, “environmental protection” is vague, which leads me to ask myself a

few questions. Does the Aff assume solvency for environmental protection? Can the Neg win

by proving that environmental protection is impossible? Conversely, does the Aff win merely by

proving they help the environment? Although some will probably try to argue such positions are

sufficient, logically, I think they are not due to the word “over.”

Over implies the Aff has the burden to prove environmental protection must specifically

be prioritized above resource extraction. As such, does this mean the Aff must not only prove

that they can protect the environment and that protecting the environment is good, but also that

resource extraction is bad? This seems to imply a rather large burden of proof for affirmatives,

something strategic negative debaters should strive to exploit.

Resource extraction is convoluted because there are questions of what counts as a

resource, who is extracting the resources in the resolution, and if such resource extraction is the

cause to environmental degradation claims that Affs will be making. I think that negatives

should invest in specific examples, or counter plans, that defend a specific resource extraction.

The ambiguity over resource extraction means that the Neg will likely be able to choose from

multiple types of counter plans, ranging from actor CPs, advantage CPs, PICs, to normal CPs

arguing for a specified implementation of resource extraction against environmental protection

policies. Potential problems for specification arise out of concerns that the Neg’s counterplan

need be specific to the environmental problem that the Aff specifies; debaters must be prepared

to theoretically defend the interpretation they deem best.

“When the two conflict,” is a phrase that the framers of the resolution use to purposefully instill

clash in rounds between the principles of environmental protection and resource extraction. The

problem however, is this might give the Aff a burden to prove that there exists a specific conflict

between environmental protection and resource extraction. In other words, can the negative win

by proving resource extraction and environmental protection do not conflict? In my mind, the

framer’s include the phrase “when the two conflict” to prohibit negatives from winning rounds in

this way. Notice, this has larger strategic implications for negative counterplans since



affirmatives can argue that the phrase “when the two conflict” refers to counterplans that solve

for environmental protection harms being unfair. Minimally, I think the phrase “when the two

conflict” has the potential for breeding frivolous apriori and T debates based upon the words

“two” and “conflict.”

Concerns

A) Debatable Interpretations of the phrase: “developing countries should prioritize environmental

protection over resource extraction when the two conflict.” Thinking about putting together the

key terms to form a single coherent interpretation of the resolution is daunting, but reasonable,

debatable interpretations of this resolution will resemble:

1. Benefits of environmental protection outweigh those of resource extraction when the two

conflict, so affirm.

2. Two developing countries are conflicting over a specific environment-resource issue, and

environment should come first.

3. As a global community, all developing countries have obligations to prioritize environmental

protection.

This third interpretation gives rise to positions about environmental obligations, what will

function as the source of vast Affirmative topic literature. Indeed, arguments about the existence

of moral obligations against resource extraction will make up a great basis of affirmative

philosophical ground. Negatives will strive to provide reasoning why resource extraction is

normatively good for the state. As such, the clash of the substantive debate is very predictable.

B) Good Empirics. Debaters will want to defend empirical scenarios that they find interesting.

Boring, antiquated policy DA’s about environmental disasters in the nineties will be accounted

for on this topic. As such, debaters will need to cut new empirics about environmental disasters,

extinction, and diseases. Much like with the Nuclear Weapons topic, when debate about nuclear



extinction became more contested, typical extinction scenarios were prepared for, so new

environmental extinction scenarios ought to be justified with empirics from the status quo.

C) Negative’s and T. This resolution will have tons of Topicality issues. The Neg will most

likely be able to garner violations from any term in the resolution which presents a challenge to

Aff debaters. Aff debaters should think about embedding their own affirmative cases with

offensive theory. Negatives could possibly violate the offensive theory that Affs lay out in the

constructive structurally offsetting Negative advantages on the T debate. Offensive theory for

the Aff can speak to anything from specifying which types of Neg counterplans are unfair to

limiting the type of ground resource extraction that the Neg can access. Having embedded theory

in the constructive will allow debaters to combat negatives reading a lot of theory in the 1NC by

garnering new offensive theory violations in the 1AR.

Affirmative Positions

Beyond interpretational issues remains the substance of the topical debate: whether

developing countries should choose to protect their environment rather than extract resources.

Util AC. The most stock approach to this resolution on the Aff will be arguments that

trace the route of all bad impacts back to environmental degradation in an effort to argue

environmental protection must be prioritized over resource extraction. For these affirmatives to

be topical however, this Aff case will need to speak to a few justificatory steps. First, any

affirmative case that wants to win off of environmental destruction being bad must win

inherency evidence and reasoning why there is a current crisis in the status quo that can be

solved. Second, for this scenario to be topical, the Aff must show that a source of environmental

degradation conflicts with resource extraction. The big question for the Aff is whether the Aff

has to prove resource extraction always upsets the environment or just sometimes. Util

affirmatives would be more strategic if they defined a particular form of environmental

protection that is uniquely beneficial. This will allow the Aff to wield highly specific evidence

about an environmental disaster resulting directly from resource extraction to strategically

prevent the Neg from garnering benefits from resource extraction.



As the topic expands, there will be a myriad of different util plans that affirmatives run.

Affirmative debaters should stay open-minded about the plan they run and should feel free to

explore different types of positions. This topic lends itself to very interesting ground and has

few limits so debaters should feel comfortable pushing their research limits to try to find a

position no one on the circuit has heard. At the TOC, some of the best cases are plans that are

new positions that other people have not heard before so are ill-prepared for. This means one

thought debaters should have in their head when researching for the plan-util debate is how

predictable their plan is, and if there are ways to make the plan more strategic.

On the contention level, Aff cases should focus on rigorous impact scenarios explaining

that environmental degradation may reach the point of no return so there exists a status-quo

obligation to deprioritize resource extraction. Evidence that speaks to this question will

definitely make these cases more strategic. Debaters running this case need to be prepared to

compare impacts of environmental degradation to the multi-billion dollar benefits derived from

resource extraction. Comparison may come in the form of weighing impacts but alternatively,

and more strategically, ought to come from an interpretation of what impacts are most important

under util, IE what truly makes us most happy. Such a framework move can help affirmatives

when wading between arguments in the 1AR.

Deontology AC. This affirmative position will argue the principle of preserving the

environment for people to be treated as ends in themselves deontologically justifies developing

states prioritizing environmental protection over resource extraction. This AC will most likely

have Kantian based framework, but could also be combined with cosmopolitan-esque arguments

to justify unique obligations between preserving land and humanity’s unconditional end status.

The framework for this case must begin with an interpretation of what type of reason is sufficient

to justify why developing countries should do something. Practical reason surely could be used

as a meta-ethical warrant for why the standard must be deontological. The Aff would then need

to provide links between deontology and practical reason. From there, this Aff could argue that

the state has unique obligations as a political actor, and that global obligations create particular

cosmopolitan duties. These arguments are not necessary for this framework to function, but

could add critical strategic value in preempting likely Neg self-interest frameworks.



Once the Aff justifies a deontological standard, there exists a plethora of substantive

contention level arguments that the Aff can explore as to why environmental protection ought to

be prioritized above resource degradation. Affs can argue that the environment is the source in

which humanity’s existence lies, so is the ground for people to actualize practical reason. This

would likely provide moral obligations for the government to protect the environment as a basis

for its constituent’s ability to reason and be valued as ends. An alternative form of offense to a

deontology standard on this topic can be found through deontic criticism of self-interest, and

resulting prohibition of resource extraction.

International Contracts AC. A third type of affirmative position will be an AC about

international contracts that developing countries agree to speaking in favor of prioritizing

environmental protection over resource extraction. UN agreements as well as multiple

International Environmental Agreements (IEA) would be the source of sufficient Aff ground.

Interestingly though, this Aff need not take the framework of a typical legal-contract affirmative.

There are two main routes of constructing a strategic contract-affirmative on this topic.

Both lend themselves to different types of debate as one will embrace a legal (or possibly

skeptical) form of obligation, and the other will most likely be utilitarian and resemble a plan-

like Aff. Both have unique strategic upshots. The legal contracts standard will trace reasons

why developing countries have legal obligation to follow contractual agreements. These

arguments can be derived from the nature of states identity as legal actors, or morally from the

nature of following promises and agreements. This Aff can justify a framework of following

international contracts by simply adopting a standard of following international contracts. This

standard can appeal to states having the utmost obligation to follow international contracts from

multiple normative perspectives beyond legal issues. For example, the affirmative can push the

terrible political impacts that states experience from not following international contracts. A

standard justifying international law from a utilitarian or ends-based perspective can allow this

AC to be run in plan-like fashion.

The contention level consists of reading a few international contracts that developing

countries agree to which speak in favor of prioritizing policies of environmental protection. A



more strategic contention level argument in my eyes would explore the specific agreements that

developing countries have in the status quo and why those international agreements are

necessary to procure long-term prosperity in the region. Lots of topic literature about developing

countries speaks to the multilateral conditions imposed on countries from environmental

degradation. Harms from the environment transcend boundaries, so if the cause of

environmental damage is in one country, it may affect others around it. This provides countries

with reasons to adopt agreements through international contracts with other countries to

prioritize the protection of the environment. For this reason, international contract AC’s are

extremely topical and interestingly substantive on this resolution.


Realism NC. The most obvious negative position is a realism Neg. The Neg justifies a

standard of self-interest to logically argue that developing countries should prioritize resource

extraction. This Neg would be strategic because it could probably be very short, and would

likely clash with the Aff’s standard very well.

Realism Negs can be framed as amoral, so would allow negatives to possibly employ

skepticism against Aff standards. Beyond that, however, realism will likely conflict with most

affirmatives that describe universal or external obligations on states to prioritize the

environment. Realism explains that states act in self-interest so are not concerned with global

problems.

Contention level arguments will be related to the nature of the resolution. Simply,

resource extraction benefits self-interest more than environmental protection. The Neg can

explain that the principles of resource extraction align strongly with those of realism, so states

should not prioritize environmental protection. Realism argues that states should be allowed to

do whatever they want in their borders, and so strongly justifies developing countries extracting

resources within their sovereign boundaries. But, negatives may also want to have impact

scenarios that demonstrate the benefits to self-interest from empirical resource extraction



scenarios to combat affirmative arguments of environmental harm. Note that to prevent a normal

util debate, this realism NC ought to be constructed in a more philosophical lens.

Resource Extraction CP. A different negative approach to the resolution will be a type

of counter plan that specifies a scenario of resource extraction that is justified in a policy-making

context. The way this NC becomes strategic is not necessarily based in its end-based impacts, but

rather on advantage-solving structure. Thus, the most strategic counterplan on this topic is one

that extracts natural resources to solve environmental problems, and then additionally accrues

other benefits. There are overall strategic questions of whether the Neg is burdened to show that

the CP has additional advantage beyond environmental solution. Can the Neg win by merely

proving that resource extraction is necessary for and solves environmental protection? I think

negatives certainly may want to make this claim.

Kritique of Developing Countries. Another strategic negative position that will most

likely garner strong violations every round is a criticism of the affirmative’s focus on developing

countries. When affirming, debaters are tied to the rhetoric of the resolution. The term

“Developing Countries” historically attaches itself to the recognition of an inferior class of people

so has colonially oppressive and racist content latent within it. As such, negative debaters will

likely be able to garner criticism related to the dehumanizing discursive effect of labeling people

and countries as developing.

This K is strategic in a few different ways, starting from the standard it should function

under. The standard of the K could be a standard for judging appropriate discourse. The Neg

would begin by explaining the normative importance of discourse. Then, they would derive a

specific framework for analyzing discourse as appropriate or not. This framework would explain

why the rhetoric that the Aff embraces is discursively oppressive and harmful, so ought to be

voted down. In this way, the K would inherently function pre-fiat, so before the post-fiat

arguments of the affirmative. Thus, on a structural level, a Neg K run on the Aff about their

harmful discourse would allow the Neg to strategically function on a level higher than the AC.

Good luck in the coming months!



About Michael Fried

Michael Fried attended and competed for University School of Nova Southeastern

University and graduated in May, 2012. He competed in LD Debate throughout his entire four

years of high school. He qualified to the Tournament of Champions three times, reaching

Semifinals as a Junior and Octos as a Senior. He won Apple Valley, the Crestian Classic, the

Florida State Championship (twice), the Dowling Invitational, and The Dowling and Harvard

Round Robins. In addition, he was a finalist at the Greenhill Invitational and reached late

outrounds at the Glenbrooks, Emory, Blake, Valley, Harvard, and the Bronx Invitational. In total

he amassed 14 TOC bids. This past year, he coached the 5th ever Freshman to qualify to the

Tournament of Champions and a student to the Finals of the Emory Tournament. Michael is

currently a sophomore at UC Berkeley.

Topic&Analysis&by&Brian&Hodge& Jan/Feb&2014&!!


Topic&Analysis&by&Brian&Hodge&



Introduction

!

The 2014 Jan/Feb topic is exciting to me not only because of its content, but also due to

the way it’s worded. It would be hard to say that the NFL has always worded its topics in the

most efficacious manner, but this topic is an example of a comparative topic done well. The

resolution’s use of ‘should’ reduces the viability of what are essentially frameworks for

individual moral guidance being applied to state action. In cases where debaters do successfully

establish such a framework as being applicable to states (i.e. Kantianism), they cannot simply

hide behind the definition of ‘ought’ as a moral obligation – instead, they have to explain why

individualistic moral concerns are applicable to state action in the international arena.

Additionally, the concluding phrase of “when the two are in conflict” goes a long way towards

clarifying the issue of what exactly it means to prioritize one policy concern over another when

they’re not in conflict. In the vein of my usual topic analyses, I’ll first discuss various

interpretational issues on the resolution that I think will be prevalently debated. Then, I’ll make a

few suggestions for possible affirmative and negative positions. As always, I’d like to remind

everyone that this topic analysis is meant to get you thinking strategically about the topic, and

you should certainly not take anything said here as law.

Interpretational Issues



‘Should’ as an evaluative term. One of the most immediately recognizable differences

between this topic and the sort that we’re used to is a change in the evaluative term.

Understandably, this variation may perturb some of you. After all, ‘ought’ seems rather more

normative than ‘should’ – the commonly espoused definition of ought in debate is that it

‘indicates a moral obligation,’ and the first definition of should in the dictionary is almost

identical, meaning ‘indicative of an obligation/duty/correctness.’ It’s my opinion that this change

is not nearly as severe or as damning as it may initially appear. First of all, while it’s true that

‘should’ textually opens the debate up to supposedly non-moral obligations, it’s hard to imagine

a framework of obligations that is not rooted in morality at some level. Even claims about

contractual or legal obligations are still ultimately reducible to moral claims at some level, given

that they’re attempting to answer the question of what the best course of action for an agent is.

Secondly, the nature of the topic is such that the vast majority of frameworks are going to be

utilitarian anyway, and use of ‘should’ instead of ‘ought’ in no way decreases the legitimacy of

those frameworks.

I do, however, think that there is potential for developing a relatively strong distinction

between ‘ought’ and ‘should’ in a way that’s advantageous for the framework debate. One

problem that debaters run into a lot on policymaking topics like this one is moral frameworks

that are usually based in guiding the actions of individuals (see: Kantianism). While a good

utilitarian framework should already be making arguments that, when extended, would take out

the assumptions of a deontological position, it can still sometimes be difficult to spell out the full

set of distinctions between the textual justifications for either framework. Here, I think that the

distinction between ‘ought’ and ‘should’ can be spun into one regarding the foundational



justifications for a framework, which can then be used to exclude frameworks of a variety other

than your own. The difference I’m arguing for is this: ‘ought’ claims are rooted in the truth of

some moral statement, which has to do with what constitutes the good. ‘Should’ claims,

however, are grounded in an agent’s procedural duties or obligations. An example should clarify

things: imagine that the United States is party to some international treaty which says that the

signatory countries will not engage in horizontal fracking, a very controversial method of oil and

natural gas extraction. Even if the opposing debater demonstrates that utilitarianism is true and

that horizontal fracking is a utilitarian good, under this linguistic interpretation, we could still

clearly say that the US should not engage in the practice. What are the justifications for this sort

of interpretation? The first is the departure from community norms. It may be tempting to look at

the dictionary definitions of either term and conclude that they’re roughly the same, and

denotatively speaking that’s entirely true. However, there seems to be a clear argument to be

made that a departure from communal norms must be intentional, and that dogmatically

grounding questions of policy in moral terms, even in the face of a different evaluative phrase, is

problematic. The second justification, and one that speaks to the content of the distinction I’m

talking about, is grounded in the denotations of either word. When comparing the set of all

possible agential obligations to the set of all possible agential moral obligations, it seems clear

that the subset indicated by ‘ought’ represents a distinctly stronger claim. After all, it’s easy to

imagine that an agent could have conflicting obligations stemming from a number of different

foundations. If ‘ought’ is used to indicate the highest-priority obligation an agent has, it seems

reasonable to say that ‘should’ indicates obligations of a lower echelon. Again, the distinction

I’m drawing here is not a purely textual one – it makes reference to communal norms and to

debate in general. There are also, I think, a number of other possible justifications for this



distinction, not to mention a number of other possible distinctions that could be drawn. And as I

said at the beginning of this section, it’s entirely possible to simply substitute ‘ought’ in the place

of ‘should’ and continue as usual, though that does not mean that such debaters shouldn’t be

ready for people to challenge them on this interpretational issue.

Developing vs. non-developing countries. There is not a universally agreed upon

definition of what exactly constitutes a developing (or less-developed) country, but there are

abstract guidelines that have been drawn out into something resembling a communal standard.

Essentially, a developing country is one with a lower standard of living, a less highly-developed

industrial base, and a lower ranking on the Human Development Index, which makes reference

to life-expectancy, education, literacy, and income indices. I imagine that there may be some

disputes over this term at the margin of the topic, i.e. if a debater is trying to specify a country

that could more credibly be classified as “newly industrialized.” However, the meat of the utility

of this word in the topic is going to come from being deployed against affirmative cases that

don’t specify an agent. Now, at first glance, this may not seem to be too grave of a sin – after all,

if environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction in general, then surely

that would ring true for both developed and developing countries. The problem is that the vast

majority of these positions are going to have utilitarian frameworks, which makes them

incredibly vulnerable to link-turns that are also not agent-specific. An example: an affirmative

reads a utilitarian framework, and offense that explains how certain kinds of resource extraction

pollute the environment and make long-term residence there impossible. This is a fine argument

so long as the affirmative is nuancing the utilitarian framework in terms of a developing country,

or of developing countries in general. However, if the aff isn’t doing that, then it becomes



astonishingly easy for the negative to read arguments about, for instance, the importance of

resource extraction in developing countries for certain multinational corporations, followed by an

explanation of how those corporations’ longevity is key to the US economy. If these arguments

are true, and especially if the negative is reading some nuclear war or economic collapse impact

(they are), then a general utilitarian framework would clearly indicate a negative ballot. The

solution is to add nuance to the framework, specifying that a state should act in its own utilitarian

interests rather than engaging in a worldwide aggregation of impacts.


The first affirmative position I want to suggest is what I consider to be the most viable

utilitarian position. To clarify: this position functions regardless of the nature of the utilitarian

framework. Even if it’s true that we should simply aggregate utilitarian goods across individuals

(which is to say that the framework is not specific to an individual country), this argument still

seems to clearly outweigh. The first premise of the argument is a clarification of how

utilitarianism functions relative to concerns of foreign policy. While it may be difficult to

aggregate utilitarian goods in a concrete, calculated manner, it seems clear that devastating

impacts like global warming or extinction are of some concern to state actors. There are a

number of possible justifications for why these sorts of existential risks are the most important,

but I think the one I’ve suggested here is a good starting point.

The gist of the argument is that environmental risks in developing countries hold a

utilitarian weight that is undeniable to the rest of the world. Even if it’s true that resource



extraction in developing countries is important for U.S./Western multinational corporations,

environmental destruction at certain points on the Earth are so devastating that they are of

concern to the global community at large. There are a couple of warrants for this claim. The first

is that, due to the nature of environmental regulation (or lack thereof) in developing countries,

those countries are necessarily predisposed to becoming environmental hotspots. Especially in

places where governmental structures are minimal and mineral rights are either auctioned off to

the highest bidder or are simply non-existent, there is a severely inflated chance of especially

severe environmental impacts. The second reason is that the severity of environmental damage

increases exponentially as time goes on. Given some environmental impact, i.e. global warming,

there is clearly a brink of some sort. With that in mind, compounding series of natural resource

extractions necessarily advances us closer to that brink, assuming that the link evidence is good.

As such, the fact that there is little regulation and an incentive for environmental exploitation

does not just indicate that developing countries are likely to be areas of environmental concerns,

it also means that those are the places where a devastating environmental catastrophe is likely to

occur.

The thing to stress about this position, and something that I think is going to emerge as a

theme in good affirmative positions on this topic, is that it’s dependent on the cyclical nature of

its impacts. As developing nations are exploited further and further, the environmental

degradation and reduction in standard of living that its inhabitants experience necessarily keeps

that country from moving past the “developing” stage. This lack of forward progress just makes

those countries an even more attractive target for exploitation, since it leads to a collective global

feeling of those countries being worth writing off.



This notion allows us to create a second affirmative position. Utilizing the prioritization

of environmental protection in order to functionally stifle neo-colonial interests in developing

countries is a strong way to win an affirmative ballot. While it’s true that this position doesn’t

find value in environmental protection per se, it uses the guidelines of environmental protection

as a justification for minimizing the exploitation of a country’s resources and inhabitants. There

are a number of potential frameworks under which this position would function. The first is the

more nuanced understanding of utilitarianism that I specified above, which explains that what a

nation should do is contextually determined by an amalgamation of its own interests. Second,

and in my opinion more strategically, the affirmative could develop a framework structured

around the promotion of justifiable international norms and/or promoting the flourishing global

community. The criticism of the first-world/third-world dichotomy inherent in this sort of

framework could come from a number of places, e.g. a discussion of the problems of global

capitalism, the way in which neo-colonial ideas of spreading norms like “democracy promotion”

destroy local cultures, etc. The point is that, for a debater making this argument, there needs to

be at least one well-developed justification for the problematic nature of the global trend of

collectively exploited less well-off countries.

Negative Positions

The negative ground on this topic is not nearly as exciting as its affirmative counterpart,

but that seems fitting given the negative-skewed nature of most debate topics (and rounds).

There are, I think, a couple of potentially defensible arguments to be made on the negative. I



distinguish these from arguments that I don’t find particularly defensible, i.e. arguments that

claim that the system of neo-colonialism inherent in the resolutional conflict is in fact good for

developing countries. While I’m sure that these sorts of arguments will be made, and there could

conceivably be well-justified forms of them, it just seems overwhelmingly true that such a

system is necessarily exploitative of at least a segment of the world’s population.

With this in mind, I think that the majority of logically defensible arguments have to do

with the global political and economic implications of the world’s developing countries no

longer allowing resource extraction within their borders. It is certainly true that the state of the

US economy has relevance to the state of the global economy, and it seems reasonable to say that

resource extraction companies form a significant conglomerate of the US economy. More than

that, while it is true that the US gets much of its oil from domestic sources, it seems naïve to

suggest that the complete elimination of oil and natural gas flowing in from other countries (most

of which could arguably be classified as ‘developing’) would not have a significant effect on the

US economy.

About Brian Hodge

Brian Hodge attended and competed for Cypress Falls High School and graduated in June

2012. He competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for 4 years, achieving success on both the

regional and national levels. He qualified for the TFA State Tournament four times, and reached

elimination rounds his junior and senior years. In addition, he received bids to the Tournament of

Champions his sophomore and junior years, fully qualifying his senior year with a total of five

career bids. He was the champion of the Houston Memorial tournament, a finalist at the St.



Mark's Invitational, and a quarterfinalist at the Berkeley Invitational. He is currently a

sophomore at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is studying Mechanical Engineering.

Topic&Analysis&by&Paige&MacKenzie& Jan/Feb&2014&!!


Topic&Analysis&by&Paige&MacKenzie&



Introduction

Before breaking down this topic, it is important to note the type of question that the

resolution is asking. This topic, like the previous Lincoln-Douglas topic, discusses a comparative

issue. That fact should not be forgotten, so I’ll say it again. This topic discusses a comparative

issue. Instead of just the merits of environmental protection, you should be discussing

environmental protection ONLY when it comes into conflict with resource extraction. That

means that protecting the environment in general doesn’t matter, nor does resource extraction.

ONLY when the two come into conflict does the topic exist. I’m only emphasizing this very

simple idea because the last topic exhibited major problems with understanding comparative

topics as indeed comparative. Debaters seemed to frequently forget that we’re only discussing

the two different topics when they’re in conflict, which in fact makes debate possible. So this

topic evaluates situations when environmental protection prevents resource extraction or when

resource extraction damages the environment. This is extremely important on this topic because

a lot of the relevant literature is about ways that the two can avoid being in conflict or at least

minimize the situations where economic development and resource extraction are in conflict.

This area of analysis is probably the most interesting (at least for me) but it doesn’t seem topical

because of the comparative nature of the topic.

Definitions/Basics

“Developing countries” is certainly a term of art, and a dangerous one at that. Some

organizations such as the World Bank define a developing country as a country with a Gross

National Income per capita below $11,905. That cutoff, as of 2013, includes 150



countries/territories under the definition; including China, Brazil, and Mexico.1 This clear line

between developing and developed nations is certainly arbitrary, but allows us to distinguish

between types of countries. The source of the list seems to generate a different set of countries,

but at least “developing countries” creates a brightline. For reference, the US has a Gross

National Income per capita of near US $50,000. I say that “developing countries” is a dangerous

term because there are plenty of authors out there who would criticize the term “developing

countries” as a way to describe a country since it implies that those countries have not yet

reached the ideal of a country and instead are merely on their way to meeting western standards.

This argument is charged by the fact that the majority of countries would be classified as

“developing.” If this is something that interests you, a bit of research will open up a lot of

arguments for you.

“Should prioritize” is a term I spoke about earlier; it is similar to the “ought to value

above” that you may have experienced before and indicates a preference of one option over the

other, not a blanket refusal to do one option. “Should” does not mean “is” so you can draw a

source of normativity from defining “should.”

“When the two are in conflict” is the term that I spoke of in the introduction. There is an

interesting relationship between the term “should prioritize” and “when the two are in conflict” as it requires both sides to directly relate environmental protection and resource extraction in a

debate that can only be won through direct weighing. This also seems to be an area where a good

topicality interpretation could get you pretty far.

This coupling also becomes interesting since it is unclear if it requires short term or long

term “in conflict.” For example, one could argue that countries ought to prioritize resource

extraction because we might find a new resource that solves all of our environmental problems.

In the short term, this would be prioritizing resource extraction but in the long term it would be

acting for environmental protection because the whole purpose of the resource extraction was for

environmental protection.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/577-developing2012



The actor in the resolution is clearly “developing countries” which means that any other

country’s preferences are non-topical. While we, in the United States, might think the

environment is the most important thing, other countries don’t put the same emphasis as we do.


The easiest and most obvious affirmative argument would be a utilitarian one that asserts

that environmental protection must always be the top priority because global warming (or some

other environmental impact) will kill us. There are obvious and common impacts of global

warming indicating that in a certain number of years (depending on which card you have) the

Earth will no longer be compatible with human life. For strength of argumentation, you could

include reasons why prioritizing environmental protection above resource extraction would

actually decrease the probability of global warming destroying us all. Attempting environmental

protection and prioritizing it has a higher probability of preventing climate change than pushing

the environment to the side. If someone found great cards saying that attempting environmental

protection hurts the environment, s/he could win some good debates. However, the

environmentalism movement is not old enough for a significant amount of research to be

available so this might be tough to work with.

This approach relies on looking at utility maximization in the short term rather the long

term, and your utilitarian ethic should specify that, or at least weigh why your preferred

timeframe is actually preferable. There are good economic arguments from the perspective of

developing nations saying that resource extraction would better maximize the utility of the

citizens even if the pollution would increase (this will be described later).

Other affirmative arguments that could lean more left include those that would argue that

developing nations need to have a better relationship with nature for some hippy reason. I think a

lot of creativity will be good on this topic since there’s a lot of good neg ground and less

literature for the affirmative. There are probably countless silly plans, but those are obviously

silly. As usual, international law might go one way or the other on this topic so those contracts

could be compared. So go forth and read!



Negative Positions

There are a fair number of interesting negative arguments on the topic. It’s unclear

exactly where negative ground is but it seems that if the affirmative has to show a prioritization

then the negative could just show weak prioritization in the other direction. So the Neg could

show that both should be valued equally or that resource extraction should be preferred to

environmental protection. I’ll leave you to develop your own topic permissibility and

presumption arguments that would allow you to win the ballot with this method.

There are a few economically-focused arguments that would work easily for the negative.

The first is that environmental protection and all of the benefits that come along with it are often

described as “luxury goods.” We in “developed nations” can only care about protecting the

environment because we can afford to care about it. Some countries have countless people

struggling to feed themselves while we care about having cleaner air so we can better observe the

stars. With the degree of developed infrastructure in the United States, we have the ability to

prioritize the quality of the environment. This is empirically confirmed as well; many studies

have found that people in “less developed” nations value the environment less. Personally, I

think this might be culture based since some cultures will place a premium on the environment

because of their histories, while others might be less connected to the environment.

There are some counter-arguments to this position. For instance, after a certain level of

development has been achieved because of resource extraction, countries can then afford to care

about the environment. In his commentary “The environment as a luxury good or ‘too poor to be

green,’” J. Martínez-Alier writes that:

If in the rich countries one perceives increasing environmental awareness, this might be because wealth goes together with increasing deple-ion of resources and pollution of the

environment (a situation I attempt to capture with the phrase "the effluents of affluence"). However, mainstream environmental and

resource economics (in the Barnett and Morse, and Krutilla tradition), together with other technological optimists such as Hirsch, and recent

researchers on weak sustainability (such as Pearce and Atkinson) would believe it is easy to decrease pollution and to

substitute for natural resources; they believe that increasing wealth is good for the



environment in the sense that it allows correction of the negative environmental impacts of

commodity production. Then we are led towards a postmaterialist explanation of the environmentalism of the rich. 2

It’s unclear whose ground this would fall under because prioritizing resource extraction

with the goal of environmental protection could be considered prioritizing environmental

protection. Since the resolution is phrased with “developing countries” as the actor, you can

argue that countries should prefer resource extraction until they stop being developing countries,

after which they can care about environmental protection, which would mutually exclusive with

any affirmative. Uou could potentially get away with a position arguing that environmentalism is

a luxury good and that nations should attempt to develop as much as possible then care about the

environment.

Such a position would require some reason that negating allowed countries to develop

more. This is easy to find in economic papers. Many authors argue two parts of the argument

(and answer it-so cut those cards for when you’re affirming). The two parts of the argument are

(a) resource extraction is economically good for developing countries and (b) environmental

protection hurts countries economically. For (a) you can find many different types of arguments,

one class of these is that the only economic edge that developing countries have is their

resources; if they can sell those resources to more wealthy nations which can in turn use those

resources to make things like cell phones and other luxury goods, then both countries benefit and

the developing country makes more money. This would then be supported by arguments that this

economic stimulation would lead to further development of a country. For (b), I again suggest

you go out and read some economics articles. One such argument you might find is that

prioritizing environmental protection prevents domestic companies from competing from

international companies. Walter and Ugelo in “Environmental Policies in Developing Countries” in Ambio discuss one such argument (and provide many answers in the following paragraphs):

Fundamentally lower environmental preferences on the demand side, combined with greater or unused

assimilative capacity in the developing countries should confer certain economic advantages on them.

First, pollution control expenditures (to the extent that they are not subsidized by

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 http://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2013/HEN581/um/Martinez-Alier_Ecological_economics.pdf



governments) tend to be passed forward to product prices or backward to returns

on productive factors, thus making pollution-intensive productions less profitable

and less attractive in the marketplace. By having fewer pollution-control costs to

pass along, suppliers of internationally traded products in developing countries

should be able to achieve a competitive advantage over their industrial-country

rivals in certain product lines. New pollutive investment projects in the advanced

countries that are blocked or delayed for environmental reasons suggest themselves

for establishment in the developing countries. Both would tend to shift the

international allocation of production from developed to developing countries, and

from high-pollution to low-pollution areas, having the dual effect of promoting

industrial development in the poor countries and using more efficiently available

global environmental resources.3

Positions arguing that economic development is good have a very clear response: reasons

economic development is bad. There are plenty of arguments here, from basic link and impact

turns about the harms of economic development to more critical arguments about the dangers of

economic development. If you have access to your team’s policy backfiles, you might look fo a

DeDev argument to support this idea.

From another perspective, one could examine arguments about environmental

colonialism. These come in many forms but all seem to criticize our western notion of

environmentalism. It is tough to prove that our western mentality about environmentalism is the

“right” way to handle it for other countries because of the economic viability that is absent in

these countries. We’re forcing our western norms on “less developed” nations, which is easy to

argue as being unfair. This seems to also address the is/ought fallacy arguments since it criticizes

the making of the resolution into an “ought” statement rather than merely describing the

preferences of people in different parts of the world. I wont go into this in depth, but I think it

could be an easy argument to make.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4312437



Also an interesting argument (probably not topical but will still be commonly used)

pertains to Payments for Environmental Services (PES). These are basically rich developed

nations paying less developed nations to be more environmentally friendly. Economically this

makes sense and solves the luxury good problem because rich countries are basically buying

their desired good of a clean environment from other countries. Some studies differ on if PES

works, but its certainly interesting to examine. It may be hard to make PES topical as the

developed nations giving the money are not the actor of the resolution. Also PES reduces the

number of times that resource extraction and environmental protection would come into conflict,

so probably not topical for another reason. In your research you will certainly encounter authors

discussing this.

Conclusion

In summary, I think that this topic could be very interesting, though it is unlikely that

debaters will get into the really interesting economic arguments within the resolution. This

makes me a bit sad. I think it will be hard to affirm on this topic, but the one common affirmative

argument that I look into is probably fairly strong if you can prove util good. This topic can teach

debaters a lot about a very important and controversial issue so I implore you to do the research

and run some out-of-the-box arguments.

Good luck!

About Paige MacKenzie

Paige MacKenzie attended and competed at the College Preparatory School in California.

She competed in Lincoln-Douglas throughout her four year career. She competed at the

Tournament of Champions in her Junior and Senior years and reached the Semifinals of the

NDCA Championship in her Senior year. She was also a quarterfinalist at the Glenbrooks and St.

Marks tournaments and reached eliminations rounds in almost all tournaments that she attended.

She received top 15 speaker awards at NDCA (2nd), Stanford, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks,



Alta and Berkeley. Paige is currently a Sophomore at the University of Chicago and coaches for

her alma matter.

Topic&Analysis&by&Josh&Roberts& Jan/Feb&2014&!!


Topic&Analysis&by&Josh&Roberts&

Resolved:!Developing!countries!should!prioritize!environmental!protection!over!resource!extraction!when!the!two!are!in!conflict.!

Introduction

I can’t remember the last time an LD resolution used the word “should,” but if you love

debates that center on empirical research and “policy-esque” style arguments, you’re going to

have a great time with this topic. That’s not to say that there isn’t room for philosophical debates,

though, because there certainly is, as I will discuss later.

On this topic, the way that you define the terms of the resolution will be very important

because affirmatives have a wide array of options when it comes to interpreting the resolution.

I’m going to spend a little bit of time providing a starting point for your definitional research, but

if you expect to make it into deep elimination rounds at tournaments, topicality research will be

incredibly important.

Key Terms

What constitutes a “developing country” is not black and white, which means that

topicality could become a big issue on this topic, depending on how the affirmative chooses to

frame their arguments.

The United Nations attempts to create a distinction between developed and developing countries,

“There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing"

countries or areas in the United Nations system. In common practice, Japan in Asia,

Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and New Zealand in

Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" regions or areas. In international trade



statistics, the Southern African Customs Union is also treated as a developed region and

Israel as a developed country; countries emerging from the former Yugoslavia are

treated as developing countries; and countries of eastern Europe and of the

Commonwealth of Independent States (code 172) in Europe are not included under

either developed or developing regions.” 1

The International Statistical Institute gives a more specific definition,

“Developing countries are defined according to their Gross National Income (GNI) per

capita per year. Countries with a GNI of US $11,905 and less are defined as developing

(Specified by the World Bank, 2012). 2

[…]3

Countries that are slightly over the amount of US $11,905 will be considered a

developing country for the year 2014 and their situation will be reviewed for 2015.”

Regardless of how you approach this resolution, it will be very important for you to have a

solid understanding of what constitutes a developing country.

The Oxford Dictionary defines “should” as,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#ftnc

2 http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/81-developing, Developing Countries!3 Ellipses included because the list of countries considered “developing countries” is placed in between the two paragraphs. You can find the list/full text of the article!here:!http://www.isi-web.org/component/content/article/5-root/root/81-developing!!



“used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s

actions” 4

Some affirmatives will probably argue that “should” does not indicate any kind of moral

duty, but merely a practical obligation, in an attempt to avoid philosophical discussions. That

being said, there is certainly plenty of room to argue that the obligation implied via “should”

could very well be a moral obligation. If you are on the affirmative, be prepared for these

topicality debates because they will certainly arise in at least a few of the debates that you have.

The Glossary of Environment Statistics defines environmental protection,

“Environmental protection refers to 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.” 5

The specificity of this definition is very important because, come time for the Tournament of

Champions, it’s very possible that affirmatives will specify prioritizing environmental protection

over resource extraction when they conflict in specific areas such as recycling, etc.

“Resource extraction” is exactly what it sounds like: any activity that withdraws resources

from nature. There are a variety of methods in which resources can be extracted, which means

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/should 5 Environmental Protection, https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=836



that the negative potentially has a significant amount of counterplan ground. As the negative, it

will be your job to research different methods of resource extraction and attempt to find solutions

that minimize environmental damage while increasing benefits.

“When in conflict” is the final phrase in the resolution, but a very important one. The

negative does not have to defend that countries completely ignore environmental protection

because of the word “prioritize.” The affirmative must establish that environmental protection

directly conflicts with resource extraction or else the negative will be able to circumvent the

affirmatives impacts.

With that, let’s take a look at some of the arguments that both sides can make.


The ground that the affirmative has on this topic is nothing short of insane. From

philosophical argumentation to specifying developing countries and methods of environmental

protection, researching this topic will be quite the task.

In developing countries, environmental protection is a necessity, Christian Uhlig elaborates,

“At the same time, some modern civilization critics should be aware that people in the

southern hemisphere have by no means always lived and worked in harmony with nature

and the environment throughout the course of history. In spite of some examples of

economic systems which have been well adapted to the natural conditions, many

autochthonous, traditional economic systems have been responsible for considerable

damage to the environment over thousands of years. Deforestation, karst development,

soil erosion, flooding or the extinction of species all bear witness to some lasting effects

of ancient civilizations. However, it cannot be denied that the “catching up” approach to

development which involved the “modern” standard-of-living model of European-

American civilization and the methods of production linked to it has considerably

accelerated the degree of exploitation and, inevitably, destruction of the environment by



human beings. Population growth combined with a rise in production and consumption

lead to a more extensive use of land, to greater exploitation of mineral resources and to

the expansion of industry, which in turn add to the pollution of air, water and the soil. We

are witness to an increasing destruction of forests, karst development of mountain

regions, the spread of deserts, the over-exploitation or over-grazing of land with the

resulting decline in soil fertility and increased erosion. The increasing use of chemicals in

industry and agriculture as well as the effects of urbanization are now making the lack of

precautionary measures for soil conservation and waste disposal all too obvious. These

are just a few of the problem areas, which are currently most pressing. A recent addition

to this list is the problem of the additional pollution caused by the dumping of toxic waste

by industrialized countries which, having failed to resolve their own waste disposal

problems, are now offloading them on to the countries of the Third World, thereby

burdening the latter with even greater environmental pollution and the related costs.” 6

As this evidence indicates, the environmental situation in developing countries is dire. This

kind of evidence is necessary for the affirmative because it establishes why developing countries

need to prioritize environmental protection.

One direction that the affirmative can take is to argue that, as a whole, developing countries

should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction because the environmental

devastation not only affects that developing country, but the entire world. Resource extraction

can also have a number of other negative impacts. For example, in the Democratic Republic of

Congo and Sudan, the profits gained from resource extraction are not used for social services;

rather, they’re used to fuel violence within that country.

Alternatively, the affirmative could choose to specify a developing country and make

arguments about why that country specifically needs to prioritize environmental protection over

resource extraction. If this is the route you choose to take, it is important that you have good

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Environmental Protection and Economic Policy Decisions in Developing Countries, Christian Uhlig, Ruhr University, Intereconomics, March/April, 1992, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02926180#page-1



reasons for why you chose that country. Simply picking a random developing country isn’t very

strategic because the negative could very easily argue that you aren’t fixing the larger impacts,

which outweigh whatever country-specific impacts you garner.

Negative Positions

For a stock negative, one approach that you can take is to defend the positive impacts of

resource extraction and argue that they outweigh any of the negative effects produced. One of the

positive effects that resource extraction has on developing countries is that it helps eliminate

poverty, Alejandro Lopez-Feldman, et al., elaborates,

“Our findings highlight the importance of income from natural resource extraction in

alleviating poverty and income inequality in rural Mexico. Results show that the

number of poor individuals increases 4.2% and inequality increases 2.4% when natural

resource income is not taken into consideration. Inequality in the distribution of natural

resource income is relatively high. Nevertheless, an unequally distributed income

source may favor the poor. For example, welfare transfers are usually unequally

distributed (most households do not receive them), but they are directed

disproportionately at poor households. This is the case for natural resource income in

all of our samples. A 10% increase in income from natural resources, other things being

equal, reduces the Gini coefficient of total income inequality by 0.2% in Mexico. In the

South-Southeast region and in Frontera Corozal, a 10% increase in natural resource

income reduces the Gini coefficient by 0.36% and 0.11%, respectively.” 7

The impacts of reducing poverty in developing countries vary, but these kinds of arguments

could be a link into arguments about reducing violence and conflict in these countries. For these

arguments to be most effective, you should pair them with arguments about why the ways in

which resources are extracted are not as devastating as the affirmative will frame them to be.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 Evidence from Rural Mexico and a Lacandona Rainforest Community by Alejandro López-Feldman, Jorge Mora and J. Edward Taylor, November 2006

!



Another way that the negative can increase the strength of these kind of arguments is to pair

them with a counterplan. For the counterplan to be competitive, you will still have to defend

prioritization of resource extraction over environmental protection, but it’s possible to defend

alternate measures of resource extraction that avoid some of the negative harms that the

affirmative will talk about. These kinds of arguments will require you to invest time into

researching differing methods and having a solid understanding of how those methods works to

the point that you can explain why they are feasible methods for developing countries to

implement.

Conclusion

Regardless of the way you approach this topic, research will be of the upmost

importance. Even if your plan is to approach the topic from a philosophical standpoint, having an

understanding of the empirical nature of the topic will only help strengthen your arguments.

Good luck!

About Josh Roberts

Josh debated for four years at Northland Christian School in Houston, Texas. He was the

champion of The Bronx Round Robin, The Victory Briefs Tournament, The NDCA

Championships, The Iowa Round Robin, Grapevine and the National Forensics Tournament.

Josh was a finalist at Apple Valley and TFA State. He finished 3rd at The Glenbrooks, Emory,

Bronx and The Harvard Round Robin. Josh was recognized as first speaker at Greenhill, The

Bronx Round Robin, The Greenhill Round Robin, St. Marks, The Iowa Round Robin and

Grapevine. In addition to auto-qualifying to the 2011 TOC by reaching the octofinals as a junior,

Josh has earned 11 bids to the TOC. He also reached the octofinals again as a senior. A 3-time

participant at The MBA Round Robin, Josh became the only sophomore in the history of the

tournament to place in the Top 5 when he finished 4th in 2009.

Topic&Analysis&by&Jack&Ave& & Jan/Feb&2014&!!


Topic&Analysis&by&Jack&Ave&



Introduction

In recent years, the green/ecology movement has been slowly gaining support. From the

tragic vandalism of the Iowa State Fair butter cow to threats towards BP during the after math of

the gulf oil spill, many individuals seem polarized by the issue of environmental protection.

While this topic offers some very interesting opportunities to debate the legitimacy of climate

change, I believe the larger issue that should be addressed is the critical philosophical

perspective of human centered resource consumption and the ethics of protecting Mother Nature.

In this topic analysis, I will cover topic wording, framing issues, affirmative ideas, negative

ideas, and concluding notes and advice.

Topic wording

Since many of the other topic analyses discuss most of the generic terms in depth, I

believe it would be redundant to redefine these terms so I am going to focus on two important

phrases.

Developing countries: When evaluating this phrase as a term of art, it is commonly interpreted

as a country with a low level of material well-being. This allows for negative debaters in

particular to force the affirmative to advocate that generally poorer countries should invest

money on mostly green options. However, one must be vigilant with terms such as this, which

can be interpreted in their vaguest form. For example, affirmatives can advocate that no country

is ever in a solidified state of complete development. Therefore, affirmatives can claim that any

country should prioritize environmental protection as long as they still aim for growth.



Many philosophers would argue that the term ‘developing’ is biased towards those

countries who do not meet the western conception of ‘developed’. Gustavo Esteva1 writes in

“The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power” that “…development has

connoted at least one thing: to escape from the undignified condition called underdevelopment.”

Negatives could potentially use this idea as a criticism against the topic because of the Western,

neo-liberal natural of this wording.

Should: This is the first topic that I can recall that does not use an evaluative phrase that includes

ought, morality, or justice in some form or another. The American Heritage Dictionary of the

English Language defines should as, “Used to express obligation or duty.” Thus, I would argue

as a debater that obligations are inherently grounded in an ethical proposition. This argument

also would give debaters the ability to justify ethical frameworks that require morality or justice

as a base line. This term also opens up the door for policy type arguments, such as plans.

The word ‘should’ also could have a similar function in rounds as the word ought. Joshua

Green2 comments on the two words by arguing, “What about “ought” and “should?” These

words are more or less equally comfortable in the mouths of deontologists and consequentialists,

and, as we would expect, not so bad as “rights” and “duties,” but a bit more dangerous than

“good” and “bad.”” Therefore, many debaters could argue that the two words are synonymous.

Topic Framing

There are several issues that need to be addressed while debating this topic. For the

affirmative, I believe it would be advantageous to flesh out the root cause of environmental

problems (i.e. anthropocentricism) and combat that philosophical idea. This also allows for

affirmatives to specifically claim that a policy action would solve the negative implications of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!Esteva!*!(Mexican!activist,!"deprofessionalized!intellectual"!and!founder!of!the!Universidad!de!la!Tierra!in!the!Mexican!city!of!Oaxaca!(Gustavo,!“The!Development!Dictionary!A!Guide!to!Knowledge!as!Power”,!ed!by!Wolfgang!Sachs,!p.!7)!2!Joshua!David!Greene,!Assistant!Professor!of!Psychology!at!Harvard!University.!“The!Terrible,!Horrible,!No!Good,!Very!bad!Truth!About!Morality!and!What!to!do!About!It,”!Dissertation!presented!to!Princeton!University]!

!



climate change. Negatives should focus on the term ‘developing’ because it will prescribe terms

to limit the affirmative. This could lead to an interesting Topicality debate.

Affirmative Case Ideas

Coming from a policy background, I will focus on two ‘Kritik’-like case ideas and a

stock idea. The three case positions I will be covering are an anthropocentricism K aff, a

capitalism K aff, and a warming aff.

The Kritik of anthropocentricism is one of my favorite arguments. The general idea is

that human-centered thinking and philosophy lead to ecocide and harm to the ontology of all

beings (including animals/plants/etc.). By reducing the environment to just a resource to fulfill

human ends, we devalue what gave us life and supports our existence. By recognizing our place

in existence, we could come to recognize the value of all of nature and so on. This form of ‘deep

ecology’ seems rather radical, but is extremely strategic. In order to frame this in a debate round,

I think it is best for the Aff to argue that first, anthropocentricism is the root cause of all

environmental harm. Richard Sivil from the University of Natal writes:

“…the environmental crisis can be directly linked to anthropocentric views of the

world. The perception that value is located in, and emanates from, humanity has

resulted in understanding human life as an ultimate value, superior to all other

beings…The abuses facing the natural environment as a result of the energy crisis and

the food demand are clearly manifestations of anthropocentric views that treat the

environment as a resource and instrument for human ends. The pollution and

destruction of the non-human natural world is deemed acceptable…”3

The Aff would then argue that in order to protect the environment, we must reject

anthropocentricism, which will end up being the criterion in many scenarios. In order to affirm,

the contention level should justify why resource extraction is inherently anthropocentric and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 (Richard!Sivil!studied!at!the!University!of!Durban!Westville,!and!at!the!University!of!Natal,!Durban.!He!has!been!lecturing!philosophy!since!1996.!"Why!we!Need!a!New!Ethic!for!the!Environment",!Cultural'Heritage'2(7):!103!–!116!(2001))!

Topic&Analysis&by&Jack&Ave& & Jan/Feb&2014&!

!


therefore, the cause of ontological and environmental harm to all. This link is fairly easy to

make. Sivil writes again:

The abuses facing the natural environment as a result of the energy crisis and the food

demand are clearly manifestations of anthropocentric views that treat the environment

as a resource and instrument for human ends. 4

Much like the last case example, I believe a criticism of the capitalist nature of resource

extraction can be useful. Often, the search and extraction of resources is motivated by the desire

to increase profit rather than fulfill needs of citizens. Even the focus on the economy could be a

link to the harms of capitalism. Therefore, the prioritization of resource extraction would lead to

the harms of a capitalistic society. Potential harms include human rights abuses, dehumanization,

and even environmental degradation.

Istvan Meszaros argues:

“The fact that the rapacious exploitation of the human and material resources of our

planet for the benefit of a few capitalist countries happens to be a non-generalizable

condition…Instead, the universal viability of emulating the development of the

'advanced capitalist' countries is predicated…”5

This exploitation caused by prioritizing resource extraction can be solved by rejecting capitalism

and, therefore, rejecting capitalism could be a viable criterion for an Aff debater.

The last position that I will discuss is a global warming affirmative. This case can be

extremely strategic if debaters use quality evidence and if the case is well thought through. This

case would interpret the role of developing countries as acting sustainably while still extracting

resources in order to survive. In other words, this affirmative doesn’t claim that all resource

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4!Ibid!5!Istvan!Meszaros,!Hungarian!Marxist!philosopher!and!Professor!Emeritus!at!U.!Sussex.!“Beyond!Capital:!Toward!a!Theory!of!Transition.”!p.!xv)!



extraction is bad, rather that we should safely extract resources so that we can protect the

environment. David Lertzman and Harrie Vredenburg argue that,

“It has been argued that business has a moral responsibility to ensure that its activities

are ecologically sustainable (Desjardins, 1998). Desjardins has proposed that the

"moral minimum" which constrains the impacts of economic activity should be

extended to ecosystems. He argues that all markets operate within constraints, the

most obvious being those imposed by the biophysical limits described in the laws of

natural science.” 6

Therefore, affirmatives could still co-opt lots of negative offenses while still being topical. I

think that most ‘stock’ debates will come down to this sort of case, but it is obviously extremely

strategic.

Negative Case Ideas

Negating on this topic will be interesting because of the phrasing of ‘developing

countries’, as mentioned previously. Therefore, I offer three negative positions;

economy/poverty Neg, resource war Neg, and a critique of the word developing.

The most logical argument for the Neg is the impact of the economy and how poverty

will be affected. The negative should focus on the how infeasible ‘green’ policies for developing

countries and how they could harm the economy of these countries. Negatives could also point

out that most studies involving environmental protection are taken from wealthy countries who

can afford to be green compared to poorer countries who cannot. The result of economic collapse

could have several negative impacts including war and complete destruction of the environment.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6!Lertzman, David A., and Harrie Vredenburg. "Indigenous Peoples, Resource Extraction and Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach." Journal of Business Ethics 56.3 (2005): 239-54. Print.

!

Topic&Analysis&by&Jack&Ave& & Jan/Feb&2014&!

!


Resource wars are extremely common in the status quo. In fact, lack of resources has

been linked to many armed conflicts across the globe. Thus, resource extraction should always

be prioritized over environmental protection in order to prevent conflict and deaths around the

world. Thomas Homer-Dixon argues that lack of resources led to the Rwandan genocide. He

writes,

“Several exacting and penetrating studies have now shown conclusively that cropland

scarcity in Rwanda strongly affected rural grievances that were exploited by radical

Hutus in the lead-up to the 1994 genocide.”

Furthermore, this violence and resource war could escalate and become into a larger

conflict that could harm people in developing countries. While the environmental crisis may kill

thousands in several decades, resource wars kill people daily and often have a larger impact.

My last negative strategy is the criticism of the term ‘developing.’ This argument was

hinted at earlier in the article and I believe it would be strategic to have a PIC in your arsenal to

respond to Affs that seem confusing and vague. This argument is that the term ‘developing’

creates a stigma against those who are in countries that are ‘underdeveloped’. This

discrimination against ‘third-world countries’ is extremely neo-liberal and nationalist especially

for the United States. Gustavo Esteva writes again:

“Throughout the century, the meanings associated with urban development and colonial

development concurred with many others to transform the word 'development', step by

step, into one with contours that are about as precise as those of an amoeba…No matter

the context in which it is used. or the precise connotation that the person using it wants to

give it, the expression becomes qualified and coloured by meanings perhaps unwanted.”!7

Therefore, even the use of the word could have potential harms in round, allowing for many

critical arguments that the negative could make in round.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!Esteva!*!(Mexican!activist,!"deprofessionalized!intellectual"!and!founder!of!the!Universidad!de!la!Tierra!in!the!Mexican!city!of!Oaxaca!(Gustavo,!“The!Development!Dictionary!A!Guide!

to!Knowledge!as!Power”,!ed!by!Wolfgang!Sachs,!p.!7)!



Conclusion

I am really looking forward to judging rounds on this topic and seeing how the arguments

develop. I think on this topic, it is strategic for debaters who aren’t the best at debating

utilitarianism to prepare a critical position to run against cases that have large impacts. As

always, I recommend that debaters should read current news surrounding the topic so that they

are better educated with recent issues. I wish y’all the best of luck with this topic and I hope my

opinion has been insightful!

About Jack Ave

Jack Ave attended Okoboji High School (IA) and graduated in 2013. He competed on the

local and national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas debate and advanced to elimination rounds his

senior year at national tournaments such as Harvard, Blake, Dowling, Iowa Caucus, Valley, and

Omaha Westside along with receiving numerous speaking awards. He was a three time national

qualifier and his senior year, was the West Iowa District Champion. Jack was the first from his

school to attend the Tournament of Champions. Jack attends the University of Northern Iowa

and is majoring in Political Science and Political Communications.

Frameworks* * January*2014*!!

Champion)Briefs) ) 57*

Frameworks**

Preserving Land Framework

The first potential framework affirmative debaters can run is centered on the principle of

preserving land as a virtue in and of itself. Affirmatives will argue that environmental protection

embraces an environmental ethic, so must be prioritized above resource extraction. This

affirmative will justify a normative framework for land preservation, and as such provide reason

to affirm. Land Preservation proponents argue no one is inherently entitled to destroy land,

despite its arbitrary location within boundaries. This affirmative would problematize historical

land degradation by arguing that land is intrinsically valuable.

The framework would begin by defining environmental protection as preserving

conditions for successful land preservation and growth. Such a definition entitles the Aff to

assume solvency for environmental protection. Note, smart affirmatives will spike out of

negative disadvantages to environmental degradation by arguing that the resolution automatically

grants the Aff world takes actions to assure the best environment possible. From here the Aff

will introduce a standard to explain why developing countries should prioritize environmental

protection.

Affs can explain morally land is intrinsically valuable. No one is entitled to destroy land

because that privileges certain persons over others. Those who get to use land for their own

benefit unequally reap profit from something no one is naturally entitled to. Conversely,

environmental protection privileges equality; and as such, land is a normatively valuable finite

entity that countries ought to preserve. Thus, the Aff can introduce a standard of Preserving land.

There are multiple distinct sources of justification and warrants for this standard. The first

and most stock is a utilitarian justification that preserving land is good because it somehow

solves for an extinction scenario—justifying extinction as a framework warrant is a powerful

move in this affirmative case. Extinction in the AC framework will allow Affs to hedge this AC



against Neg DisAds and Counterplans. A second type of justification would be deontic, that

preserving land is universally morally obligatory because it respects equality over humanity’s

claims to land. Hence, this affirmative case could appeal to utilitarianism and deontology as

justifications for the standard, without possibly justifying either theory because of the

independently normative status of “valuing land”. A third and normatively independent standard

warrant would be that valuing land is obligatory because land is a finite entity that can run out.

Naturally all citizens are entitled to land, so leaders must act to preserve land over their own self-

interest. A fourth form of justification would be temporal; temporally land is for all people,

future generations are entitled to the same land claims as present generation; so, countries must

preserve the environment to treat future generations fairly.

From such a standard, Affs will argue in their contention level that preserving the

environment is vital to preserving land. This contention can easily begin with the first argument

that the resolution definitionally affirms because if land is valuable then we ought to prioritize

the environment. But, important warrants for the contention level will go beyond just the

wording of the resolution. The best warrants for this contention level will be that environmental

protection efforts empirically increase land and lead to the long to preservation of a country.

Likewise, arguments about resource extraction harming the environment and decreasing land

would affirm as well.

Environmental Cosmopolitanism Framework

A radically distinct AC and most likely the truest argument on the topic is a

Cosmopolitan centered affirmative case. This framework will argue that the resolution questions

the global obligations developing countries have, and that a cosmopolitan ethic obliges countries

to prioritize international environmental protection above resource extraction. The strategic

upshot of a cosmopolitan case would be that it undermines the majority of Neg ground, and

seems to push the topic literature bias towards the affirmative.

A framework for this position would need to begin with a rigorous interpretation of the

phrase developing countries. Mainly, this AC will explain that the phrase developing countries



is 1) plural, so is a question of multiple states; and 2) is referential to all states in the international

arena. Such a definition of developing countries will allow the Aff to easily justify their standard

as relates to the global obligations of states in the international arena. As such, affirmatives

desirous of running a cosmopolitan AC will need to argue that the resolution is a question of

global obligations, and that global obligations are the best source for deriving normative

decisions for the pluralistic actor “developing countries” in the resolution.

There are multiple ways this particular framework’s standard can be justified. The most

traditional way to justify cosmopolitanism is by exploring cosmopolitan theorists like Martha

Nussbaum who argue the makeup of the international world and global order implies duties on

all states to come together and act for the greater interests of the community. Affs can find a

plethora of distinct political theorists that justify cosmopolitanism and throw them in this

affirmative case. But, a more strategic approach to justifying this type of AC standard is to

explain that a self-interest based framework is normatively bad, and so should not be acted upon.

The strategic purpose of this type of arguement is preemptive. Most negative positions will

justify resource extraction from the lens of increasing self-interest; as such, cosmopolitan cases

should preemptively dejustify these negative arguments in the AC framework by criticizing

acting from self-interest or realism.

The contention level for this form of affirmative case would simply be arguments about

why environmental protection is best for all states in the global community, and as such

developing countries must prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction. The

trans-border nature of environmental problems demonstrates the only way to definitively quell

environmental degradation is through universal cooperation. Further, resource extraction

undermines efforts for states to cooperate effectively, and empirically allows for environmental

problems to harm states in different areas of the globes. With these arguments, this contention

level should definitely have the strongest link back to a cosmopolitan standard in the round.

Protecting Boundaries Framework

An alternative affirmative case that I can see being successful on the Jan/Feb topic is a



case that interprets the resolutional conflict as between two bordering developing nations. The

conflict between the two states would be over the legitimacy of one states attempt to infringe the

boundaries of another in an effort to acquire more resources. This affirmative would interpret

environmental protection as protecting land, and resource extraction as encroaching bordering

lands for resources. The upshot of this affirmative case is that it can take two distinct directions,

both of which strategically advantage the Aff. The Aff can justify private property related

reasons to promote environmental protection, as well as criticisms of capitalism in the global

arena to affirm.

The unique interpretation of this case would be embedded within the definitions of both

“developing countries” and “environmental protection.” This affirmative would explain why the

phrase developing countries, when combined with the phrase “when the two conflict,” means the

resolution is a question of how two developing countries should resolve a particular dilemma

over environment and resources. The aff would further explain that environmental protection

can be interpreted as protection of land, or literally the environment a country autonomously

resides over. At this point, the affirmative would explain their burden is to prove countries

should prioritize protecting their environment when in conflict with another developing country,

rather than promote resource extraction. It ought to be noted, this affirmative likely ought to

justify an interpretation of resource extraction as well; most likely, the best definition for the

grand strategy of this case would be a definition of resource extraction that implies that the

process of extracting resource violates the sovereign territories of another state.

After definitions, this framework could take two directions. The affirmative can justify a

standard of respecting private property. Private property is a very straightforward concept that

debaters can use deontology and social-contract based warrants to justify as a value criterion.

But, a more interesting, and possibly strategic way to craft this affirmative case is as a critique of

capitalism and post-colonial efforts of states to try and dominate one another. As such,

affirmatives will be best helped by including arguments in the value criterion part of their

framework that trace the source of all global problems or conflicts to capitalism in and of itself.



The contention level for this form of affirmative case will be massive as it can include a

variety of arguments. First, the Aff can argue that the Neg violates private property because it

logically entails procuring resources from other states. However, affirmatives must be prepared

to handle arguments that say private property negates because resource extraction is a form of

collecting private property. This is why I would urge debaters to run this case in a more critical

fashion. To do this, debaters will want to dig in on why environmental protection is the key to

preventing states from using resource extraction to boost their status in the global capitalist

order. More importantly, this affirmative case can make arguments about how resource

extraction is not normatively valuable; for instance, affirmatives can make arguments that money

is meaningless. By embedding inherent criticisms of capitalism throughout the affirmative case,

Negs that bite into potential violations or links of capitalism will be forced to engage with a

plethora of preemptive capitalism bad arguments from the framework making the 1NC infinitely

more difficult.!

AFF:$Monitoring$the$Environment$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!

Champion)Briefs) ) 63)

Developing countries cant and wont monitor their emissions –

international backlash and low tech.

"The Global Climate Change Regime." Council on Foreign Relations. 19 Jun 2013. Web. 6 Dec

2013.

“The barriers to improving emissions monitoring in developing countries are threefold. First,

many such countries lack the domestic capacity to monitor their own emissions, which

makes international monitoring even more difficult. Existing emissions estimates are

generally extrapolations based on energy use, and even large developing countries such as

China and India, for example, do not know their total emissions output. This uncertainty

isexacerbated in countries with significant emissions from deforestation because the

technical means to precisely measure such emissions do not yet exist. Second, even if

developing countries are able to monitor their emissions, many are wary that reporting

emissions would open them to pressure to cap those emissions--something they have

strongly resisted. Third, countries such as China publically state that concessions for an

internationally verifiable monitoring system are a direct infringement on their national

sovereignty. Despite these barriers, an agreement that focuses on emissions monitoring might be

easier to implement than an arrangement based on binding emissions reductions.”

The Council on Foreign Relations is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership

organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international

affairs.



Rich countries haven’t given the developing countries the cash

needed.


2013.

“Additionally, the climate regime does not adequately address the sources of financing

needed to help developing countries cope with climate change. While the meeting in

Copenhagen witnessed political progress, including pledges by industrialized countries

[pledged] to provide $100 billion by 2020 to developing countries, and the Green Climate

Fund was put into place at Cancun, concrete funding streams have yet to materialize. While the

COP-17 attempted to clarify how the Green Climate Fund would operate and disperse

funds, little firm monetary support was allocated to the mechanism. To date, the total

disbursed funds for climate change initiatives, both within and outside of the UNFCCC,

add up to only $2.1 billion.”



affairs.



There is no enforcement mechanism.


2013.

“Enforcement, meanwhile, is essentially nonexistent. Countries that fail to meet their Kyoto

targets are legally required to subtract that shortfall (plus a 30 percent penalty) from their

total allowed emissions in the next phase of the protocol. In practice, though, this is

meaningless, given that future allowed emissions have not yet been negotiated. If the Kyoto

Protocol penalty rules are observed--something still in question--countries could simply

negotiate new caps that are inflated by an amount that offsets the penalty or just formally

withdraw from the accord as Canada did in December 2011.”



affairs.



Developing governments’ focus on resources harms international

mining companies.

McKern, Bruce and Dunning, John H. “Transnational Corporations and the Exploitation of

Natural Resources.” The United Nations Library on Transnational Corporations, Volume

10. 1993. Print.

“No lengthy discussion is required to clarify the attitude of the non-integrated multinational

mining company towards the establishment of local mineral processing plants. In the absence of

such plants, the company has the liberty of selling its produce in the international market to

the customer of its choice. Once local processing is established, the government is bound to

circumscribe the company’s freedom by demanding that the mineral be sold to the local

processing industry. Economies of scale would restrict the number of processing ventures in

each mineral-exporting country. Apart from being exposed to a greater degree of government

direction, therefore, the reduction in the number of potential customers would weaken the

company’s bargaining position. For these reasons, the unintegrated mining company too, can

be expected to oppose efforts to establish local mineral processing in the mineral-endowed

developing country.”



Foreign economic investment will happen with focus on resources.

Reed, Darryl. “Extraction Industries in Developing Countries.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.

39, No. 3. September 2002. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074839>.

“From the perspective of TNCs liberalizing reforms are obviously very attractive. They imply

reduced barriers to entry, decreased risk and new investment opportunities, both through

green field activities and mergers and acquisitions (especially as countries privatize state

enterprises). Indications of the impact of economic liberalization are perhaps most evident in

resource sectors such as mining. Since the mid 1980's there has not only been an increase in

investments in this sector in developing countries, but a significant shift from developed

countries to developing countries, most notably towards Latin America (Otto, 1998). Major

trade agreements such as APEC have the liberalization of the mining industry as a high priority

objective. For their part, Asian countries have recently been re-regulating the mining

industry in an effort to attract foreign capital (Naito et al., 1998). African countries too have

been liberalizing their mining policies since the 1980s, in large part due to direct pressures

from international financial institutions. By 1995, some 35 African countries had amended their

mining regulations to make them more attractive to foreign investors (African Agenda, 1997). As

a result of such changes, between 1991 and 1997, exploration investments expanded 6 times

in Latin America, quadrupled in the Pacific region, and doubled in Africa (Drillbits and

Tailings, 1998).”

Darryl Reed is Assistant Professor in the Division of Social Science and Coordinator of the

Business & Society Program at York University.



Developing countries are hurt the worst by environmental issues.

Singer, Peter. "Will the Polluters Pay for Climate Change?." Utilitarianism.net. Project

Syndicate. Web. Dec 6 2013. <http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/200608--.htm>.

“Overwhelmingly, the dead will be those who lack the resources to adapt, to find

alternative sources of food, and who do not have access to health care. Even in rich

countries, it usually isn’t the rich who die in natural disasters. When Hurricane Katrina hit New

Orleans, those who died were the poor in low-lying areas who lacked cars to escape. If this is

true in a country like the US, with a reasonably efficient infrastructure and the resources to help

its citizens in times of crisis, it is even more evident when disasters strike developing

countries, because their governments lack the resources needed, and because, when it

comes to foreign assistance, rich nations still do not count all human lives equally.

According to United Nations figures, in 2002 per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the US

were 16 times higher than in India, 60 times higher than in Bangladesh, and more than 200 times

higher than in Ethiopia, Mali, or Chad. Other developed nations with emissions close to those of

the US include Australia, Canada, and Luxembourg. Russia, Germany, Britain, Italy, France, and

Spain all have levels between a half and a quarter that of the US. This is still significantly above

the world average, and more than 50 times that of the poorest nations in which people will die

from global warming.”

Peter Singer is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. He is one of the most famous

modern philosophers in America.



The polluter should pay for the impacts of the pollution.

Singer, Peter. "Will the Polluters Pay for Climate Change?." Utilitarianism.net. Project

Syndicate. Web. Dec 6 2013. <http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/200608--.htm>.

“If a polluter harms others, those who are harmed normally have a legal remedy. For

example, if a factory leaks toxic chemicals into a river that I use to irrigate my farm, killing

my crops, I can sue the factory owner. If the rich nations pollute the atmosphere with

carbon dioxide, causing my crops to fail because of changing rainfall patterns, or my fields

are inundated by a rise in the sea level, shouldn’t I also be able to sue?”

Peter Singer is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University. He is one of the most famous

philosophers in America



There are many competing interests when it comes to environmental

policy in developing countries.

Zerner, Charles (editor). “People, Plants, & Justice: The Politics of Nature Conservation.”

Columbia University Press. 1999. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://class.guilford.edu/psci/kdell/virtual_office_of_kyle_d._dell/ENVS_101_Introduct

ion_to_Environmental_Studies_files/Neumann%20land.pdf>.

“To say that resources (or the environment) in the Tropics are contested and negotiated by

competing constituencies is hardly original. But environment politics has become a

battleground of a quite particular, and complex, sort. On the one side is the nature of

environmental problems themselves, often global or regional in character, which transgress

national borders (they may not be, in any simple sense, place specific). In the same way, these

environmental crises and problems are constituted as parts of global discourses or epistemic

communities (Haas 1990), often typically in moral, technocratic/scientific, and managerial

languages (Buttel and Taylor 1992). On the other side is an enlarged panoply of actors who

engage in environmental management, regulation, and governance. The gradual opening and

flourishing of civil society in parts of Africa, Latin America, and the former socialist bloc has

contributed to the proliferation of all manner of local green movements and non-governmental

organizations (NGOs)—to a thickening of civil society, as Jonathan Fox (1994) puts it.

However, these community-based and grassroots initiatives are not “environmental” in any

simple way since they are often driven by poverty and justice concerns, human and political

rights, customary culture and indigenous identity, and so on. Neither are they solely local

environmentalisms since they typically invoke transnational environmentalism and its armory

of institutions, whether it be the world of international NGOs (World Wildlife Fund or

Greenpeace), international green networks and advocacy groups [Rainforest Action Network

(RAN)], or the efforts of newly “greened” multilateral legislative bodies and institutions [the

Biodiversity Convention, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) of the World Bank, or the

World Trade Organization (WTO), for example]. Somewhere in the middle stands something

called the state, or national, policy making.”



It is often difficult to identify the indigenous peoples of a region where resources are being extracted.





“A further problem with the implementation of distributive justice involves determining who is a

legitimate resident of a given area and thus entitled to share benefits. Questionable claims of

residency may surface in circumstances where the benefits distributed are substantial, e.g.,

in the case of funds generated via hunting fees and tourism revenues under Zimbabwe’s

CAMPFIRE program (Metcalfe 1994). The notion of “indegeneity” is sometimes employed as a

guideline to help prioritize recipients, but this concept often raises as many problems as it solves.

As Laird et al. note, the concept of “indigenous rights” is especially fraught in many of the

areas richest in biodiversity, notably forest areas with complex settlement histories and

patterns of resource stewardship in force. The definition of residence and/or the claim of

indigenous identity can also be difficult to establish wherever patterns of economic

migration take certain community members out of the locality on a seasonal or interannual

basis (compare Gieles-Vernick 1999). One solution promoted by Laird et al. is to avoid defining

the term indigenous too narrowly. For example, “The Amazonian concept of undisturbed

autochthonous groups makes little sense in West Africa where most forest areas have a long and

complex history of settlement and re-settlement” (Laid et al., p. 000; Slater’s description of the

23 million inhabitants of Amazonia problematizes the use of the ternm indigenous in even that

setting, however—see chapter 3). Thus, at a minimum, any claim to economic benefits based

on residential or indigenous status must account for historical and geographical

demographic changes if it is to be applied justly.”

AFF:$Environmental$Impacts$ $ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


Global warming causes global resource wars.

Klare, Michael, “The Coming Resource Wars,” Alternet. 10 March 2006. Web. 7 December

2013. <http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243>.

“It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British

Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling

natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over

land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean

water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of

violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction

of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the

vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural

land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur,"

he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most

likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent

countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate

change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime

agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will

become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in

London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent

expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects --

rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the

decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy

supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is

being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political

strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over

valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant

expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a



California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario

and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate

change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a

gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include

a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and

continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the

survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies.

"Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in

the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are

accustomed to today,” the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a

desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over

ideology, religion or national honor.”



Without environmental protection, climate change can cause

massive war of resources, which could escalate into large

conflict.

Klare, Michael, “The Coming Resource Wars,” Alternet. 10 March 2006. Web. 7 December

2013. <http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243>.

“Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is

due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in

altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of

the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency

of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially

harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that

human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and

motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet

penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly

gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part,

public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental

problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And,

of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat

imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the

magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the

greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but

rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass

migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related

disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many

countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the

minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation,

which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock



of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their

populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose

population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy

supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the

means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless

struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than

anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate

capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change,

and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300

million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change

will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social

disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught

up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by

fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and

minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of

desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly

often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also

envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003

Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and

natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet

their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries

develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national

security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking

about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social

and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought,

flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors

of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's

comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms

of conflict.”



Even a small rise in global temperature would lead to mass

starvation despite CO2 fertilization—the result is extinction.

Strom, Robert. “Hot House: Global Climate Change and the Human Condition”.” 2007.

Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://books.google.com/books?id=XkIZ10p18wEC&printsec=frontcover&sourc

e=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0>.

“In developing nations the impact will be much more severe. It is here that the impact of

global warming on crops and domestic animals will be most felt. In general, the

world's most crucial staple food crops could fall by as much as one-third because of

resistance to flowering and setting of seeds due to rising temperatures. Crop

ecologists believe that many crops grown in the tropics are near, or at, their thermal

limits. Already research in the Philippines has linked higher night-time temperatures to

a reduction in rice yield. It is estimated that for rice, wheat, and corn, the grain

yields are likely to decline by 10% for every local 1 °C increase in temperature.

With a decreasing availability of food, malnutrition will become more frequent

accompanied by damage to the immune system. This will result in a greater

susceptibility to spreading diseases. For an extreme rise in global temperature (> 6 'C), it is

likely that worldwide crop failures will lead to mass starvation, and political and

economic chaos with all their ramifications for civilization.”

Robert Strom is a Professor Emeritus of planetary sciences in the Department of Planetary

Sciences at the University of Arizona, studied climate change for 15 years, and is the former

Director of the Space Imagery Center, a NASA Regional Planetary Image Facility.



Deforestation has drastic global consequences.

Allen, Julia C. and Barnes, Douglas F. “The Causes of Deforestation in Developing Countries.”

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 75, No. 2. June 1985. Web. 7

December 2013. <www.jstor.org/stable/2562560>.

“Most recently, in early 1981 the Forest Resources Division of the U.N. Food and Agricultural

Organization (FAO) made available the results of an inventory of tropical forest area in

Africa, Asia, and Latin America (FAO/UNEP 1982a, 1982b, 1982c). These estimates, which

synthesize unpublished information but are not a new forest inventory, suggest that

deforestation, until recently confined to Africa and Asia, is now a significant and increasing

trend also in Latin America. Figure 1 shows the average annual rate of deforestation of all

developing countries from 1976-80 as reported in FAO/UNEP (1982a, 1982b, 1982c). Apart

from a group of small countries with anomalously high rates, deforestation appears to be

progressing most rapidly in countries with forest areas near the median (note log scale).

These reports of the impacts of deforestation and estimates of trends in developing countries'

forest areas have raised concern about diminishing forests (Myers 1982). Recent projections of

current deforestation trends to the year 2000 accentuate the severity of the problem.

Projections in the Global 2000 report (Barney 1980, 117-20) indicate that if current trends

continue, between 1958 and 2000 world forest area will decrease by one-third. Most of this

deforestation will occur in the developing countries, where forests are projected to decline at

3-6 percent annually in some nations, and even faster in others. Based on the FAO/UNEP

study, projections by the World Bank suggest that as a consequence of deforestation, wood fuel

supplies will be inadequate to meet demand long before the year 2000 in many nations

(Spears 1980; World Bank 1980b, 125). To meet world demand for fuelwood at the turn of the

century would necessitate the planting of more than 50 million hectares of trees just for

fuelwood; this represents a five-fold increase in the world's current rate of tree planting for all

uses (World Bank 1980c, 39). Taken together, these reports indicate that deforestation is a

phenomenon with potentially serious consequences. The severity of the deforestation problem

depends upon the width of the error bands around projections of future conditions. There are two



potential sources of error in projections of deforestation trends: errors in estimated present rates

of deforestation and errors of omission of mitigating circumstances that could counterbalance

present trends. The latter include factors that augment resources (Clawson 1981; Simon 1982)

and the ability of natural systems to recover following disturbance (Castle1982; Uhl 1982; West,

Shugart, and Botkin 1981).”

Julia C. Allen works at the Departments of Geography and Environmental Studies at the

University of California, Santa Barbara. Douglas F. Barnes works for the World Bank in

Washington, DC.



Developing countries are the most heavily affected by global

warming based on GDP.

"A Bad Climate For Development." The Economist. 17 September 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.economist.com/node/14447171>.

“Less often realised, though, is that global warming does far more damage to poor countries

than they do to the climate. In a report in 2006 Nicholas (now Lord) Stern calculated that a 2°C

rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP. But the World Bank, in its new World

Development Report*, now says the cost to Africa will be more like 4% of GDP and to India,

5%. Even if environmental costs were distributed equally to every person on earth,

developing countries would still bear 80% of the burden (because they account for 80% of

world population). As it is, they bear an even greater share, though their citizens' carbon

footprints are much smaller (see chart 2).”

The Economist is one of the most prestigious publications on public policy and economics. Its

readership targets real economists and policy makers. It does not include author names on its

articles.



Developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change –

multiple reasons.



“The poor are more vulnerable than the rich for several reasons. Flimsy housing, poor

health and inadequate health care mean that natural disasters of all kinds hurt them more.

When Hurricane Mitch swept through Honduras in 1998, for example, poor households lost 15-

20% of their assets but the rich lost only 3%. Global warming aggravates that. It also

increases the chances of catching the life-threatening diseases that are more prevalent in

poorer countries. In many places cities have been built just above a so-called “malaria

line”, above which malaria-bearing mosquitoes cannot survive (Nairobi is one example).

Warmer weather allows the bugs to move into previously unaffected altitudes, spreading a

disease that is already the biggest killer in Africa. By 2030 climate change may expose 90m

more people to malaria in Africa alone. Similarly, meningitis outbreaks in Africa are

strongly correlated with drought. Both are likely to increase. Diarrhoea is forecast to rise 5%

by 2020 in poor countries because of climate change. Dengue fever has been expanding its

range: its incidence doubled in parts of the Americas between 1995-97 and 2005-07. On one

estimate, 60% of the world's population will be exposed to the disease by 2070.”



articles.



No resources without an environment in developing countries – they

control food production, which is a key internal link to

economic growth. Lack of environmental protections means

disaster.



“In India the gains from the Green Revolution are already shrinking because of local

pollution, global warming and waning resistance to pests and disease. A study for the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology forecast that yields of the main Indian crops would

decline by a further 4.5-9% over the next 30 years because of climate change. A recent

assessment based on a large number of studies of what might happen in the long run if

carbon continues to be pumped into the atmosphere found that world farm production

could fall by 16% by the 2080s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries.

Although the timescale makes such figures no more than educated guesses, there is not much

doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing

countries—at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world

will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world

will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing (water-hungry)

diets of a richer population. Even without climate change, farm productivity would have to rise

by 1% a year, which is a lot. With climate change, the rise will have to be 1.8%, says the bank. If

these myriad problems have a silver lining, it is that they give developing countries as big

an interest in mitigating the impact of climate change as rich ones. As the World Bank says,

climate-change policy is no longer a simple choice between growth and ecological well-

being.”





articles.



The polluter-pays principle solves for environmental harms.

Luppi, Barbara, and Shruti Rajagopalan. "Environmental Protection for Developing Countries:

The Polluter-Does-Not-Pay Principle." Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research

Paper. 2009. Web. 7 December 2013. <ssrn.com/abstract=1339063 >.

“The implementation of the polluter-pays principle by sovereign states has enjoyed different incarnations in national legal systems over time (Finn, 1975). In some situations, the polluter-pays principle is implemented by state governments through direct regulation that creates economic incentives, leading the polluter to bear the cost of the environmental harm caused by its activity. Typically this is done through regulation that imposes direct environmental liability on the polluting agents. In the context of environmental liability, in the last few decades international and national environmental liability laws have been invariably based on strict liability (Commission of the European Communities, 1993).4 The proponents of the strict liability rule also focus on “cost internalization,” which requires that the social cost of an activity be charged to the polluter. This is consistent with the economic rationale of the polluter-pays principle, which mandates the cost-internalization principle (Bergkamp, 2001). The economic rationale for this is that strict liability is a preferable rule in situations of unilateral care and where only the injurer can take effective precautions to prevent the harm. Further, while both strict liability and negligence rules induce the injurer to take the optimal amount of care, the advantage of strict liability in environmental cases is that only the harm must be observable. The level of care is irrelevant and therefore need not be established in a court of law, thereby reducing evidentiary requirements. The other reason for the increasing use of strict liability in environment protection, especially in an age where all governments are trying to curb industrial pollution, is that in a market setting, negligence may prove inefficient compared to strict liability, inasmuch as it does not create adequate incentives to reduce activity levels and to invest in research and development of new cleaner technologies. Furthermore, residual damages caused by partially-controlled polluting activities would not be reflected in the price of commodities, resulting in resource misallocation (Krier and Stewart, 1978). Under the negligence rule, in those industries there could therefore be excessive entry of firms, with a resulting increase of the probability of pollution and/or environmental damage (Polinsky, 1980).”



Environmental protection is key to keeping a stable economy.

Porter, Charlene. "Environmental Care Creates Economic Growth.” U.S. Department of State. 1

August 2013. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/08/20130801279915.html>

“Washington — Environmental protection is good for the economy and creates jobs,

according to decades of national experience. The United States’ new top environmental

officer says those facts should end the nation’s decades-long debate on a “false choice” —

the assertion that environmental protections inhibit economic growth.

Delivering her first major speech since being sworn into the position, Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy said many policies implemented in the past have

produced a cleaner, more prosperous nation.

“Today, the truth we need to embrace is that cutting carbon pollution will spark business

innovation, will grow jobs, and will strengthen the economy,” McCarthy said, while speaking

at Harvard University in Massachusetts.

She cited the stricter fuel-economy standards set for auto manufacturing by the Obama

administration in 2011. Car makers responded by increasing mileage-per-gallon in new vehicles

and lowering their carbon emissions. The result was a product more attractive to consumers,

McCarthy said, and a boost in U.S. auto sales.

The auto industry was on "the brink of collapse" four years ago, McCarthy said, but now

the Center for Automotive Research, an independent research organization, predicts the

industry will add 35,000 jobs in 2013. She added that the Wall Street Journal said the

industry "is emerging as an ‘export powerhouse,’ with more than 1 million cars and light

trucks exported from U.S. auto plants.””



Environmental protection can save lives and help the economy.

Porter, Charlene. "Environmental Care Creates Economic Growth.” U.S. Department of State. 1

August 2013. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/08/20130801279915.html>

“Emissions of common air pollutants have dropped almost 70 percent since 1970, when the

EPA was created. National economic growth exceeded 200 percent over the same period. A

steadily growing population drove ever more vehicle miles through those decades,

McCarthy said. “So, the bad things went down while the good things went up.”

Further analysis has shown that cleaner air achieved through stronger regulation prevents

hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory illness.

While national and state environmental policies have been key to achieving these health

improvements, McCarthy called on a wider coalition of business and community leaders,

activists, scholars and scientists to step up to the 21st-century challenge of climate change

and help the nation achieve a cleaner and more prosperous future.

Reducing emissions from carbon-based fuels and from electricity-generating plants is a

hallmark of the strategy President Obama announced in June. The plan also calls for U.S.

leadership in helping other countries already facing adverse consequences of climate

change.”

AFF:$Extraction$Harms$Environment$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


Stopping resource extraction can stop deforestation.




“The recent controversy over deforestation serves to bring the forestry sector and forestry policy

under closer scrutiny. In the past ten years, both the funding and the range of forestry policy

options have expanded significantly. Developing countries in cooperation with donor agencies

have developed programs responsive to international pressures (such as for the preservation of

unique forest ecosystems), national priorities (such as revenue from wood exports or expanded

domestic agricultural production), and to local demand for wood energy, poles, and other forest

products (Barnes and Allen 1982; Hammer 1983; Skutsch 1983). But the results of these efforts

have been mixed. Forest reserves suffer from illegal cutting and grazing; forest plantations are

hampered by lack of knowledge regarding soil conditions, rainfall requirements, and appropriate

species. In spite of these difficulties, beneficial programs have been implemented. Examples

include community woodlots for woodfuels and other forest products, tree plantations along

roadsides, canal banks and other locations, smallholder tree farms to provide feedstock for

electricity generation, tree seedling distribution, and other activities. The ultimate outcome of

deforestation depends on these programs, which in turn require proper site selection, careful

species choice, adequate forestry extension services, and local and international commitments to

reforestation.”



Washington, DC.



Extraction, specifically oil booms, can be devastating for

development.

Diamond, Lawrence, and Jack Moschbacher. "Petroleum to the People." Hoover.org. Web. 6

Dec 2013.

<http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/diamond_mosbacher_latest3.pdf>.

“Oil booms poison the prospects for development in poor countries. The surge of easy

money fuels inflation, fans waste and massive corruption, distorts exchange rates,

undermines the competitiveness of traditional export sectors such as agriculture, and preempts

the growth of manufacturing. Moreover, as oil prices fluctuate on world markets, oil-rich

countries can suddenly become cash poor when booms go bust (since poor countries rarely

save any of these revenue windfalls). Oil booms are also bad news for democracy and the rule of

law. In fact, not a single developing country that derives the bulk of its export earnings from oil

and gas is a democracy. Rather than fostering an entrepreneurial middle class, oil wealth, when

controlled by the government, stifles the emergence of an independent business class and swells

the power of the state vis-à-vis civil society.”

Larry Diamond is a leading contemporary scholar in the field of democracy studies. He is a

professor of Sociology and Political Science at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the

Hoover Institution, a conservative policy think tank



African development will be atrocious – will create authoritarianism

if they tap their oil reserves.


Dec 2013.


“In Africa, then, where one-party dominance or outright authoritarian rule prevails, as in

Ethiopia, Gambia, Tanzania, and Uganda, oil wealth will further entrench it. And where

democracy is struggling to sink roots -- as in Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Senegal, and Sierra

Leone -- it could easily overwhelm weak state institutions. Even Ghana, the most liberal and

stable democracy in West Africa, could fall victim to the problem of oil revenues. The country

now exports fewer than 100,000 barrels a day, but that figure is estimated to soar to as much as

half a million barrels by 2015. If used wisely, this influx of capital has the potential to fund

pathbreaking improvements in physical infrastructure and human well-being. But if state

officials, enabled by the absence of meaningful institutions of transparency and

accountability, manage to divert the oil revenues to themselves, then the new wealth will

serve only to further consolidate the power and inflate the personal fortunes of the ruling elites.

There is no reason to expect that newly rich oil producers in Africa will meet a fate much

different from that of Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, and Sudan, all of which rank in

the worst fifth of all countries in terms of bribery and corruption.”






Literally no oil state in Africa has avoided an increase into

corruption after tapping into oil. It’s democratic backsliding.


Dec 2013.


“Although several countries in Africa have made great strides in improving governance over the

past decade, no continent has more obviously displayed the sad drama of the resource curse:

Africa’s oil-rich states have become strikingly more corrupt than their resource-poor

neighbors. According to the Worldwide Governance Indicators, compiled annually by the World

Bank, Africa’s current oil exporters rank in the bottom quintile globally in their relative

ability to control corruption, formulate and implement effective policies, regulate private-

sector development, and enforce the rule of law. Conversely, Africa’s future exporters

currently well outpace the regional average in these percentile rankings. Unless a new approach

is tried, oil will drag the future exporters down to the miserable governance levels of the

current exporters. To date, no African country has been able to keep oil money from being

largely usurped and misused by the powerful. Every one of the 12 current oil exporters

currently falls into the bottom half of the UN’s Human Development Index. According to the

World Bank, more than a tenth of all children born in oil-rich African countries die before the

age of five, double the global average. If Africa is the worst-governed continent in the world,

its oil states are the worst of the worst.”






Sustainable African extraction requires a power-to-the-people

system that has not yet been established.


Dec 2013.


“Unless, that is, [if] African governments embrace a radical policy approach: handing [hand] a

large share of the new revenues directly to the people as taxable income. The influx of funds

from new oil discoveries will be so large that if properly managed, it could catapult developing

countries into genuine economic and social development. By taking control of these

revenues out of the hands of the political elite and restoring the link between citizens and

their public officials, this “oil to cash” strategy offers the best hope for tomorrow’s oil-rich

African nations to avoid the fate that has befallen so many of yesterday’s.”






Resource curse is real – six reasons.

Frankel, Jeffrey A. 2010. “The Natural Resource Curse: A Survey”. John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University. 2010. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/FrankelHEEPDP21.pdf >.

“How could abundance of hydrocarbon deposits, or other mineral and agricultural products,

be a curse? What would be the mechanism for this counter-intuitive relationship? Broadly

speaking, there are at least six lines of argument. First, prices of such commodities could be

subject to secular decline on world markets. Second, natural resources could be dead-end

sectors in another sense: they may crowd out manufacturing, and [manufacturing] the latter

sector might be the one to offer dynamic benefits and spillovers that are good for growth. (It

does not sound implausible that “industrialization” could be the essence of economic

development.) Third, the volatility of world prices of energy and other mineral and agricultural

commodities, which is known to be especially high, could be problematic. Fourth, countries

where physical command of oil deposits or other resources by the government or a hereditary

elite automatically confers wealth on the holders may be less likely to develop the

institutions, such as rule of law and decentralization of decision-making, that are conducive to

economic development than in countries where moderate taxation of a thriving market economy

is the only way to finance the government. Fifth – such countries could have a proclivity for

armed conflict, which is inimical to economic growth. Sixth – swings in commodity prices

could engender excessive macroeconomic instability, via the real exchange rate and

government spending, imposing unnecessary costs. We consider each of these topics.”

Jeffrey Frankel is James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard

University’s Kennedy School of Government. He directs the program in International Finance

and Macroeconomics at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is also on the

Business Cycle Dating Committee, which officially declares recessions.



Biotic resource extraction can lead to over-extraction and decreased

yield. Fishing as a case study.

Naylor, Rosamond L., Goldburg, Rebecca J., et al. “Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish

Supplies.” Nature, Vol. 405. June, 2000. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6790/full/4051017a0.html>.

“Capture fisheries as a whole have plateaued at around 85-95 Mt (million metric tonnes, or

megatonnes) per year8. Moreover, there has been a gradual shift in wild fish capture from

large and valuable carnivorous species to smaller, less valuable species that feed at lower

trophic levels. Although catch rates for some species have not declines during the 1990s, most

ocean fisheries stocks are now recognized as over or fully fished. Aquaculture production,

meanwhile, has surged, particularly during the past 10-15 years. Farmed fish supplies totaled 29

Mt in 1997, compared with 10 Mt a decade ago. Such growth helps to explain current

patterns in ocean fish capture; between 1986 and 1997, 4 of the top 5, and 8 of the top 20

capture species were used in feed production for the aquaculture and livestock industries.

These species—anchoveta, Chilean jack mackerel, Atlantic herring, chub mackerel, Japanese

anchovy, round sardinella, Atlantic mackerel and European anchovy—are all palegic fishes.”

The authors are affiliated with Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies,

Environmental Defense, The Aquaculture Department’s Southeast Asian Fisheries Development

Center in the Philippines, the Department of Systems Ecology at Stockholm University, the

Beijer Institute, The Institute of Aquaculture at the University of Stirling, the World Wildlife

Find, and the Department of Zoology at Oregon State University.



Resource extraction always creates environmental harms.




“The nature of REIs necessarily involves alterations to the environment and various forms

of displacement of local populations. With respect to the environment, resource extraction

industries can have wide-ranging (adverse) effects. Primary among these are: 1) the

degradation of ecosystems through processes of extraction, refining and transportation, e.g.,

oil spills, cyanide spills, acid mine drainage, etc.; 2) degradation of the environment

through the use of products of these industries such as oil, e.g., smog, ozone depletion; 3)

changes in ecosystems, viz., flooding, deforestation, desertification and; 4) the loss of

biodiversity. While such negative impact occurs in both developed and developing countries,

the latter tend to be more vulnerable due to a variety of factors that may differ when firms

operate in these different contexts. Such factors include regulations in effect covering

extraction and refining processes (e.g., extraction methods, reclamation standards, etc.), the

ability and will of governments to enforce such regulations, the ability of local

communities to participate in decision-making, other pressures on firms (e.g., boycotts,

negative publicity, etc.), etc. Not infrequently, for example, it is the case that firms cause

environmental damage through methods that are perfectly legal in the host (developing) country

in which they are operating, but which would be illegal in their home (developed) country.”





Resource extraction causes socio-political harms.




“Such adverse environmental impact and the economic effects noted above can (individually and

in concert) lead to adverse social and cultural effects on local communities. In the social realm,

the direct and indirect effects of resource extraction industries may include such problems as

increased health problems, the break-up of local communities (through forced removal,

degradation of traditional livelihood opportunities, etc.), increased ethnic and racial tension (as

populations move to and from resource extraction sites), etc. - as attested to by the papers in this

issue by Idahosa and, Boele, Fabig and Wheeler. Indigenous groups and ethnic minorities tend

to suffer disproportionately from such effects (Clarke and Cook Clarke, 1999). In the realm of

culture, adverse effects can occur at either of two levels. At one level, as business has become

increasingly global (especially in its marketing strategies), there has been a general trend for

Western culture to commercialize and displace local cultures in developing countries (e.g.,

fashion, music, cinema, literature, language, etc.). While REIs may contribute to this broader

phenomenon, their activities are even more likely to contribute to another trend. This is the

absorption of indigenous groups and other ethnic minorities into a national or dominant

culture within the country (involving the loss of language, traditional lifestyles, systems of

meaning, etc.) (Project Underground, 2000a).”





River water quality goes down with economic development.

Shafik, Nemat. “Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric

Analysis.” Oxford Economic Papers. 1994. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.jstor.org/stable/2663498>

“The two measures of river quality tend to worsen with rising per capita income. Dissolved

oxygen seems to be linear with a negative slope implying a tendency for worsening river

quality with economic growth. Growing effluent pollution associated with industrialization

may play a role in reducing dissolved oxygen at higher incomes. In the case of fecal coliform,

the cubic model fits the best implying that fecal content of rivers worsens, then improves, and

then deteriorates again at very high income levels. The initial worsening of fecal content,

which occurs up to a per capita income level of about $1,375, is probably associated with

growing urbanization and consequent pressures on sanitation. The improvement results when

urban sanitation services are introduced. The increase in fecal coliform at high income levels,

which begins at an income level of $11,400, is more difficult to explain. The cubic shape of fecal

content is not an artifact of the functional form. The increase in fecal pollution which occurs at

incomes above $11,500 per capita is based on 38 observations from seven rivers in three

countries (Australia, Japan, and the United States). This cubic relationship held even after some

extremely high observations of fecal content from the Yodo river in Japan were dropped from

the sample. The increased fecal coliform may reflect improvements in water supply systems

where people no longer depend directly on rivers for water and therefore may be less concerned

about river water quality. Some sample bias may exist for both measures of water quality

because only the most polluted rivers may be monitored in high income countries. Because of

these caveats, the results for river water quality must be treated with caution.”



Economic development fails to decrease carbon emission levels.

Shafik, Nemat. “Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric

Analysis.” Oxford Economic Papers. 1994. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.jstor.org/stable/2663498>.

“Carbon emissions per capita, like solid waste, do not improve with rising incomes because

widespread awareness of the problem of climate change is relatively recent and because the costs

are born externally. The log linear specification has virtually all the explanatory power, although

the quadratic cubic terms are also significant. The turning point on the quadratic specification

occurs at an income level that is well outside the sample range of per capita income.' The

explanation for the exponential increase in carbon emissions per capita with rising incomes

is that it is a classic free rider problem. There are no major local costs associated with carbon

emissions all the costs in terms of climate change are borne by the rest of the world-and the

local benefits in the near term are small in most cases. Technology has not helped, evidenced by

the insignificant time trend, because no significant incentives to reduce carbon emissions

exist. It is interesting to note that carbon emissions per unit of capital stock have declined over

time as countries have moved to cleaner burning fuels and technologies. But this movement to

cleaner fuels has been motivated largely by concerns about local, not global, pollutants (see

Diwan and Shafik 1992, for an analysis).”



In Nigeria, oil drilling has led to negative utilitarian impacts.





“Standing at the margin of the margin, Ogoniland (like Chiapas in Mexico) appears to be a

socioeconomic paradox (figures 1-1, 1-2). Home to six oil fields, half of Nigeria’s oil

refineries, the country’s only fertilizer plant, a large petrochemical plant, Ogoniland is

wracked by unthinkable misery and deprivation. During the first oil boom, Ogoniland’s fifty-

six wells accounted for almost 15 percent of Nigerian oil production1 and in the past three

decades an estimated $30 billion in petroleum revenues have flowed from this Lilliputian

territory; it was, as local opinion had it, Nigeria’s Kuwait. Yet, according to a governmental

commission, Oloibiri, where the first oil was pumped in 1958, has no single kilometer of all-

season road and remains “one of the most backward areas in the country” (Furro 1992:282).

Few Ogoni households have electricity, there is one doctor per 100,000 people, child

mortality rates are the highest in the nation, unemployment is 85 percent, 80 percent of the

population is illiterate, and close to half of Ogoni youth have left the region in search of

work. In Furro’s survey of two minority oil-producing communities, over 80 percent of

respondents felt that economic conditions had deteriorated since the onset of oil

production, and over two-thirds believed that there had been no progress in local development

since 1960. No wonder that the systematic reduction in federal allocations and the lack of

concern by the Rivers government was, for Oganiland, part of a long history of “the politics of

minority suffocation” (Ikporukpo 1996:171).”



Oil spills in Nigeria have had horrible ecological consequences for

locals.





“If Ogoniland failed to see the material benefits of oil, what it did experience was an ecological

disaster—what the European Parliament has called “an environmental nightmare.” The heart of

the ecological harm stems from oil spills—either from the pipelines that crisscross Oganiland

(often passing directly through villages) or from blowouts at the wellheads—and gas flaring.

As regards the latter, a staggering 76 percent of natural gas in the oil-producing areas is

flared (compared to 0.6 percent in the United States). As a visiting environmentalist noted in

1993 in the delta, “some children have never known a dark night even though they have no

electricity” (Village Voice, November 21, 1995:21). Burning twenty-four hours per day at

temperatures of 13-14,000 degrees Celsius, Nigerian natural gas produces 35 million tons of

CO2 and 12 million tons of methane, more than the rest of the world (and rendering Nigeria

probably the biggest single cause of global warming). The oil spillage record is even worse,

According to Claude Ake, there are roughly 300 spills per year in the delta, and in the 1970s

alone the spillage was four times greater than the much-publicized Exxon Valdez spill in

Alaska. In one year alone, almost 700,000 barrels were spilled, according to a government

commission. The Ogoni are typically seen as a distinct ethnic group, consisting of three

subgroups and six clans. Their population of roughly 50,000 people is distributed among 111

villages dotted over 404 square miles of creeks, waterways, and tropical forest in the northeast

fringes of the Niger Delta. Located administratively in Rivers State, a Louisiana-like territory of

some 50,000 square kilometers, Oganiland is one of the most heavily populated zones in all of

Africa. Indeed the most densely settled areas of Oganiland—over 1,500 persons per square

kilometers—are the sites of the largest wells. Its customary productive base was provided by

fishing and agricultural pursuits until the discovery of petroleum, including the huge Bomu field,



immediately prior to independence. Part of an enormously complex regional ethnic mosaic, the

Ogoni were drawn into internecine conflicts within the delta region—largely as a consequence of

the slave trade and its aftermath—in the period prior to arrival of colonial forces at Kono in

1901. The Ogoni resisted the British until 1908 (Naanen 1995) but therafter were left to stagnate

as part of the Opopo Division within Calabar Province. As Ogoniland was gradually

incorporated during the 1930s, the clamor for a separate political division grew at the hands of

the first pan-Ogoni organization, the Ogoni Central Union, which bore fruit with the

establishment of the Ogoni Native Authority in 1947. In 1951, however, the authority was

forcibly integrated into the Eastern Region. Experiencing tremendous neglect and discrimination,

integration raised longstanding fears among the Ogoni of Igbo domination. Politically

marginalized and economically neglected, the delta minorities feared the growing secessionist

rhetoric of the Igbo and consequently led an ill-fated secession of their own in February 1966.

Isaac Boro, Sam Owonaro, and Nottingham Dick declared an illegal Delta Peoples republic but

were crushed and were subsequently, in a trial that is only too reminiscent of the Ogoni tribunal

in 1995, condemned to death for treason. Nonetheless, Ogoni antipathy to what they saw as a

sort of internal colonialism at the hands of the Igbo, continued in their support for the federal

forces during the civil war. While Yakubo Gowon did indeed finally establish a Rivers Sate in

1967—which compensated in some measure for enormous Ogoni losses during the war—the

new state recapitulated in microcosm the larger “national question.” The new Rivers State was

multiethnic but presided over by the locally dominant Ijaw, for whom the minorities felt little but

contempt.”

AFF:$Extraction$Unequally$Harms$People$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


Resource extraction unequally harms individuals based on social

class and geographic location.

Johnston, Barbara Rose. "Human Rights and the Environment." Human Ecology. 1995. Web. 7

December 2013. <link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01191645>

“Vulnerability to the changes in the biophysical realm is a factor of social relations: human

action and a history of social inequity leaves some people more vulnerable than others (Wisner,

1993). In spite of international and national structures establishing inalienable rights for all

this differential experience is often a result of government induced and/or sanctioned

action: powerless groups and their rights to land, resources, health, environmental

protection and thus, their future, are expendable in the name of national security, national

energy, and national debt. It is this sociocultural context of selective exposure to hazardous and

degraded environmental settings that constitutes a form of human environmental rights abuse. At

one level, human environmental rights abuse occurs because people happen to be living in

the wrong place. Beneath their homes lie economic or strategic mineral resources. Their

lives are spent in the "empty, open spaces" far from densely populated regions, and thus become

the logical place for military exercises, weapons testing, the storage or disposal of hazardous

wastes. They live on the frontier, in the peripheral regions, and on the borders between

"political nations" and find themselves caught in the middle during times of war or civil

unrest. Their isolation attracts those who are seeking economic, political, and environmental

alternatives. For these and many more reasons, resident peoples become displaced, alienated

from their traditional holdings, and experience increasing difficulty in maintaining individual,

household, and community health (cf. Cultural Survival, 1993; Burger, 1987, 1990).”



When nations prioritize resource extraction, human environmental

rights abuses occur because of the prioritization of national

interests over individuals.



“At another level, human environmental rights abuse occurs because people are in the way

of progress and "national" needs supersede individual and community concerns. Thus,

people find themselves forcibly relocated while governments and industry build dams,

expand export-oriented intensive agriculture, develop international tourist facilities, and set

aside "wilderness" to save the biocommons and attract foreign ecotourist dollars (The

Ecologist, 1993; Johnston, 1994). Still, at another level, human environmental rights abuse

occurs because it is socially, culturally, and legally acceptable to protect the health of some

people, while knowingly placing other humans at risk. Thus, women and children, racial,

ethnic, and other powerless groups experience a contradictory application of occupational

health and safety regulations, and of environmental protection measures. The state may

disregard its own laws in the name of national security or economic interests. Environmental

and occupational health and safety policies may vary greatly between "home" and foreign

manufacturing locales. Information about hazardous materials may be available in one

setting to some people, and purposefully withheld from others (Bullard, 1993, 1994;

Goldman, 1991; Johnston and Dawson, 1994; Johnston and Button, 1994; Szasz, 1994).”



Policy makers justify hazardous actions by distancing themselves

from the people who are harmed.



“The process of legitimacy, that is, making immoral actions socially palatable and legally

defensible, involves physical and cultural mechanisms used to create, maintain, and widen

the distance between those who decide courses of action, and those who live with the adverse

consequences. These mechanisms include the physical distancing of decision makers from the

reality of their decisions, employment of frameworks and analytical methods that intellectually

distance decision makers from the reality of consequence, and embedding abusive action within

a broader ethnocentric discourse. Perhaps the most common mechanism used to distance

decision makers from the consequence of their decisions is the siting of hazardous actions

and endeavors in "peripheral" regions populated by "marginal" people (the "not in my

back yard" approach to decision making) (Bullard, 1993, 1994; Szasz, 1994). Peripheral

regions can be a matter of actual geographic distance, or "cultural" distance, that is, areas

populated by less powerful groups.”



Scientific research is used to distance policy makers from the

negative effects their policies have on the environment.



“Conceptual distancing mechanisms involve the use of scientific methods to define, analyze,

prioritize, and assess the costs and benefits of various actions. Forcing the complex nature

of human environmental crises into a scientific framework implies a series of compromises.

Western culture, the culture of science, exists in fragmented spaces and places in the mind, spirit,

and material world. Problems are framed in tightly defined, bounded terms that suggest

logical, linear solutions, strategies and methods used to achieve scientific objectivity, and

presumably a verifiable version of truth .The pursuit of objectivity hinges on our ability to

practice the fine art of distancing: distancing ourselves from reality to the point that we can

observe, isolate, and distill facets of the human experience without losing our grasp of reality.

Both the act of distancing and the fragmentation of complex reality into discrete analytical

units carry analytical risks: both deny the true nature of humanity, human experience,

human problems, human needs. Reality is messy, complex, and organizationally

entrenched.

In this highly compartmentalized world, environment as a concept no longer represents a natural

system of which humans are a part. It is a commodity controlled and manipulated by global

market forces. Regional economies and cultures have been replaced by the "global village"

where resource extraction, production, and consumption at the local level are highly

fragmented and at the international level tightly controlled by a relatively small group of

national, multinational, and corporate entities (The Ecologist, 1993; Sachs, 1993). This

centralization of authority and capital:( 1) serves to devalue the meaning, power, and the

integrity of the community over its own immediate environment(;2 ) suggests that

environmental integrity is in large part dependent upon the decisions and actions of the

state, multilateral in situations, and/or multinational industry rather than the local



community and; (3) increases the distance between making the decision and experiencing

the consequence.”



Population growth (development) empirically leads to deforestation.




“The results shown in Table 5 indicate that an increase in population is associated with a loss

of forest area. The coefficients relating population change to forest area change (b, = -.005, -

.008 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively) are negative and significant at the .10 and .05 levels,

respectively. The negative coefficients in the regression (b and beta) and the negative correlation

coefficients (r) mean that developing countries with high rates of population growth also

have higher-than-average rates of deforestation. In addition, the coefficient for the sample of

Asian and African countries is stronger than for the total sample, suggesting that in Latin

America population growth may not be as important a factor in deforestation as it is in Asian and

African countries. Population growth in connection with expansion of arable land has been

regarded as one of the contributors to deforestation. However, the coefficient for change in

arable land (b2 = .140, -.220 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively), although negative, is not

significant. The lack of a direct relationship in the multivariate analysis between deforestation

and agricultural expansion (i.e., b2 is not significant in Table 5) can be explained through an

examination of the bivariate correlations between change in crop-land, forest area, and

population (see Table 6). Changes in forest area and arable land are negatively correlated

for both samples (r = -.212, - .380), and both simple correlations are stronger than are the

multivariate coefficients, probably because forests are being replaced by agriculture.

Changes in cropland and population are positively and quite strongly correlated (r = .352, .580).

The bivariate correlation coefficients in Table 6 indicate that population growth is related to

agricultural expansion, which in turn is related to forest loss. This relationship does not show

up in the multivariate analysis because controlling for population suppresses the negative

correlation between cropland and change in forest area. We conclude that both population

growth and change in arable land are associated with deforestation. The patterns also are

much stronger in Asia and Africa than in Latin America.”





Washington, DC.



Extraction trades off with public goods – kills growth.

Collier, Paul. "The political economy of Natural resources." Social Research. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.

<http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/research/pdfs/PoliticalEconomyofNaturalResources-

SocialResearchArticle.pdf>.

“Too Little Investment in National Public Goods. Natural assets are one form of national

public good. The above argument not only induces the government to plunder these natural

assets in order to invest in group-specific and private capital, but to underinvest in other forms

of national public good. The plunder of natural assets can be accelerated by means of

international borrowing against the natural assets as collateral. More generally, spending

ministers will ally to oppose the national public good of saving. Profligate spending ministers

and a weak minister of finance thus give rise to a common-pool problem. This leads to an

upward bias in public spending claims, a tilt of the government spending profile from the

future toward the present, and thus not enough saving for future generations. When the

financial return on the common asset is higher than that on private assets voracious natural

resource depletion can not merely waste the natural assets but reduce overall growth.”

Paul Collier, CBE is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of

Government, and Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at The University

of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College.



Developing countries more likely to use violence, but this violence props up an unequal exchange and allows rich countries to appear unaccountable.

Downey, Liam, Eric Bonds, and Katherine Clark. "Natural Resource Extraction, Armed

Violence, and Environmental Degradation." Organization & Environment. 2010. Web. 6

Dec. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169238/>.

“Third, this article helps demonstrate that much of the armed violence associated with natural

resource extraction is carried out by developing nation governments, mercenaries, and

rebels. It also offers a theoretical argument for why developing nations are likely to use armed

violence to achieve their resource extraction goals even when doing so promotes ecological

unequal exchange and the continued domination of these nations by core nations.19 Thus,

this article (a) provides a rationale for why developing nation governments sometimes use

armed violence to achieve resource extraction goals that contradict their long term

interests and (b) suggests that core nations and corporations are able to distance themselves

from many violent actions that benefit them, actions that they might otherwise have to take

themselves. The ability of core nations and corporations to distance themselves from

extraction-related violence is potentially important because it likely allows these nations

and corporations to divert blame for this violence (and the human rights abuses associated

with it) away from themselves and to present their control over natural resources as the

legitimate product of a just and rational world market. As a result, extraction-related

armed violence carried out by developing nations may often help to legitimate core nations,

core nation corporations, international trade and finance institutions, and the global economic

order by stigmatizing developing nations and disassociating core nations, core nation and the

institutions they control from the violent underpinnings of the global extractive

industrycorporations, and the institutions they control from the violent underpinnings of the

global extractive industry.”



Liam Downey is an Associate Professor of Sociology, Faculty Associate in the Institute of

Behavioral Science, and Faculty Associate in the Environmental Studies Program. He studies the

role that elite-controlled organizations, institutions, and networks play in harming people,

societies, and the environment, focusing in particular on elite-controlled policy planning

networks, armed violence organized by the state, commodity chain power, and international

trade and finance institutions such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.



Studies have found a correlation between oil extraction and

authoritarianism in the Middle East.

Frankel, Jeffrey A. 2010. “The Natural Resource Curse: A Survey”. John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University. 2010. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/FrankelHEEPDP21.pdf >.

“Mahdavy (1970) was apparently the first to suggest—followed by Luciani (1987), Vandewalle

(1998) and many others -- that Middle Eastern governments’ access to rents, in the form of

oil revenue, may have freed them from the need for taxation of their peoples, and that this in

turn freed them from the need for democracy. The need for tax revenue is believed to require

democracy under the theory “no taxation without representation.” Huntington (1991)

generalized the principle beyond Middle Eastern oil producers to states with natural resources in

other parts of the developing world. Statistical studies across large cross-sections of countries

followed. Ross (2001) finds that economic dependence on oil and mineral is correlated with

authoritarian government. So do Barro (2000), Wantchekon (2002), Jenson and Wantchekon

(2004), and Ross (2006). Smith (2004, 2007), Ulfelder (2007) and others generally find that

authoritarian regimes have lasted longer in countries with oil wealth.”

Jeffrey Frankel is James W. Harpel, Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard

University’s Kennedy School of Government. He directs the program in International Finance

and Macroeconomics at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is also on the

Business Cycle Dating Committee, which officially declares recessions.



Resource extraction leads to financial instability.

Gylfason, Thorvaldur. “Natural Resources, Education, and Economic Development.” European

Economic Review. 2001. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.hi.is/~gylfason/pdf/eea2000k.pdf >.

“First, natural resource abundance often results in an overvaluation of the national currency.

This is a symptom of the Dutch disease: A natural resource boom and the associated surge in

raw-material exports drive up the real exchange rate (or real wages), thus hurting other

exports (Corden, 1984). Moreover, recurrent booms and busts tend to increase exchange rate

volatility (Gylfason et al., 1999; Herbertsson et al., 1999). Sometimes this is enough to reduce

total exports. Sometimes it just skews the composition of exports away from high-tech and

other manufacturing and service exports that are particularly conducive to economic growth. In

either case, economic growth is likely to slow down because exports and, generally, openness to

all kinds of trade with the rest of the world are good for growth (Frankel and Romer, 1999).”

Thorvaldur Gylfason is on the faculty of economics and business administration at the University

of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.



Focus on resources is inversely correlated with education levels.




“Fourth, nations that are confident that their natural resources are their most important

asset may inadvertently – and perhaps even deliberately! – neglect the development of their

human resources, by devoting inadequate attention and expenditure to education. Their natural

wealth may blind them to the need for educating their children. Therefore, it is perhaps no

coincidence that school enrollment at all levels tends to be inversely related to natural

resource abundance, as measured by the share of the labor force engaged in primary

production, across countries (Gylfason et al., 1999(. For example, the OPEC countries send

57 percent of their youngsters to secondary school compared with 64 percent for the world

as a whole and they spend less than 4 percent of their GNP on education on average

compared with almost 5 percent for the world as a whole (the figures refer to 1997). Blessed

by an unusually rich and reliable rent stream, Botswana is an exception: Its expenditure on

education relative to income continues to be among the largest in the world.”





Focus on resource extraction stops social class movement.




“Education is good for growth, as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Alfred Marshall knew.

Listen, for example, to Marshall (1920, p. 176):

There is no extravagance more prejudicial to growth of national wealth than that wasteful

negligence which allows genius that happens to be born of lowly parentage to expend itself in

lowly work. No change would conduce so much to a rapid increase of material wealth as an

improvement in our schools, and especially those of the middle grades, provided it be

combined with an extensive system of scholarships, which will enable the clever son of a

working man to rise gradually from school to school till he has the best theoretical and practical

education which the age can give.

Natural resources bring risks. One is that too many people become locked in low-skill

intensive natural-resource-based industries, including agriculture, and thus fail through no fault of their own to advance their own or their children’s education and earning power. Another risk is that the authorities and other inhabitants of resource-rich countries become overconfident and therefore tend to underrate or overlook the need for good economic

policies as well as for good education. In other words, nations that believe that natural capital is their most important asset may develop a false sense of security and become negligent about the accumulation of human capital. Indeed, resource-rich nations can live well of their natural resources over extended periods, even with poor economic policies and a week commitment to education. Awash in easy cash, they may find that education does not pay. Nations without

natural resources have a smaller margin for error, and are less likely to make this

mistake.”





Focus on resource extraction creates an economic cycle that only

causes more harm to the environment.

Reardon, Thomas and Vosti, Stephen A. “Links Between Rural Poverty and the Environment in

Developing Countries; Asset Categories and Investment Poverty” World Development,

1995. Web. 7 December 2013. <ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v23y1995i9p1495-

1506.html >.

“This greater reliance on livelihood activities based on use of the commons and on open-access

lands has often led observers to blame the poor for overgrazing and overforesting open access

lands. Livestock indeed are important to the poor, but the poor household usually cannot

afford to own many animals. For example, the poorest tercile of households owns far fewer

animals per household than do richer households in West Africa; see Christensen (1989). Thus

individual poor households put less pressure on semiarid pasturelands than do individual

rich households. The conventional argument is thus turned on its head: as absolute importance

of livestock holding increases with household income, and as incomes rise in rural areas, we

should expect households to invest in more livestock and place greater pressure on the

commons. Analogously, reducing poverty in tropical forest areas such as the Amazon may

induce technical change (e.g., adoption of chainsaws) in forest conversion even among small

farmers, thus increasing deforestation rates.”



The environmental consequences of resource usage harm the poor

who cannot keep up.




1506.html >.

“Boserup (1965) outlines a number of technology and investment paths to agricultural

intensification that farmers follow in the wake of increased land constraints and demand for land

- conditions that result from population growth, increased demand for agricultural products, or

reduced transportation costs (Boserup, 1965; Pingali et&., 1987). Two broad paths can be

distilled from Boserup’s framework: a labor-led intensification path where farmers merely

add labor to the production process on given land, allowing them to crop more densely, and

weed and harvest more intensively; a capital-led intensification path where farmers

augment their labor with variable and capital inputs, in particular fertilizer, organic matter,

and capital that facilitates land improvement. Boserup identifies the second path as having

higher land productivity than the former. Similarly, Matlon and Spencer (1984) note that the

capital-led path is more sustainable and productive in fragile, resource-poor areas as the

fertility-enhancing input use helps the farmer to avoid exhausting the soil during intensification

and the capital (land improvements) help avoid erosion and runoff. By contrast, in much of the

African tropics for example, the labor-led path to intensification is unsustainable, and leads to

land degradation and stagnation of land productivity. In situations such as the tropical

highlands where demographic pressure and degradation are severe, farm households that follow

only the labor-led path are in for long-run ecological disaster and further immizeration (Matlon

and Adesina, 1992; Cleaver and Schreiber, 1994). Hence, in situations of fragile and

degrading environments and land constraints, thus lack of opportunity to extensify, households

too “investment-poor” to make the requisite investments for the “capital-led” intensification

path will find themselves both increasing the rate of degradation and vulnerable to its

productivity consequences.”



Resource extraction in Rwanda leads to a vicious cycle of poverty.




1506.html >.

“In Rwanda there is intense pressure on the land, and the poor depend on micro plots to

survive, and have few animals. There is very skewed distribution of nonfarm income. Where

the land-poor are also poor in off-farm capital, they can make few soil conservation

investments because of lack of cash for materials and labor hire. Those with cash crops such

as coffee or with nonfarm income have both the incentive (reliance on little land) and the cash to

make conservation investments. Moreover, the poor practice labor-led intensification (see

section 3), and lack the means to buy fertilizer or mulch, and own few animals to generate

manure. Limits to yield increases are reached early in such a system, and the soil can be

exhausted from lack of amendments such as fertilizer. This gives rise to a vicious circle of

poverty, labor-led intensification, degradation, and more poverty (Clay et al., 1995).”



The nature of certain pharmacological extraction methods means

that justice may not be distributive.





“A closely related problem growing out of recent advances in genetic and cell culture

technologies is that of actually determining site of origin. The production processes into

which the extraction of plant specimens feeds no longer depend on the use of bulk quantities of

material, as Parry demonstrates in her brilliant chapter, they may rely on the constituent parts

of the original specimens, which are broken up and recombined over and over again until

the essence of the source material is effectively lost. Alternatively, the key commodity is not

the physical specimen at all, but the information contained in its genetic makeup, which

scientists employ in efforts to synthesize useful compounds. Indeed, Parry argues that in some

cases, “prospecting” for marketable biological and genetic compounds can now be done more

profitable within existing collections than in the relatively inaccessible and uncontrolled natural

settings where the specimens originated. These developments have made tracing biological and

genetic materials up and down the production chain next to impossible, and frequently render the

question of distributive justice moot. The practice of “re-mining” existing collections suggests

that any leverage people in the areas of origin of key compounds might have had over

decisions regarding the sharing of economic benefits may have been lost long ago.

Furthermore, long delays in developing “commercial” uses for particular compounds break

the connection many activists and developers have sought to establish between

conservation and development, and undermine the efficacy of distributive benefits

mechanisms in producing desired environmental outcomes altogether.

AFF:$Extraction$Favors$Capitalism,$Domination$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


While seeking resources, countries assert their domination. This is

the root cause of human right abuses.



“The abuse of human environmental rights obviously occurs within a cultural, as well as

political economic and biophysical context. Human environmental rights violations often

occur as a result of efforts to gain control of land, labor, and resources of politically land/or

geographically peripheral peoples. The cultural context involves a process of social

construction, where marginal peoples are seen to be biologically, culturally, and socially

inferior, providing the justification for state domination.

This process, what George Appell (1992) terms psychosocial hegemony, utilizes a discourse of

debasement (the "dirty" native, sexually promiscuous/drunken/criminal native) that serves to

dehumanize (they are subhuman: savage, primitive, backward, ignorant, lazy people that "live

like animals"). The pervasiveness of this discourse in the every day language, media, school

curriculum materials, and in the views and policies of external agents (teachers, agricultural

and fishery extension agents, shopkeepers, and so forth) eventually destroys the self-esteem

and sense of worth of peripheral populations and removes their motivation to control their

destiny. This discourse of debasement is universal in form and content - it is an integral

component in the evolution of human rights abuse.

The "discourse of dominance" take several forms in state efforts to justify taking land,

labor, and resources. The poverty label, constructed by ignoring, belittling or claiming as

nonexistent the existing subsistence-based economies, provides the rationale for "economic

development" efforts. Ignoring or belittling the importance of subsistence or barter-based

economies also allows the inference that surrounding lands are unoccupied, empty, or are

wilderness areas that can be claimed and used by the state. Legally, state control over

peripheral population territory and resources is supported by Western notions of property

rights: the contention that resources held in common do not in face constitute "actual

property rights" (Berge, 1994; The Ecologist, 1993).”



Resource extraction is aggressive exploitation that links to

capitalism.

Webber, Jeffery R. "Indigenous Struggle: Ecology and Capitalist Resource Extraction in

Equador." Global Research. 13 July 2010. Web. 06 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/indigenous-struggle-ecology-and-capitalist-resource-

extraction-in-ecuador>.

“Indigenous peoples have long been arguing for a sustainable development model that

would break with the extractive model we have today. I’ll speak, for example, of the South,

and Central-South Amazonian region. In these regions the indigenous peoples are struggling for

conservation – a type of conservation that will utilize natural resources only in order to survive,

in order to live with dignity. This is quite distinct from overexploitation. The exploitation of

natural resources under the current model – whether by transnational corporations or state

companies – is an aggressive exploitation. In one day, for business purposes, they want to

extract millions and millions of dollars worth of natural resources in order to accumulate

capital. We have argued, however, that the accumulation of capital doesn’t serve our needs.

Why would we want to accumulate capital? It’s been a complete failure. In Ecuador,

agricultural production, communitarian agriculture production, has been one of the principal axes

of our well being, because these agricultural producers meet the food needs of those living in the

cities. But investment is moving out of agriculture and going toward natural resource

extraction. There is also a lack of investment in tourism, but we’ve seen from the example of

Costa Rica that investment in tourism is one possible alternative. We’ve argued that

communitarian, ecological, responsible, and sustainable tourism is one possible alternative.”



Ecological degradation is a result of capitalism, so extraction

ultimately just entrenches the domination of the already rich

country.

Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. "Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift :

Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade." International Journal of Comparative

Sociology. 2009. Web. 7 December 2013. <cos.sagepub.com/content/50/3-

4/311.full.pdf >

“Although Marxist theory cannot be said to have approached the issue of ecological imperialism

systematically in the past, Marx’s own analysis provided the analytical basis for such a

treatment, due to his simultaneous concern with economic expansion, imperialism, and

ecological exploitation. Nonetheless, ecological problems are complex, especially as they

emerge under capitalism. Ecological degradation is influenced by the structure and dynamics

of the world capitalist system, arising from the fact that a single world economy is divided

into numerous nation-states, competing with each other both directly and via their

corporations. The global economy is divided hierarchically, with nations occupying

fundamentally different positions in the international division of labor and in a world-

system of dominance and dependency (Frank, 1967; Wallerstein, 1974). To further complicate

matters, the extraction, processing, and consumption of raw materials – an inevitable part

of any mode of production – entails constant interactions with dynamic, integrated natural

processes and cycles (Bunker and Ciccantell, 2005). In this, earthly conditions are

transformed, potentially creating various forms of ecological degradation. The exact

ramifications, of course, will be determined by the particulars of any situation. Transfers in

economic values are shadowed in complex ways by real material- ecological flows that

transform ecological relations between town and country, and between nations, especially the

core and periphery (Bunker, 1984; Burkett, 1999; Hornborg, 2003). Control of such economic

and material flows is central to the forces of competition and the accumulation of capital, and

generates social and environmental inequalities throughout the global economy – both within and

between nations. Stephen Bunker (1984, 1985) highlighted how the extraction and export of



natural resources from peripheral countries involved the vertical flow of not only economic

value, but also value in terms of energy and matter, to more developed countries. These

trade arrangements, influenced by the dynamics of the global economy and positions

within the world-system, negatively affected and undermined the socio-ecological

conditions in the extractive countries. Recent scholarship on ‘ecologically unequal exchange’

has drawn on Bunker’s seminal work, as well as the theory of unequal exchange (Emmanuel,

1972), in order to demonstrate the disproportionate (and undercompensated) transfer of matter

and energy from the periphery to the core, and the exploitation of environmental space within the

periphery for intensive production and waste disposal (Frey, 1994; Hornborg, 2003; Rice, 2007).

The environmental footprint of economically advanced nations involves appropriation of

land, resources, and labor in lesser-developed countries, increasing the environmental

degradation in the latter for the benefit of the former (Hornborg, 1998, 2001; Jorgenson,

2006).”

Brett Clark is assistant professor of sociology and sustainability studies at the University of Utah.

His research focuses on the political economy of global environmental change and the

philosophy, history, and sociology of science. He teaches courses in the Department of

Sociology, Environmental Humanities Graduate Program, and the Environmental and

Sustainability Studies program.



The global economic system robs third world countries blind when

it comes to resource extraction – prioritizing resources

dooms the developing countries from the start.

Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. "Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift :

Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade."International Journal of Comparative

Sociology.

The economic development of capitalism has always carried with it social and ecological

degradation – an ecological curse. Moreover, ecological imperialism has meant that the worst

forms of ecological destruction, in terms of pillage of resources and the disruption of

sustainable relations to the earth, fall on the periphery rather than the center. Ecological

imperialism allows imperial countries to carry out an ‘environmental overdraft’ that draws

on the natural resources of periphery countries. As the material conditions of development

are destroyed, Third World countries are more and more caught in the debt trap that

characterizes extractive economies. The principles of conservation that were imposed partly by

business in the developed countries, in order to rationalize their resource use up to a point, were

never applied to the same extent in the Third World, where imperialism nakedly imposed an

‘after me the deluge’ philosophy. The guano and nitrates trade during the mid to late 19th

century highlights the unequal exchange and degradation associated with the ecological

contradictions of Britain and other dominant countries in the global economy. In fact, it is rather

misleading to dignify with the word ‘trade’ what was clearly robbery of ecological and

economic resources on a very high order, rooted in one of the most exploitative labor

processes in history and backed up by war and imperialism. The result for Peru and Chile

(and also Bolivia which lost its nitrates in the War of the Pacific) was not development, but

rather, as explained by critics from Mariátegui in the 1920s to Frank in the 1960s, constituted the

‘development of underdevelopment’ (Frank, 1967; Mariátegui, 1971).







Sustainability Studies program



Rapid extraction can cement existing power relations and can

subjugate different peoples.

Collier, Paul. "The political economy of Natural resources." Social Research. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.

<http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/research/pdfs/PoliticalEconomyofNaturalResources-

SocialResearchArticle.pdf>.

“Too Rapid Extraction: If the society is divided and power is unstable, then whichever

group is currently in power has an interest in converting as many natural assets as possible

into irreversible specific capital that favors itself. For example, the ethnic group in power

might locate infrastructure in its own geographic area. If the ruling group is sufficiently

small, the most attractive form of asset acquisition might indeed not even be public goods but

might be private wealth held in irreversible form by means of capital flight. Incumbent

governments then have an incentive to incur excessive social costs of extraction, such as by

agreeing to overgenerous deals to extraction companies, or to ignore social costs incurred

in the region of extraction if it is inhabited by nonfavored groups. For example, ministers in

the transitional government in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) knew that they only

had around three years in office. During this period many contracts were signed with resource

extraction companies conceding very generous terms in return for signature bonuses that cashed

in the value of the natural assets to the society. By 2006 royalty payments to the treasury of the

DRC were generating only $86,000 per year despite several hundred million dollars of

commodity exports.”

Paul Collier, CBE is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of

Government, and Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at The University

of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College.



Developing countries are threatened into resource extraction. Downey, Liam, Eric Bonds, and Katherine Clark. "Natural Resource Extraction, Armed



“Developing nations, of course, have very different interests than do core nations. They also

have much less power than do core nations. As a result, in developing nations, the decision to

use violence or the threat of violence in order to protect resource extraction activities is

likely to be strongly shaped by structural constraints imposed on them by wealthy

governments, corporations, and international institutions. For example, structural adjustment

programs imposed on developing nations by the World Bank and IMF often force

developing nations to maintain high levels of raw material exports (Bello et al., 1999); and in

cases where mining projects require political risk insurance, developing nations are sometimes

forced to agree that they will pay out potentially large insurance claims if mining activities are

disrupted in any way (Moody, 2005, 2007). Developing nations’ high levels of debt and their

resulting dependence on wealthy nations, the World Bank, the IMF, and corporate foreign

investment also force developing nation governments to worry about how these

organizations and states evaluate their activities. As a result, developing nation

governments may feel that regardless of their own motives and interests, they have to use

all means necessary to protect resource extraction activities so as to meet their debt

obligations, ensure continued foreign investment, and minimize conflict with more powerful

nations and institutions.”









Resource extraction is historically associated with violence.




“Turning to Table 2, we see that armed violence is associated with the extraction of most of

the critical minerals examined in this study. For example, for these critical minerals, violent

actions against protestors have occurred in South Africa, Malaysia, China, Brazil, Tibet,

Sierra Leone, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea.11 Mercenaries and military personnel

have provided mine security for these minerals in Sierra Leone and Indonesia, and the

mining of these minerals has occurred under repressive regimes in the Soviet Union, Russia,

South Africa, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, China, Brazil, Gabon, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,

Myanmar, the Philippines, India, and Mexico, and has involved the repression of indigenous

or colonized people in Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. In

addition, the extraction of these minerals has involved the forced removal of people from

their homes in South Africa, Brazil, Sierra Leone, and Kenya; the use of prison labor or

forced labor in the Soviet Union and Myanmar; and the use of other forms of armed violence,

including threatened arrests, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, rapes, and killings, in

Russia, Malaysia, Brazil, China, Kenya, and Indonesia. These findings provide strong support

for our argument that the extraction of critical natural resources is often, though by no

means always, associated with armed violence (especially when we recall that it was nearly

impossible for us to ascertain whether armed violence is associated with indium and vanadium

mining). However, in presenting these findings in table form, we only provide readers with a

partial understanding of the violent context within which the mining of critical minerals

sometimes occurs. Moreover, the evidence presented in Table 2 does not allow us to evaluate

any of our theoretical claims about why mining is likely to lead to violence.”





Developing countries perceive it as a rich countries problem – they

want it to be an issue of fairness.



“Second, poor countries see a climate-change deal in fundamentally different terms. For

rich countries the problem is environmental: greenhouse gases are accumulating in the

atmosphere and must be cut, preferably using the sort of binding targets recommended by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For developing countries the problem is one of

fairness and history: rich countries are responsible for two-thirds of the carbon put into the

atmosphere since 1850; to cut emissions in absolute terms now would perpetuate an unjust

pattern. Poor countries therefore think emissions per head, not absolute emissions, should

be the standard. Moreover, targets set at national level have little effect in poor countries where

public administration works badly. So rich and poor also disagree about the conditions attached

to any money for mitigating or adapting to climate change. The rich see this as a sort of aid,

designed for specific projects with measurable targets, requiring strict conditions. Poorer

countries see the cash as no-strings compensation for a problem that is not of their making.”

The Economist is one of the most prestigious publications on public policy and economicts. It’s

readership targets real economists and policy makers. It does not include author names on it’s

articles.



Resource extraction can lead to government corruption.




“Second, natural-resource-rich economies seem especially prone to socially damaging rent-

seeking behavior on the part of producers. This can take many forms. For example, the

government may be tempted to offer tariff protection to domestic producers, among other

privileges. Rent seeking may also breed corruption in business and government, thereby

distorting the allocation of resources and reducing both economic efficiency and social

equity. Empirical evidence suggests that import protection and corruption both tend to impede

economic growth (Bardham, 1997). Third, natural resource abundance may imbue people with

a false sense of security and lead governments to lose sight of the need for good and growth-

friendly economic management, including free trade, bureaucratic efficiency, and institutional

quality (Sachs and Warner, 1999). Incentives to create wealth tend to become too blunted by the

ability to extract wealth from the soul or the sea. Rich parents sometimes spoil their kids.

Mother Nature is no exception.”





Developed countries use developing countries for cheap resources at

the cost of the environment.

European Commission "Resource Efficiency." May 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.

<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/26si.pdf>.

“The report argues that richer nations, such as in Europe, will have to substantially decrease

their use of resources, to allow people in poorer countries better access to resources to

improve their quality of life. Most resources are extracted from developing nations, where

working conditions are often poor and environmental deterioration is remarkable. For

example, in 2005, nearly half (48 per cent) of global resources were extracted from Asia, which

is home to over half of the world’s population.

Global demand for raw materials and products has significantly driven international trade over

the last 50 years. Of all the major regions in the world, Europe has the highest net imports of

natural resources, equivalent to almost 3 tonnes for every person in Europe each year.

Consumption patterns vary widely across the world. On average, a North American

consumes 90 kg of resources per day, Europeans consume 45 kg each a day, in Asia, each person

consumes 14 kg a day and Africans consume 10 kg a day each. Improvements in the efficient

use of resources have occurred, but economic growth has outstripped these gains and

resource extraction and use continue to rise globally. It is not possible for natural resources

to continue to be used at the same rate as in the past. Many non-renewable resources, such

as oil, are estimated to be close to their peak levels of extraction and shortages are driving

up prices.”



The African diamond industry has been taken over by non-state

actors.

Orugon, Paul. “‘Blood Diamonds’ and Africa’s Armed Conflicts in the Post—Cold War Era.”

World Affairs. 2004. Web. 7 December 2013. <www.jstor.org/stable/20672689>.

“To be sure, there are several hundred non-state actors and less prominent political

dignitaries who have participated in and profited handsomely from the trafficking of blood

diamonds and the fomenting of regional insecurities that characteristically is associated with

rebel militias and adversarial neighboring political administrations. They also were persistent

violators of the UN Security Council's sanctions and embargoes against the trafficking of

blood diamonds and weapons-running operations. The global trade of rough diamonds, also

referred to as "rough," "uncut," or "unpolished" gemstones, indeed is a trade in luxury goods.

Diamond gemstones command high value added significance in the world trade. The diamond

industry remains an elitist and oligarchic based cartel in which a few key players control

capitalization and economies of scale. In many ways, it is a self-regulated industry, and De

Beers continues to control more than 60 percent of the trade in rough diamonds. The key players

are relatively few, and the profit margins are extremely high. It is no surprise that worldwide,

precious gemstones and finished-polished diamonds still generate an aura of mystique, a

statement of elegance, and timeless treasure. In romantic terms, diamonds are not only priceless

but also symbolic of love, fidelity, and age less beauty. Most of the polished diamonds are sold

in high-income and hard currency countries and regions such as the United States, Western

Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and the Middle East, as well as other affluent

societies. Rough diamonds, however, largely are extracted or mined in several African

countries, including South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Democratic

Republic of Congo.”

Paul Orugon is an associate professor of politics at Lake Forest College in Illinois.



Resource extraction in Africa allows militias to commit acts of

violence.

Orugon, Paul. “‘Blood Diamonds’ and Africa’s Armed Conflicts in the Post—Cold War Era.”

World Affairs. 2004. Web. 7 December 2013. <www.jstor.org/stable/20672689>.

“The control over diamond-mining areas has constituted the decisive factor in an explanation

of why different rebel militia have been able to fund, sustain, and intensify their level of

impunity and economic violence in the war decimated African countries. Indeed, although it is

still true that diamonds are forever and are a woman's best friend, in modern sub-Saharan

African, blood diamonds, or "hot stones" in particular, have become the indispensable

economic lifeline and best friends of the rampaging, rouge rebels and looting bandits. An

important factor that has made diamonds so critical with regard to the proliferation of armed

conflict deals with the fact that diamonds by nature are relatively small in size, portable, and

relatively easy to conceal, making them less susceptible to detection. Also, small parcels of

rough diamonds can fetch several millions of dollars on the world diamond market. Major

diamond trading cities such as Antwerp, London, Tel Aviv, Geneva, New York, Bombay, and so

on have perfected their craft, and dealers and polishers have become ingeniously adept at

transforming unpolished diamonds into finished, magnificent masterpieces. Because diamonds

still command high prices, these economic resources conveniently are used as financial

payment for transactions involving the illicit trafficking of guns and other war-related

supplies. Official banking tends to be minimized as much as possible by the rebel militias. In

order to cover up their criminal transactions, they prefer the bartering of rough diamonds for

arms and other types of military equipment as much as possible.”



Fear of nationalization means resource extraction firms will try to

stop economic development.




“Explanations for the failure of the ISI strategy and, more specifically the limited role of REIs in

playing a more dynamic role in development, are complex and contested (Banuri,1991; Ascher,

1999). What is clear, however, is the general attitude and approach that REIs took in the face of

efforts by developing countries to introduce greater control over their resources. Typically such

companies have operated in ways - often morally questionable ways - that were clearly

designed to frustrate the development plans of developing countries. The reason why is

relatively simple to understand. A key component of traditional development strategies has

been to exert control over one's natural resources and to force foreign companies involved in

the extraction (and processing) to pay more dearly (so that more investments could be made in

"human resources" and industrial development). To this a number of standard practices were

implemented, e.g., nationalizing reserves, increasing taxes, requiring further stages of

processing to be done in the host country, limiting equity participation in joint ventures, etc.

Such measures are resisted by corporations because they increase costs and eat into their

profits.”





Resource extraction harms democratically elected governments.




“Historically, REIs have acted in ways that have had adverse effects on political development.

Perhaps, the most blatant cases involve the direct support by firms for the overthrow of

legitimate governments (which typically occurs after such governments have asserted their

sovereignty over their natural resources). One clear example of this involves the decision by the

government of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran to nationalize the holdings of British Petroleum

1951. In response to this move, BP was first able to win assurances from the other major oil

companies that they would not buy oil from Iran, a strategy that placed tremendous economic

pressure on the Mossadegh government to reconsider its policy. When this did not have

the desired effect, the British government - joined by the U.S. government (which had been

reluctant to take any action, in part due to its own interests in breaking up the British monopoly

in Iran) - was persuaded to intervene in the matter. The result was strong support for a coup in

1953 that led to the overthrow of Mossadegh, the return of the Shah and the (re-)entry of

foreign oil companies into Iran (Sampson, 1984). A similar case involves the democratically

elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, which fell victim to a CIA backed

coup in 1973 after nationalizing foreign copper holdings, of which the U.S. companies

Anaconda and Kennecott had the largest stake (Kaufman, 1988). In both these instances,

industry actors found sympathetic ears within their home governments in their efforts to

promote their economic interests over the will of the people of the countries in question.”





The resource extraction industry re-entrenches authoritarian

regimes.




“While these are the most overt cases of corporate activity undermining political development, it

could be argued that decisions by corporations to operate in countries without democratic

governments are equally as damaging, if not as dramatic. At issue here is the degree to which

the operations of corporations serve to prop up non-democratic regimes and inhibit the

emergence of democratic governance (and respect for basic civil and political rights). While

corporations and their home governments often justify TNC operations in non-democratic

countries as being in the best interests of local people (e.g., by providing employment) and

providing leverage for reforms (the strategy of "constructive engagement"), there are obvious

examples where such justifications do not seem appropriate (e.g., Mobutu's Zaire). Even in

instances where such claims might appear to have been more credible (e.g., South Africa in the

1980s), they were frequently not supported by local populations (e.g., the ANC attributes a

large part of its success in bringing apartheid to an end to the economic pressure put on the white

South African government form grassroots pressures and foreign governments) (Mandela, 1993).

Such situations continue to exist today. While the case of Myanmar (Burma) has probably

received the most publicity, there are many other cases where the operation of resource

extraction industries support the continuation of non-democratic governments rather than

lead to democratic reforms, most notably perhaps, the oil producing gulf states of Saudi

Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. (For their part, most Western powers have shown little interest in

promoting democratic reform and have largely ignored reports of human rights abuses in such

countries unless it appears to be in their strategic or economic interests to take them up.).”



AFF:$International$Agreements$Key$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


International agreements are key to success of environmental

protections – developing countries cant solve on their own.

Batabyal, Amitrajeet A., "The Effects of Collusion and Limited Liability on the Design of

International Environmental Agreements for Developing Countries" Economic Research

Institute Study Papers. 1998. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=eri>.

“With the passage of time, it has increasingly been recognized that environmental protection is

an international issue. As noted by Bernauer (1995) (p. 354), the scope and significance of this

issue have been amply demonstrated by the events of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. At this

Summit, it became clear that if the Northern countries of the world wanted “ . . . the

environment to be secured for future generations, [then they would] have to radically assist

the South in choosing a different road to development than the one they [had] currently

[been] travelling on.” (Rogers, 1993; p. 27). Indeed, to combat the twin evils of poverty and

environmental degradation, developing countries (LDCs) have demanded the transfer of

resources and technology from developed countries. In such a con- tentious setting, the

success or failure to protect the environment will depend crucially on the ability of

international institutions to craft effective international environmental agreements (1%~). ’

Given this, a key question becomes “How can international institutions, which necessarily

respect the principle of state sovereignty, contribute to the solution of difficult global problems?”

(Keohane et al., 1993; p. 6). This is the central question that I propose to analyze in this paper.”

Batabyal is Arthur J Gosnell Professor of Economics at Rochester Institute of Technology in

Rochester New York. He received his PhD in 1984 at the University of California, Berkeley.



Transparency initiatives are a good first step, but they can’t solve the corruption.


Dec 2013.


“These initiatives are vital to promoting good governance in resource-rich developing

countries, and they should be extended to the new oil producers. But transparency initiatives

alone are not nearly adequate to the task. Resource flows are complex, with countless steps

in the process from the time oil is discovered, extracted from the ground, and sold on the

international market to when it is transferred as revenue to government accounts and spent by

officials. Efforts to expose how revenues are accrued and dispersed have not worked as well

as expected because, as the scholar Todd Moss has written, they “only shed light on one link

in the long chain from oil in the ground to development outcomes.” Although transparency is

an integral piece of any country’s pursuit of effective and honest governance, transparency

alone fails to reverse the underlying incentives afflicting oil-rich countries.”



Hoover Institution, a conservative policy think tank.



Tariffs in developed countries destroy the economic benefits of

resource extraction.



10. 1993. Print.

“The tariff structure in industrialized importing nations is frequently biased against mineral

processing in developing exporting countries. Thus, effective tariffs on the processing value

added may be quite high. The importing nation’s motivation for creating such a bias has

various grounds. These probably include the colonial desire to maintain the economic

dependence of the exporting country by creating hindrances to its economic diversification.

Another ground to the bias would be a wish to protect the processing installations at home

along with the employment they create. In both objectives there is likely to be a commonality of

interests between the home country and the multinational extractive firm. The firm would

therefore be unwilling to influence its home government to remove the bias even if it had the

opportunity to do so and the removal would be to its own long-run advantage. Maintenance of

the skewed tariff structure provides the companies with strong argument for their reluctance to

relocate.”



The nature of developing governments deters economic benefits of

resource extraction.



10. 1993. Print.

“The companies’ feeling of exposure to “political risks” when investing in developing

countries is probably a major factor inhibiting decisions to relocate mineral processing. The

fear that the host country government might increase taxation, nationalize without adequate

compensation or otherwise fail to honour the agreement it has signed with the multinational

company, creates a desire to minimize the resources at stake. The mine location is geologically

given, and necessitates the company’s presence in the developing country. In mineral processing,

on the other hand, where a choice of alternative locations is available, the company’s desire to

avoid the “political risk”, whether warranted by reality or not, would usually be expressed by a

higher rate of return requirement from the project located in the mineral endowed developing

country. A related factor at a more general level is the multinational firm’s unfamiliarity with the

social and economic environment of the developing country. The cost of obtaining, and the

mental barrier to absorbing, the relevant information is a factor which inhibits the company’s

relocation decisions. Thus, in a wish to reduce its involvements in economically and socially

unfamiliar surroundings, the company may take location decisions in favour of the

industrialized importing country, even though more and better information would have

warranted the opposite choice.”

AFF:$Prioritizing$Environment$is$Obligatory$ Jan/Feb$2014$!!


Reliance on resources strips the planet because of perceived human

needs; we must acknowledge the value of nature.

Dalile, Boushra. “Environmental Ethics Between Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism.”

Swinburne University of Technology, Psychology and Statistical Sciences. Web. 7

December 2013.

<http://www.academia.edu/1476524/Environmental_Ethics_Between_Anthropocentrism

_and_Ecocentrism>.

“According to the inelastic principles of both anthropocentrism and ecocentrism, the ability to

make environmental decisions to satisfy both positions is difficult. Quite candidly, nature and

humanity are devastated when anthropocentrism is practiced; and the conversion to

ecocentrism overnight is impossible especially in the developed societies because of their

heavy reliance on resources and generation of waste (Wapner & Matthew 2009, p. 212).

Deep ecologists’ platform claims that justification is made upon people only when their

intervention in the natural wildlife is vital to human needs, i.e. for survival not for luxury

(MacKinnon 2007, p. 339). According to George Sessions and Arne Naess’s (coiner of the term

Deep Ecology in Naess 1973) basic principles of deep ecology, they encircle anthropocentrism

and ecocentrism by acknowledge[s]ing [the] intrinsic value in all nature’s beings and

allowing consuming species to benefit from what the environment offers to fulfill vital

needs. For instance, interfering with the environment to build a golf course or a house patio is

unethical because they are hardly essential for survival, not to mention the alteration caused to

Earth and vegetation (MacKinnon 2007, p. 339).”



Protecting the environment is crucial. We don’t have time to spare

because the effects may become irreversible.



“Environmental degradation in itself is not a new facet of human survival. The rise and fall

of many past societies can be explained in part by the ability to modify the immediate

environment and subsequent inability to prevent escalating environmental degradation. In

the past, when faced with deteriorating environmental conditions adaptive success was

dependent upon time: time to develop biological responses. Or, more typically, time to develop

behavioral responses – to identify changing environmental conditions and causality, to search out

or devise new strategies, and to incorporate new strategies at the level of the population.

Today, time is a scarce commodity. The rapid pace of change in population, way of life, and

environment has caused a redefinition of the notion of environmental constraint - from the

biophysical parameters of nature to the biodegenerative products of humanity. Humans no

longer have the luxury of time to adjust to changing conditions. Nor do we have the

physical space to absorb and sustain environmentally or socially induced migration.

Humanity is struggling to survive in the face of growing deserts, decreasing forests, declining

fisheries, poisoned food/water/air, and climatic extremes and weather events that continue to

intensify: floods, droughts, hurricanes. Many of today's environmental crises lack tangibility-

it is difficult to see them, to define them, to understand their origins, and to understand their

consequences. These crises are rarely confined to an immediate locale - radiation knows no

boundaries. In many places of the world information about environmental crises is withheld

from those who experience the adverse consequences. And, environment crises are not

experienced equally.”



Businesses have a moral obligation to be ecologically sustainable.

Lertzman, David A., and Harrie Vredenburg. "Indigenous Peoples, Resource Extraction and

Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach." Journal of Business Ethics. 2005. Web.

7 December 2013. <www.jstor.org/stable/25123429>.

“It has been argued that business has a moral responsibility to ensure that its activities are

ecologically sustainable (Desjardins, 1998). Desjardins has proposed that the "moral

minimum" which constrains the impacts of economic activity should be extended to

ecosystems. He argues that all markets operate within constraints, the most obvious being

those imposed by the biophysical limits described in the laws of natural science. The

classical model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) includes legal constraints and the neo-

classical model incorporates moral limits. The sustainable development approach includes

biophysical constraints. While business is free to pursue profits, the "rules of the game

must be changed to include the obligation to leave natural ecosystems no worse off in the

process." (p. 831) In order to address the global quandary of population growth, poverty

and environmental destruction, Desjardins advocates a shift from unrestricted material

growth to the concept of development. This conceptual evolution from a growth based ethic

to qualitative economics is discussed below.”



By prioritizing resource extraction, we view the Earth as an

instrument for human ends in which we can abuse; this is the

root cause of the environmental crisis.

Sivil, Richard. “Why We Need A New Ethic For The Environment.” 2000. Web. 7 December

2013. <http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htm>.

“Three most significant and pressing factors contributing to the environmental

crisis are the ever increasing human population, the energy crisis, and the abuse and

pollution of the earth’s natural systems. These and other factors contributing to the

environmental crisis can be directly linked to anthropocentric views of the world. The

perception that value is located in, and emanates from, humanity has resulted in

understanding human life as an ultimate value, superior to all other beings. This has

driven innovators in medicine and technology to ever improve our medical and

material conditions, in an attempt to preserve human life, resulting in more people

being born and living longer. In achieving this aim, they have indirectly contributed to

increasing the human population. Perceptions of superiority, coupled with developing

technologies have resulted in a social outlook that generally does not rest content

with the basic necessities of life. Demands for more medical and social aid, more

entertainment and more comfort translate into demands for improved standards of

living. Increasing population numbers, together with the material demands of modern

society, place ever increasing demands on energy supplies. While wanting a better life is

not a bad thing, given the population explosion the current energy crisis is inevitable,

which brings a whole host of environmental implications in tow. This is not to say that every

improvement in the standard of living is necessarily wasteful of energy or polluting to the planet,

but rather it is the cumulative effect of these improvements that is damaging to the environment.

The abuses facing the natural environment as a result of the energy crisis and the

food demand are clearly manifestations of anthropocentric views that treat the



environment as a resource and instrument for human ends. The pollution and

destruction of the non-human natural world is deemed acceptable, provided that it

does not interfere with other human beings.”

Richard Sivil studied at the University of Durban Westville, and at the University of Natal,

Durban. He has been lecturing philosophy since 1996. His primary interest lies in the field of

Ethics, Evnironmental Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy and Quantum Physics



A focus on the developing countries helping the environment is

misguided – this is a global issue.




“Indeed, the nature of ecological imperialism is continually to worsen ecological conditions

globally. Capital in the late 20th and early 21st century is running up against ecological

barriers at a biospheric level; ones that cannot be so easily displaced, as was the case

previously, through the spatial fix of geographical expansion and global labor and resource

exploitation. Ecological imperialism – the growth of the center of the system at

unsustainable rates, through the more thoroughgoing ecological degradation of the periphery –

is now generating a planetary-scale set of ecological contradictions, imperiling the entire

biosphere as we know it. Only a social solution that addresses the rift in ecological relations

on a planetary scale and their relation to global structures of imperialism and inequality

offers any genuine hope that these contradictions can be transcended. More than ever the

world needs what the early socialists thinkers, including Marx, called for: the rational

organization of the human metabolism with nature by a society (or societies) of freely associated

producers, in order to establish a social metabolic order not predicated on capital accumulation

and the degradation of the earth.”





Sustainability Studies program.



Poor countries cannot just wave a magic wand to create

environmental protections, they need funding.



“In principle that shift should make a climate-change deal in Copenhagen more likely, by

increasing the number of countries that want an agreement. But two big problems remain. First,

the poor countries want large amounts of money. To keep global warming down to an

increase of 2°C, the World Bank calculates, would cost $140 billion to $675 billion a year in

developing countries—dwarfing the $8 billion a year now flowing to them for climate-

change mitigation. The $75 billion cost of adapting to global warming (as opposed to trying

to stop it) similarly overwhelms the $1 billion a year available to them.”



articles.



The amount of natural resources in developing countries has a

negative relationship with economic development.




“In most countries that are rich in oil, minerals, and other natural resources, economic growth over the long haul tends to be slower than in other countries that are less well endowed. For example, in Nigeria, with all its oil wealth, Gross National Product per capita today is no higher than at independence in 1960. Nigeria is not alone. From 1965 to 1998, per capita GNP growth in Iran and Venezuela was on average--1 percent per year,--2 percent in Libya,--3 percent in Iraq and Kuwait, and --6 percent in Qatar (1970-1995), to mention six other OPEC countries (World Bank, 2000). For OPEC as a whole, GNP per capita decreased by 1.3 percent per year on average during 1965-1998 compared with 2.2 percent average per capita growth in all lower- and middle-income countries. King Faisal of Saudi Arabia (1964-1975) would hardly have been surprised; he said (quoted from an interview with his oil minister, Shaikh Yamani): “In one generation we went from riding camels to riding Cadillacs. The way we are wasting money, I fear the next generation will be riding camels again”. These examples seem to reflect a consistent pattern. Of 65 countries that can be classified as natural-resource rich, only four managed to attain both (a) long-term investment exceeding 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product on average from 1970 to 1998, equal to that of various successful industrial countries lacking raw materials, and (b) per capita GNP growth exceeding 4 percent per year on average over the same period. These four countries are Botswana, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The three Asian countries achieved this success by diversifying their economies and by industrializing; Botswana, rich in diamonds, without doing so. In East Asia, the countries with few raw materials (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) have done even better than the resource-rich ones (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand).”





Developing countries need to focus on the environment, advanced

countries will be fine either way.

Bjorn Lomborg,“Adapting to Climate Change,” Copenhagen Consensus Center. August 2009.

Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/AdaptingToClimateChange.pdf>.

“The important effects are on agriculture and tourism, where nations will lose, on average,

about 0.5% of GDP from each sector. But much of this damage will be avoided by people

choosing for themselves to adapt to a change in their environment. Farmers will choose

plants that thrive in heat. New houses will be designed to deal with warmer temperatures. Simple economic models, often quoted in the media, show that unconstrained global warming would

cost a substantial 2% of GDP in the rich world by the end of the century. But this fails to acknowledge that people will change their behavior when the environment changes. Taking

adaptation into account, rich countries will adapt to the negative consequences of global

warming and exploit the positive changes, creating a total positive effect of global warming

worth about 0.1% of GDP. Poor countries will be hit harder,however. Adaptation will

reduce the climate change-related losses from 5% of GDP to slightly less than 3% – but this

is still a significant impact. The real challenge of global warming, therefore, lies in tackling

its impact on the Third World. Here, more needs to be done, above and beyond the adaptation

that will happen naturally. Importantly, the new research shows that adaptation would achieve

a lot more than cuts in carbon emissions. Reducing emissions to a level that does not

extinguish economic growth could avert $3 trillion worth of damage, whereas adaptation could

prevent around $8 trillion worth of damage . For every dollar spent on adaptation, we would

achieve about $1.70 worth of positive changes for the planet. The economic case for focusing

more on adaptation is clear. The crucial next step is to ensure that economic arguments

become a stronger part of our political debate about how to address global warming.”

Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center think-tank, author of Cool It and

Skeptical Environmentalist, and an adjunct-professor at Copenhagen.



Aquaculture waste creates a cycle that destroys biotic natural

resources.




“Untreated wastewater laden with untreaten feed and fish faeces may contribute to nutrient

pollution near coastal ponds and cages61,62. Pollution problems are most severe in shallow or

confined water bodies63; they also tend to be serious in regions where intensive aquaculture

systems are concentrated. In many such areas, sedimentation of food particles and faecal

pellets under and around fish pens and cages negatively affects the biogeochemistry of benthic

communities64. Moreover, nitrogen wastes (for example, ammonia and nitrite) that exceed the

assimilative capacity of receiving waters lead to deterioration in water quality that is toxic to

fish and shrimp65. Problems of effluent discharge from aquaculture have been widely discussed,

but management options for altering nitrogen biogeochemistry are based mostly on controlling

the intensity of fish production in monoculture and polyculture systems65. Aquaculturists have a

stake in regulating nutrient pollution, because poor water quality and high stocking densities

often promote outbreaks of pathogen and subsequent declines in farm productivity.”








Aquaculture harms native biodiversity.




“In some cases, aquaculture affects stocks of wild and farmed fish through biological

pollution. Atlantic salmon—the dominant salmon species farmed—frequently escape from net

pens. As much as 40% of Atlantic salmon caught by fishermen in areas of the North Atlantic

Ocean are of farmed origin51. In the North Pacific Ocean, over 255,000 Atlantic salmon have

reportedly escaped since the early 1980s and are caught by fishing vessels from Washington to

Alaska52. Increasing evidence suggests that farm escapes may hybridize with and alter the

genetic makeup of wild populations of Atlantic salmon which are genetically adapted to their

natal spawning grounds53. Such genetic alterations could exacerbate the decline in many

locally endangered populations of wild Atlantic salmon53-55. Movement of stocks for aquaculture

purposes can also increase the risk of spreading pathogens. The relationships between farmed

and wild fish and disease transfer are complex and often difficult to disentangle. In Europe,

however, serious epidemics of furunculosis and Gyrodactylus salaris in stocks of Atlantic

salmon have been linked to movements of fish for aquaculture and restocking56. Since the early

1990s, Whitespot and Yellowhead viruses have caused catastrophic, multimillion-dollar

crop losses in shrimp farms across Asia. Both pathogens have recently appeared in the farmed

and wild shrimp populations in the United StatesOka and the Whitespot virus has been reported

in several countries in Central and South America (T. Flegel, personal communication; D.V.

Lightner, personal communication). The Whitespot virus has caused high mortalities in Texas

shrimp farms and may cause mortality of wild crustaceans (Joint Subcommittee on

Aquaculture Virus Working Group, personal communication). The virus is thought to have been

introduced into a Texas shrimp farm by release into nearby coastal waters of untreated wastes

from plants processing imported Asian tiger shrimp60, and by shipping of contaminated white

shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei larvae throughout the Americas (T. Flegel. Personal

communication).”

NEG:%A/T%Environmental%Degradation%Claims% Jan/Feb%2014%!!


Studies of environmental degradation must take sociology into

account.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen. “Social Determinants of Deforestation in Developing Countries: A

Cross-National Study” Oxford University Press. 1998. Web. 7 December 2013.


“As a measure of human impact on the natural environment, deforestation is a question of both

sociological and theoretical import. While human ecologists have often pondered the effects of

the environment on social organization, only recently have sociologists considered the impact of

societies on the natural environment. Deforestation, as a specific subject of study, is particularly

salient to sociological research, given that the felling of trees largely results from human

activities. Despite its importance, most empirical studies to date (principally by geographers,

demographers, and economists) have been essentially atheoretical. The lack of theoretical

grounding retards the accumulation of knowledge by reducing the generalizability and

explanatory power of research findings. Nevertheless, selected theories of social change have

been suggested. Environmental degradation and deforestation in particular have been

hypothesized to result primarily from three sources of change: population growth,

modernization, and dependent development. Although all three have been hypothesized to

increase deforestation, this article uncovers hidden complexities in their relationships that yield

unanticipated outcomes. As a measure of modernization, for example, urbanization is shown to

have a curvilinear effect on the rate of deforestation, resulting in lower rates of deforestation at

the highest levels of urbanization. Two previously unexplored measures, sectoral inequality and

change in tertiary education, are also shown to reduce the rate of deforestation.”



There may not be a direct correlation between development and

environmental degradation.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen. “Social Determinants of Deforestation in Developing Countries: A

Cross-National Study” Oxford University Press. 1998. Web. 7 December 2013.


“Compounding these discussions are socioenvironmental studies that suggest that the

relationship between modernization and environmental change may not be linear. In a

theoretical discussion on the determinants of carbon dioxide emissions, for example, Crenshaw

and Jenkins (1996) hypothesize that per capita emissions increase from low to intermediate

levels of development but decline at relatively high levels of development. This curvilinear

relationship is the result of the increased energy efficiency related to economic complexity

and competition. The relationship between development and deforestation may be equally

complex, because low to intermediate levels of development seem to be characterized by

high rates of deforestation as countries rely on forests for a wider variety of products (including

charcoal), while countries at higher levels of development use wood alternatives, more

efficient production technologies, and stricter forest management practices resulting in lower

rates of deforestation. Moreover, the shift from a heavily industrial economy to one with a

greater reliance on services, a progression characteristic of more "modern" nations, also relieves

some of the demand for forest resources. Sussman, Green, and Sussman (1994) document the

early stages of this social phenomenon in their case study of deforestation in Madagascar. Given

these findings, this article posits that the rate of deforestation will increase from low to

intermediate levels of urbanization but decline at relatively high levels of urbanization (all

else remaining constant).”



Natural gas doesn’t solve the Co2 problem – other countries, the

market, and methane leaks make the switch to Co2 benign.

“Natural gas prices drive CO2 emissions to 20-year low.” Associated Press, 16 Aug 2012 Web. 7

December 2013.

<http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/natural_gas_prices_drive_co2_e.html>.

“Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly

China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling. Moreover, changes in the marketplace — a boom in the economy, a fall in coal prices, a rise in natural gas — could

stall or even reverse the shift. For example, U.S. emissions fell in 2008 and 2009, then rose

in 2010 before falling again last year. Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still

emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not

yet fully understood. "Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem,"

Pielke warned. The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions

more than any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy

consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around

5.2 billion, and the 1990 figure was about 5 billion. China's emissions were estimated to be

about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The

U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent. Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to

gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997

Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. On the other hand,

leaks of methane from natural gas wells could be pushing the U.S. over the Kyoto

target for that gas.”



Economic growth solves environmental degradation in the

developing world—creates incentives for more efficient use

of natural resources.

James K. Glassman. “The Earth Time Johannesburg Summit Moving on from "Sustainablity".”

American Enterprise Institute. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14186,filter.all/pub_detail.asp>.

“Let me offer a prescription for sustainable development that begins with a simple and powerful

idea--an idea which, unfortunately, will often be at odds with what delegates, journalists and

other observers hear in Johannesburg. The idea is that economic growth leads to levels of

wealth and income that, in turn, inevitably produce societies that are cleaner, healthier

and more stable and that use global resources more efficiently. It is an idea that has been

validated in academic studies and by centuries of history an idea that is especially important at

this time and in this place. Since developing nations will improve their environments as

they grow richer, the major thrust of a global conferences like Johannesburg should be

to help them grow richer not to place restrictions upon them (and on other

countries) that will ultimately thwart their growth. The idea of economic growth

stands opposed to the idea of impending scarcity a notion that is gaining currency again

today, just as it did more than 200 years ago with the writings of the Rev. Thomas Malthus and

30 years ago with the success of The Club of Rome's book, Limits to Growth. Malthusianism is a

repudiated concept that will not die. It creeps on.”



Environmental degradation poses the largest threat to developing

countries.

Najam, Adil, Saleemul Huq, Youba Sokona. “Climate Negotiations beyond Kyoto: Developing

Countries Concerns and Interests.” Climate Policy. 2003. Web. 7 December 2013.

<climate-talks.net/2006.../Najam-CliPol%20Climate%20and%20SD.pdf >.

“On the second issues, the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC; see especially Working Group II report) has suggested that even if the Kyoto

Protocol is implemented in full, the impacts of global climate change will start being felt

within the next few decades and that the most vulnerable communities and countries are those

which are already the poorest and least able to adapt to these changes. This is because the

impact of climatic events is not only a function of the intensity of the event but of the resilience

of communities, the poorest communities tend also to be the least able to adapt (Downing et al.,

1996). The Threat is especially pressing for the least developed countries and the small

island developing states (SIDS), where any economic development they may be able to

achieve in the next few decades is in real danger of literally being swept away due to human

induced climate change. In the past, climatic hazards such as floods, cyclones and droughts may

have been attributable to nature alone; in the future they are likely to have a component that is

human induced. More importantly, it is also clear that the past contribution of these countries to

the climate change problem is miniscule. In this regards, much is made of the fact that emissions

from developing countries is growing with their development and that somewhere in the next

two decades the total emissions from all currently developing countries would equal the

total emissions from all currently industrialized countries. Although stylized, this is factually

correct. However, it needs also to be noted even in such a scenario the vast bulk of the global

population would still be living in developing countries, and each individual in the north

would still be emitting far more proportionally than their individual counterparts in the south. In

essence, the citizens of the north will continue to remain disproportionately responsible for

global emissions will into the future, despite whatever growth in emissions might happen in the

south over the next few decades. The result is that those who have been least responsible for



creating the crisis are, and are likely to remain, most at risk by its ravages (Rayner and Malone,

1998; Banuri and Sagar, 1999).”

Adil Najam is affiliated with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and

Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, Pakistan. Saleemul Huq is affiliated with

the International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK and the Bangladesh

Centre for Advanced Studies in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Youba Sokona is affiliated with the ENDA

Environment et Developpement du Tiers Monde in Dhaka, Senegal.



Attempts to curb environmental destruction globally would cost

developing countries more than developed countries.




“Finally, and flowing directly from the above, is the concern that the so-called “flexibility

mechanisms” of the Kyoto Protocol have turned it into a global carbon trade regime that could

distract from the original mandate of the UNFCCC—i.e. the stabilization of atmospheric

greenhouse concentrations. Significant problems with the Kyoto regime—including the issue of

“low hanging fruit” (whereby, the flexibility mechanisms will allow northern countries to

“buy off” the easiest reductions from the south leaving the developing countries saddled

with more difficult and more costly reductions which they will have to make themselves at a

later date); trades in “hot air” (implying that Kyoto targets can be met with very minimal real

emission collapse that had accompanied the economic and political collapse of the former Soviet

bloc); the exclusion of poorer countries and marginal groups, and the inadequacy of the

Kyoto targets—have long been known and highlighted (see, for example, Malakoff, 1997;

Najam and Page, 1998; Sokona et al., 1998; Agarwal et al., 1999; Banuri and Sagar, 1999;

Mayer 1999; Banuri and Gupta, 2000; Muler, 2002a). These lingering concerns were tempered

by the belief that despite all the holes in it the Protocol will need to be somehow addressed, and

soon. Moreover, the concessions made in the last two COPs (especially on the issue of sinks)

and the absence of the world’s largest carbon emitter from the regime have made an

already inadequate agreement all the more inadequate (Najam, 2001).”








Addressing climate change is creating more problems than its

solving.

O’Neill, Saffron “Fear won’t do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through

visual and iconic representations.” 7 January 2009. Web .7 December 2013.

<http://scx.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/01/07/1075547008329201.full.pdf+html>.

“The continued use of fear messages can lead to one of two psychological functions. The first

is to control the external danger, the second to control the internal fear (Moser & Dilling,

2004). If the external danger—in this case, the impacts of climate change—cannot be

controlled (or is not perceived to be controllable), then individuals)will)attempt)to)control )

the)internal)fear. These)internal)fear)controls,)such)as)issue)denial)and)apathy,)can )

represent)barriers)to)meaningful)engagement . Lorenzoni et al. (2007) divide the barriers to

engagement with climate change, into two types, individuallevel and social-level barriers. Of

particular consequence for this discussion of fear appeals are the barriers acting

individually to inhibit engagement with climate change. These include uncertainty and

skepticism, an externalization of responsibility and blame or stating other issues as more

immediate and pressing, and fatalism or a “drop in the ocean” feeling. All are

maladaptations; that is, they lead to an individual controlling his or her internal fear by no

longer interacting with the climate change issue, but the action does not decrease the

individual’s exposure to climate risk. Repeated exposure to fearful representations of

climate change may indeed even provoke a counterintuitive reaction, for example, causing

the message to become laughable. Ereaut and Segnit (2006, pp. 14-15) recognized this in their

report investigating public climate discourses in the United Kingdom. They named one of the

apparent public discourses as “settlerdom.” The settlerdom discourse rejects and mocks an

alarmist discourse. Those invoking the settlerdom discourse do so by invoking a feeling of

common sense in their audience, not through expert discourse or debate. The authors find the

discourse is constructed in terms of the “sane majority” against the “doom mongers” or the

“global warming brigade.” Also mentioned by Ereaut and Segnit is a small but potentially



important discourse defined as “British comic nihilism,” or “bugger it and open another bottle.”

The discourse was characterized by a whimsical and unserious nature and a happy refusal

to engage in the debate.”

Saffron carries out interdisciplinary research at the nexus of climate science, policy and society.

Her research explores risk perception, risk communication and public engagement with climate

change; and the implications of these areas for public policy. She was awarded the 2011 UK

Scopus Young Researcher Award for Social Science, awarded by Elsevier and the UK/US

Fulbright Commission. The prize is awarded to early-career researchers, based on citation data

and jury assessment.

NEG:%Extraction%is%Key% % Jan/Feb%2014%!!


Developing countries cannot secure the environment without a

stable middle class – nearly impossible without securing

economic growth; they need resources first.

Desai, Uday. "Environment, Economic Growth, and Government in Developing Countries."

1998. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. <http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/53866.pdf>.

“Paehlke believes that “the future success of environmentalism depends on a reasonable

level of security and comfort for the majority in society" (198929). The basis of

environmental activism in industrial countries has been the economically secure, college

educated middle class. A study of the Green party in Germany found that “Green voters have

tended to be under thirty-five years old, highly educated, new middle class (salaried white collar

or profes- sional), urban or university town residents” (Frankland and Schoonmaker l992:2-3).

Some Westem environmentalists suggest that the highly educated, economically secure, white-

collar, middle-class individuals are the postmaterialist vanguard for a new society

(Milbrath 1984). For these writers the future of environmentalism and the fate of the global

ecology depend upon the transition to “a truly post-industrial era” (Paehlke 198919). Broad-

based popular support for the protection of the global environment is possible only “in a

society well beyond industrialism” (Paehlke 198929). Only post- (or advanced) industrial

societies, in this view, could create the postmaterialist majorities necessary to protect the global.”

U. B. Desai is an Indian academician who was appointed as first Director, Indian Institute of

Technology Hyderabad in 2009



No link between resource extraction and conflict.

Fearon, JD. "Primary Commodity Exports and Civil War." Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2005.

Web. 7 December 2013. <jcr.sagepub.com/content/49/4/483.abstract >

“Four main conclusions emerge from the preceding analysis. First, the empirical association

between primary commodity exports and civil war outbreak is neither strong nor robust,

even using Collier and Hoeffler’s (2002a, 2002b) civil war codings and model specifications.

Second, insofar as there is some association, this is due in part to the inclusion of fuel

exports in the primary commodity measure, which are more robustly related to conflict

onset. Third, it seems unlikely that oil exports (or cash crops) predict higher civil war risk

because oil provides better financing opportunities for would-be rebels. It seems more likely

that high oil exports indicate a weaker state given the level of per capita income and

possibly a greater “prize” for state or secessionist capture, both of which might favor civil

war. Similar considerations may apply for nonfuel commodity exports. Fourth, there is direct

evidence that oil exporters have less reliable and competent states given their income levels and

weaker evidence that this is true on average for exporters of other primary commodities.”

James D. Fearon PhD and BA is the Theodore and Francis Geballe Professor of Political Science

and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Stanford University



International monitoring can solve oil money exploitation.

Fearon, JD. "Primary Commodity Exports and Civil War." Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2005.

Web. 7 December 2013. <jcr.sagepub.com/content/49/4/483.abstract >

“Oil exporters do seem to have been more disposed to civil war onset, but it is not yet

clear what the most important mechanisms are. If, as argued here, oil proxies for weak

state administrative capabilities at a given level of income, or if oil makes for trouble

by raising the “prize” value of state or regional control, then policies to involve inter-

national institutions in the monitoring and management of weak states’ oil revenues could help break the link. International monitoring and influence on the

distribution of oil revenues might reduce the payoffs for an extractive, exploitative

strategy of state capture and control, while increasing politicians’ incentives to

compete on the basis of service and infrastructure provision. For example, the World

Bank has recently attempted to negotiate monitoring and management

arrangements as a condition for supporting pipeline development in southern Chad.

Outside experts are skeptical that this specific deal will work, but the general idea seems

worth pursuing based on the empirical findings about oil and conflict. For weak

states that already export large amounts of oil, the IMF, World Bank, or a new

international institution could offer a standardized external monitoring and

management service that the state could publicly commit to. If a weak-state oil pro-

ducer holds elections, the existence of such an option could inspire or drive candidates to compete for voter support by declaring a willingness to commit to the

international package.”

James D. Fearon PhD and BA is the Theodore and Francis Geballe Professor of Political Science

and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Stanford University.



Small-scale mining decreases the gender gap in employment.

Hilson, Gavin. “Small-Scale Mining And Its Socio-Economic Impact In Developing Countries”

Natural Resources Forum. 2002. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1477-8947.00002/abstract>.

“Small-scale mining provides numerous opportunities for women in developing countries. It

is estimated that women could account for as much as one third of the sector, including

informal activities (between 3.5 and 4 million), with possibilities of another 1.5 to 2 million

being involved indirectly. Though the extent of female participation in small-scale mining

activities varies from country to country, in several instances, women play a more prominent

role than men in the industry. For example, it is estimated that women represent 75% of small-

scale mining workers in Guinea; 50% in Madagascar, Mali and Zimbabwe; and 40% in Bolivia.

In Ghana, 75% of the traders of mined salt are women, and female participation in gold panning

and extraction techniques is widespread (UN, 1996). In fact, as Labonne (1996) explains,

women work in almost all aspects of the operation especially panning, carrying, washing,

and sorting of ore, and have done so for generations.”

Gavin Hilson “is a member of the Environmental Policy & Management Group (EMPMG),

Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology (ICCET), Royal School of Mines,

London.



Small-scale mining is the key to alleviating poverty in developing

countries.




“Small-scale mining plays a pivotal role in alleviating poverty in many rural regions of the

developing world, primarily because it is viable in remote areas with minimal infrastructure

where other industries could not function. Operations are low-tech, and because most do not

require technical staff, the industry employs the least educated and the poor. Today, an estimated

30 million people depend on the incomes generated, directly and indirectly, by small-scale

mining (ILO, 1999). An exact figure of the workforce is nearly impossible to ascertain, however,

because of rampant illegal mining activity, much of which is unaccounted for. Many (e.g. Borla,

1996; Bugnosen et al, 1999) are in general agreement that small-scale mining employs some six

million men and women worldwide, although a recent report, Social and Labour Issues in

Small-Scale Mines (ILO, 1999), suggests that between 11.5 and 13 million are employed in

the industry. Perhaps the biggest stimulus to participation in small-scale mining activity is the

lure of quick enrichment and the financial and social independence that comes with it (Astorga

and Duran, 1994). Wages are comparatively higher than employment in construction or

agriculture, making work in this sector financially appealing. Further, small-scale mining

provides employment for many retrenched workers from large-scale mines, which in turn

has increased income levels, raised living standards, and minimized rural-urban drift (Al-

Hassan, 1997). The provision of employment has also helped lower crime and suicide rates.”



London.



There are alternatives to ‘dirty’ resource extraction that can be

effective.

European Commission. "Resource Efficiency." May 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.


“Humanity is demanding ever greater economic productivity at a time when natural

resources, the input that feeds this productivity, are dwindling. To reduce pressure on key

assets, such as water, minerals, fuel and land, we must use less of them, and we need to

increase the efficiency and productivity of resources that we do use, to achieve more output

per input. Put simply, we must do more with less. This thematic issue reports on research which

helps guide the way to a more resource efficient society. Developing this society will require

large-scale and widespread changes to how the economy functions. However, scientific,

economic and social research can play an important role in reaching this goal, by

determining current levels of consumption, measuring levels of efficiency, and developing

new, more efficient technologies and processes. Furthermore, it can analyse different policy

options and help us understand their impact on behaviour and perceptions of resource use.”



Studies prove that resource extraction can be environmentally

friendly.

European Commission. "Resource Efficiency." May 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.


“The worldwide transformation from a predominantly agricultural society to an industrial

regime has rapidly increased our use of resources, such as fossil fuels, metals and timber,

especially in the second half of the 20th century. Newly industrialised and developing

countries are playing an increasing role. The study constructed three scenarios of resource

extraction for the year 2050. In the business-as-usual scenario, industrial countries maintain the same rate of resource use per capita whilst developing countries catch up.

Under this scenario, annual global resource extraction could triple, as would average per capita emissions to 3.2 tons CO2 per capita, compared to the year 2000. Under a moderate

contraction and convergence scenario, industrial countries reduce their rate of resource use

by a factor of two, while developing countries catch up to these reduced rates. Compared to 2000, this could produce an increase in annual resource extraction of 40 per cent and an

increase in average per capita emissions of nearly 50 per cent (1.6. tons CO2 per capita).

Under a tough contraction and convergence scenario, the consumption levels of resources in

2050 are the same as levels in 2000. It requires industrial countries to reduce their rate of

resource use by a factor of 3 to 5 and developing countries by 10-20 per cent. This could

decrease per capita emissions of CO2 by 40 per cent.”



Finding and extracting resources leads to long-term economic

growth – empirics prove.

Michaels, Guy. "Natural Resource Abundance Can Boost Economic Development: Evidence."

Royal Economic Society. Mar. 2011. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.res.org.uk/details/mediabrief/1452903/Natural-Resource-Abundance-Can-

Boost-Economic-Development-Evidence.html>.

“These findings suggest that a rich endowment of natural resources can promote long-term

local growth. If oil-rich areas elsewhere in the world have failed to develop, the failures are

probably due to political rather than economic mechanisms, notably the absence of

institutions to prevent politicians from embezzling or squandering the oil windfalls.

Distinguishing the effect of oil abundance from factors that affect general economic

development – such as technology and institutions – is a difficult challenge in most settings.

As a result, an examination of the long term effects of resource abundance has often proved

elusive. To shed light on this problem, Michaels examines a century of development in an

area where the natural endowment of oil has by now been systematically mapped – the

American South. This area is particularly interesting, since it remained largely agricultural and

poor for a long time compared with the North of the United States, and the role of oil in its

development has not been well understood. In this study, Michaels finds that oil-rich counties

in the American South were very similar to other counties in the region in 1890 (before oil

was discovered in that part of the world), suggesting that differences in subsequent

development between oil-rich and oil-poor counties were due to the discovery and

extraction of oil. After oil was discovered, wages (and income) in the oil-rich counties grew

more rapidly, and remained higher throughout the twentieth century. These higher wages

attracted many people to the oil-rich counties, raising their population by at least 50%.

This larger population was employed not only in oil extraction – Michaels finds that oil-rich

counties also had a larger manufacturing sector and even a larger agricultural sector. This finding

may come as a surprise since it is not immediately obvious why oil abundance should give a

productivity advantage to firms that engage in activities far removed from oil extraction.”



Lack of restrictions on resource extraction is key to solve

overpopulation.

Tupy, Martin. “Prosperity and World Population Growth.” CATO Institute. 10 January 2013.

Web. 7 December 2013. <http://www.cato.org/blog/prosperity-world-population-

growth>.

“The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in

countries with low levels of economic freedom and rule of law compared with

countries that have high levels of those measures. Formal analysis of the data indicates that

these differences are not merely random." The link between these institutions and

fertility partly reflects the impact of economic growth-by encouraging economic

growth, these institutions indirectly affect fertility. But there also is evidence that these

growth-enhancing institutions affect fertility for other reasons. Many developing

countries have poorly specified or poorly enforced property rights. When fuel wood

and fodder are not owned and formal laws of possession do not govern their harvest

and use, people do not hear the full cost of their consumption. They have an

incentive to appropriate resources at the fastest rate possible, often leading to

excessive harvest. This condition is generally labeled the "tragedy of the commons." What

better way to capture open-access resources than to have as many gatherers as

possible? Higher fertility is a way to do this. Theodore Panayotou (1994, 151) observes

that "most contributions by children consist of capturing and appropriating open-access natural

resources such as water, fodder, pastures, fish, fuel wood, and other forest products, and clearing

open-access land for cultivation,"This, he continues, makes "the number of children the decisive

instrument in the hands of the household: The household's share of open-access property

depends on the number of hands it employs to convert open- access resources into

private property." Yet this could "become devastating for the resource, the

community, and eventually the individual household."”



Mineral extraction aids the GNP of developing countries.


Natural Resources.” The United Nations Library on Transnational Corporations, 1993.

Web. 7 December 2013. <books.google.com/books?isbn=0415085438>.

“On other issues, the company and government outlooks appear to converge. In scrutinizing the

company view above, we brought out four circumstances in favour of locating the processing

ventures in the mineral-exporting countries. The validity of these remains when the problem is

regarded from the national government’s point of view. To the extent that savings in

transport, absence of environmental restrictions or availability of cheap energy and labour

reduce the costs of metal smelting and refining, the competitiveness and profitability of such

ventures will improve. Their contributions to GNP and tax revenue, and hence their

attractiveness to the government will consequently be enhanced.”



The economic benefits of resource extraction outweigh

environmental concerns.




“The social benefit of non-existent or low levels of environmental levies could of course be

questioned. One might argue that the social advantage arising from increased profits in polluting

industries is nullified by the welfare loss from environmental deterioration. But then there are

strong reasons to believe that the welfare loss involved would be small. Numerous mines and

mineral processing plants in the Third World are located in uninhabited areas like jungles or

empty deserts, where the harm of pollution is insignificant. More generally, where there is a

trade-off between environmental quality and output, one would expect the willingness to

accept a deterioration of the former for a given rise in the latter to be higher in countries at low

levels of income. The social attractiveness of polluting industries would then be greater in

poor countries than in rich countries. This could explain the relative laxity in environmental

restrictions imposed upon industry in developing countries.”



Focus on resource extraction leads to increased levels of Foreign

Direct Investment (FDI).




“For a mineral-exporting developing country which supplements its national investment

resources with capital imports, there may be an advantage in emphasizing mineral processing

because foreign funds for such activities are easier to obtain. The background to this is the fact

that certain industrialized nations heavily dependent on minerals imports, are prepared to

provide public support to programmes which would assure their long-run mineral

supplies. France, Germany and Japan, for instance, subsidize their mining and metal processing

corporations’ foreign ventures with that objective in view. The foreign investors in mining,

keen to obtain the right to exploit and export the mineral may be amenable to accepting the

condition that their engagement also include local processing of the crude material, especially

in cases where they can expect subsidies from their home governments for the entire investment

package. The industrialized countries’ policies in pursuance of their own supply security

objectives, happen to be transformed in this case into an additional benefit from mining and

mineral processing, accruing to the developing nations which possess comparative advantages

as mineral suppliers. The developing country’s government ordinarily has no similar

leverage when trying to obtain foreign capital for other sectors. When comparing

investments in mineral processing on the one hand, and in such activities as agriculture and

manufacturing on the other, account must therefore be taken of the superior ability of the former

to attract foreign resources.”



Africa can fight poverty with resource extraction and still protect

the environment.

Devarajan, Shanta. "How Africa Can Extract Big Benefits for Everyone from Natural

Resources." Guardian News and Media. 29 June 2011. Web. 06 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/29/africa-

extracting-benefits-from-natural-resources>.

“As the Natural Resource Charter holds its third annual workshop at the University Oxford, in

the UK, this week, the combination of rising commodity prices and falling costs of

communication technology presents Africa with an unprecedented opportunity to reduce

poverty and fight corruption at the same time. The continent is experiencing a commodity

boom, and the bonanza is likely to continue – prices are expected to stay high until 2015 at least.

It may even get larger through new discoveries. This causes a triple problem for the

region's governments. First, their currencies are appreciating, which leaves the other

sectors of the economy – manufacturing, in particular – unable to compete with imports.

Second, the risk of environmental damage associated with extracting natural resources is

growing. And third, the opportunities for corruption and waste are multiplying – not just

in the granting of exploration and exploitation permits, but also in the use of the revenues

from resource extraction. Except for Botswana, the track record of Africa's mineral and

hydrocarbon exporters is sobering. While Africa's central banks are today better equipped to

deal with currency appreciation, and its civil society more alert to environmental hazards,

the institutions that control graft are not strong. They must be improved. However, this will

take time. Is there a shortcut to better accountability in the management of natural

resources? Yes, there is: direct transfers of resource dividends to citizens.”



Lack of resources leads to war – Several countries prove.

Goodman, Sherri W. “Bad Tidings.” January 2008. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16528> .

?As for his assertion that “water wars don’t happen”, Victor does not tell the whole story. While

no recent wars have been waged solely over water, scarcity of agricultural land and

competition for other resources were contributing factors to conflict and instability in

Rwanda and Darfur in the 1990s and in Ethiopia and Nigeria in the 1970s. Whether resource

scarcity will be the impetus for peaceful cooperation or a contributor to conflict in the

future remains to be seen. Regions that are already water-scarce, such as Kuwait, Jordan,

Israel, Rwanda, Somalia, Algeria and Kenya, may be forced to confront this choice as

climate change exacerbates their water scarcity. And nations critical to global stability are

expected to become water-scarce within several decades: Pakistan, South Africa, and large parts

of China and India.

“Water wars” are not just disputes over wells or even about water, per se. They are about

the consequences of a lack of water—consequences that are already being felt. Conflicts

over access to vital resources are scattered throughout Africa. Darfur is the best recent

example of, as we note in our report, how “existing marginal situations can be exacerbated

beyond the tipping point by climate-related factors.” Here, drought led to competition for land

that has access to water. When combined with existing issues like population growth and

tribal, ethnic and religious disputes, the struggle for land turned violent. Is the Darfur

conflict a classic “water war”? Perhaps not. But has a lack of water played a critical role in

that tragedy? Absolutely.”



Lack of resources leads to war – Rwanda proves.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas. “Straw Man In the Wind.” 2 January 2008. Web. 7 December 2013.

<nationalinterest.org/article/straw-man-in-the-wind-1921>.

“On the specifics of Rwanda, he is, in fact, decisively wrong: Several exacting and penetrating

studies have now shown conclusively that cropland scarcity in Rwanda strongly affected

rural grievances that were exploited by radical Hutus in the lead-up to the 1994 genocide.

And regarding Darfur, the case is by no means closed one way or the other. We’re still waiting

for a close on-the-ground analysis of causation. But many reputable scholars have argued,

on the basis of substantial evidence, that a long-term decline in rainfall in the Darfur region

contributed to a breakdown—which the Khartoum government exploited, to be sure—of

traditional relations between nomads and pastoralists.”



Resource extraction has fueled the economy of developing countries

for years.

Reed, Darryl. “Extraction Industries in Developing Countries.” Journal of Bueiness Ethics, Vol.



“Key organizational developments also took place during this period. In the oil industry for

example, by the early 1900s there was a shift away from small, single-stage, local firms to

large, vertically integrated corporations. Here, Standard Oil's dominance over the refining process proved to be the key in facilitating vertical integration. In aluminum, Alcoa's patent

rights granted it a virtual monopoly over metal production and, on this basis, it was able to

integrate both backwards into raw material extraction and forwards into fabrication. The

development of vertically integrated, oligopolistic firms and the introduction of new

technology were closely intertwined as new technology laid the basis for increased concentration (by allowing for economies of scale, geographic expansion of markets, etc.),

while integration and concentration helped to reduce the risk involved in introducing new and

expensive technology. Another key change was the development of national markets in the

major industrial economies. This change was facilitated in large part by the revolutions in

transportation, especially railroads. In principle, improvements in transportation could have helped to increase competition by opening up regional markets to new players. In practice,

however, this was not the primary impact. Rather, improvements in transportation and the development of national markets led to fewer, but larger firms, as firms increasingly had to

attain national size in order to compete. National markets also induced firms to seek out

control over reserves (and ancillary resources) in their home country. It became common for firms to acquire rights to reserves that were in excess of the prospective needs for decades

into the future.”



Resource extraction increases transnational communication and

helps state recognize national interests.

Reed, Darryl. “Extraction Industries in Developing Countries.” Journal of Bueiness Ethics, Vol.



“While micro-economic logic was a necessary factor in inducing transnational activities,

pursuing transnational activities [through resource extraction] was generally facilitated by

political economy factors. While three major types of factors can be distinguished analytically,

in practice they overlap and are frequently inseparable. These include the identification of

national economic interest with the interests of domestic corporations, (geo-political)

strategic considerations and the exercise of political influence by corporations and corporate

leaders. National (economic) interest. The identification of national economic interests with

the interests of domestic corporations has a certain common sense appeal. This connection -

most famously expressed in the words of former GM president, Charles E. Wilson, "What

is good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa" is generally

unquestioned by corporate leaders. In the realm of domestic politics, some doubts do arise

among politicians, however. The reality of democratic politics, as reflected in the need for

compromise, generally means that in the domestic arena few governments are ever capable

of completely identifying national interest with business interests. In the international

realm, however, ambiguity about the relationship between corporate and national interest

usually disappears.”



Science helps even resource competition for developing countries.

Wright, Gavin and Czelusta, Jesse. “The Myth of the Resource Curse.” The Challenge.

March/April 2004. Web. 7 December 2013.

<www.stanford.edu/~write/papers/Wright%20Res%20Curse.pdf >

“The reader may accept this analysis as history and yet protest that it has little relevance for the

newer oil-producing nations of the world. How could such newcomers expect to contribute to

what is now an extremely advanced science-based world petroleum technology? In rebuttal,

consider the example of Norway, in which the first commercial discoveries of oil occurred only

in 1969. In many ways the Norwegian experience parallels that of California. Though not poor

by world standards, Norway in the 1960s was remote and structurally underdeveloped. Yet

in fairly short order, the country was able to reorient its traditional engineering skills from

shipbuilding to become a full partner in the adaptation of oil exploration and drilling

technologies to Norwegian conditions. Virtually from the start, negotiations with international oil

companies emphasized the transfer of competence and control to Norway (Anderson 1993, 96-

100). With the establishment of a state-owned company (Statoil) in 1973 and investment in

the training of petroleum engineers at the Norwegian Technical University and Rogaland

Regional College, “recipient competence” was transformed into “participant competence,”

making it possible to speak of an independent Norwegian oil industry. The Norwegian

industry became expert at producing deepwater drilling platforms. Initially designed to overcome

immediate production bottlenecks, the platforms came to be export goods, as they proved useful

for offshore drilling in other parts of the world. A distinctive approach to exploration developed

at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geology, focusing on the properties of different types

of sandstone as reservoir rock and the flow of water and oil in sediment basins, has come to be

known as the “Norwegian school of thought” regarding oil exploration. As a result of this

approach, forecasts of impending depletion have been repeatedly overturned and reserve

estimates adjusted. In effect, these advances in technology and in the infrastructure of

knowledge have extended the quantity of Norway’s petroleum reserves, and they have



allowed Norwegians to participate in the process as well-paid professionals, not just as

passive recipients of windfall economic rents.”

Gavin Wright is the William Robertson Coe Professor of American Economic History at

Stanford University; Jesse Czelusta is a graduate student in economics at Stanford.



Research investments will stop rapid depletion of resources. U.S.

case study.




“This discussion may convey the impression that the rise of U.S. mineral production was an

exercise in the rapid exhaustion of a non-renewable resource in a common-property setting.

Although elements of such a scenario were sometimes on display during periodic mineral

“rushes,” resource extraction in the United States was more fundamentally associated with

ongoing processes of learning, investment, technological progress, and cost reduction,

generating a manifold expansion rather than depletion of the nation’s resource base. A

prime illustration is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Established in 1879, the USGS was the

most ambitious governmental science project of the nineteenth century. The agency was

successor to numerous state-sponsored surveys and to a number of more narrowly focused

federal efforts. It was highly responsive to the concerns of western mining interests, and the

practical value of its detailed mineral maps gave the USGS, in turn, a powerful constituency in

support of its scientific research. The early twentieth-century successes of the USGS in

petroleum were instrumental in transforming attitudes within the oil industry toward

trained geologists and applied geological science.”





In the United States, resource extraction aided economic

development.




“In direct contrast to the notion of mineral deposits as a nonrenewable “resource endowment” in

fixed supply, new deposits were continually discovered, and production of nearly all major

minerals continued to rise well into the twentieth century –for the country as a whole, if not

for every mining area considered separately. To be sure, this growth was to some extent a

function of the size of the country and its relatively unexplored condition prior to the westward

migration of the nineteenth century. But mineral discoveries were not mere by-products of

territorial expansion. Some of the most dramatic production growth occurred not in the Far

West but in older parts of the country: copper in Michigan, coal in Pennsylvania and Illinois,

oil in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Many other countries of the world were large, and (as we now

know) well endowed with minerals. But no other country exploited its geological potential to

the same extent. Using modern geological estimates, David and Wright (1997) show that the

U.S. share of the world mineral production in 1913 was far in excess of its share of world

reserves. Mineral development was thus an integral part of the broader process of national

economic development.”



NEG:%Conflict%Between%Nations% Jan/Feb%2014%!!


Developing countries are lagging because they expected the US to

care.

Ball, Jeffery. "Climate Change Is Now in the Developing World’s Hands." Slate. Web. 6 Dec.

2013.

<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/energy_around_the_world/2013/11/w

arsaw_climate_talks_developing_countries_will_be_source_of_greenhouse_gas.html>

“The Kyoto Protocol, named for the Japanese city in which it was drafted, obligated

industrialized countries that ratified it to cut their greenhouse gas emissions a collective 5 percent

by 2012. It didn’t require developing countries to trim their emissions. The rationale was that

rich countries, which for decades had been responsible for the bulk of carbon emissions,

should take the first step. The United States didn’t ratify the Kyoto accord, arguing in large

part that taking on an emissions-reduction burden would hurt its ability to compete in

global markets against China, which under Kyoto didn’t have to cut its carbon output.”

Jeffrey Ball is scholar-in-residence at Stanford. He was environment editor at the Wall Street

Journal.



Western countries believe that developing countries are the problem

and they hurt western nations – they think Western

intervention is key.



“For some environmentalists poor countries are the major culprits for global

environmental degradation. For them, poor countries with their burgeoning population of

poor and illiterate people are not only incapable “of helping themselves” but are even

beyond “being truly helped by other nations" (Caldwell l990:l9). For these Westem

environmentalists, the poor countries show by their actions that they “reject the social

restraints.” Instead, these countries have found an expedient solution to their difficulties in

“the export of surplus poor people, chiefly to the industrialized countries” (Caldwell

1990119). From this perspective, one of the major problems is that there is no way “under the

present disposition of national power and politics that nations may coerce one another into

environmentally prudent policies"(Caldwell 1990: 18). The idea of “national sovereignty" has

become a problem for these environmentalists. They have even suggested that activities in one

country that are detrimental to the environment of neighboring countries constitute “an

intemational security issue” (Caldwell l990:l3). Presumably, such a situation would justify

the affected countries’ taking action to defend their “national security” by all necessary

means, including coercion and intervention. Not surprisingly, many in the poor countries see

the environment as “an excuse for political intervention” by the rich countries (Redclift and

Goodman l991:l7; also Cleary 1991). One difficulty in considering another nation's environ-

mental policies a national security issue is that “few developed countries would agree to

intervention in their environments on the grounds of global necessity” (Redclift and

Goodman 1991 :17). Indeed, a great many of the U.S. govemment’s objections to the Rio Earth

Summit agreements were grounded in unwillingness to agree to anything that even remotely

seemed to impinge on its sovereignty (Grubb et al. 1993; Newhouse 1992).”



Poor countries see the West as colonialist in their environmental

policies; the West sees poorer countries as dangerous.



“Environmentalists in the West, especially in the United States, find the ecological

destruction in the poor countries alarming. They consider poor countries’ unwillingness to

give highest priority to environmental protection dangerous to the global environment. They find

the poor countries’ demand for monetary compensation for foregoing the use of their

environmental resources offensive. And they find their inability to make poor countries protect

their environment, for the present and future good of the world community, extremely

frustrating. Poor countries, on the other hand, often consider Westem environmentalism a

disguise for neocolonialism. They see it as a program to perpetuate existing inequities

between the rich and the poor, as a way to deny poor countries the opportunity to achieve

the wealth and good life that the West enjoys (Porter and Brown 1991 :l27-28).”


Technology Hyderabad in 2009.



Capitalism is good for the environment

Bast, Joseph. “Eco-Sanity.” Heartland Institute. 1994. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.riudl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Capitalism-Critique-Answers.doc>.

“Without private ownership, it is difficult to protect wildlife, forests, or other

environmental resources, because no one directly benefits when the resource is

conserved or suffers a loss if the resource is mismanaged. When natural resources

are owned collectively (or “by the government”), each of us may use or manage the

resource very negligently, because we aren’t affected much by our careless

behavior. As a result, public ownership often leaves the environment dependent on

people’s charity of “good instincts.” These qualities are admirable, to be sure. But as the

passenger pigeon, buffalo, and African elephant show, we can’t rely on admirable qualities

alone to protect rare or endangered animals.”



It’s unreasonable to force poor people in developing countries to

adapt environmental policies.

Daily, Mises. "Environmental Protection Is a Consumption Good." The Ludwig Von Mises

Institute. 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 08 Dec. 2013. <http://mises.org/daily/5586/>.

“The second problem with passing environmental legislation once you can afford to do so is

that many people still cannot. Environmental protection measures — taxes on oil, land-use

restrictions, emissions standards, ethanol subsidies, etc. — affect more than just the rich

people who advocate them. They raise the price of basic survival goods — food, water, land

— across the globe. The wealthy can deal with the higher prices; indeed as I've said many of

them may be happy to purchase perceived environmental improvement for a few bucks more at

the pump. The poor cannot. Many suffer and some die. Environmentalists want to protect

the environment because they have reached a point on their hierarchy of needs where a

healthy wood is the next highest good. There are no poor environmentalists. This is all well

and good until they attempt to force their preferences on others via legislation. In a market, the

rich are free to act upon their preferences and purchase goods others cannot afford. They

are also free to try to persuade poorer people that they should value luxury goods more

than basic goods. But can you imagine a law that forced every citizen to purchase a luxury

car? If those who valued the sight of roads full of beautiful cars lobbied to force everyone

to drive luxury cars it would be considered outrageous discrimination against the poor.

Why is environmental activism not seen in the same light?”



The word ‘Developing’ creates a perception that creates an unfair

situation.

Sachs, Wolfgang. “The Development Dictionary.” Zed Books. 1992. Web. 7 December 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?id=2bi_kf7QAq4C&lpg=PA10&ots=yZ04HxTwBm&d

q=%22Throughout%20the%20century%2C%20the%20meanings%20associated%20with

%20urban%20development%22&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false>.

“Throughout the century, the meanings associated with urban development and colonial development concurred with many others to transform the word 'development', step by step, into one with contours that are about as precise as those of an amoeba. It is now a mere algorithm whose significance depends on the context in which it is employed. It may allude to a housing project, to the logical sequence of a thought, to the awakening of a child's mind, to a chess game or to the budding of a teenager's breasts. But even though it lacks, on its own, any precise denotation, it is firmly seated in popular and intellectual perception. And it always appears as an evocation of a net of significances in which the person who uses it is irremediably trapped. Development cannot delink itself from the words with which it was formed - growth, evolution, maturation. Just the same, those who now use the word cannot free themselves from a web of meanings that impart a specific blindness to their language, thought and action. No matter the context in which it is used. or the precise connotation that the person using it wants to give it, the expression becomes qualified and coloured by meanings perhaps unwanted. The word always implies a favourable change, a step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better. The word indicates that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and toward a desirable goal. The word retains to this day the meaning given to it a century ago by the creator of ecology, Haeckel: 'Development is, from this moment on, the magic word with which we will solve all the mysteries that surround us or. at least. that which will guide us toward their solution.' But for two-thirds of the people on earth, this positive meaning of the word 'development' - profoundly rooted after two centuries of its social construction -is a reminder of what they are not. It is a reminder of an undesirable, undignified condition. To escape from it, they need to be enslaved to others' experiences and dreams.”



Portraying developing nations as a homogenous, poor entity disables

developed nations to compare their decision-making

calculus.

Sachs, Wolfgang. “The Development Dictionary.” Zed Books. 1992. Web. 7 December 2013. <http://books.google.com/books?id=2bi_kf7QAq4C&lpg=PA10&ots=yZ04HxTwBm&d

q=%22Throughout%20the%20century%2C%20the%20meanings%20associated%20with

%20urban%20development%22&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false>. “Underdevelopment began, then, on January 20, 1949. On that day, two billion people became

underdeveloped. In a real sense, from that time on, they ceased being what they were, in all their

diversity, and were transmogrified into an inverted mirror of others' reality: a mirror that belittles

them and sends them off to the end of the queue, a mirror that defines their identity, which is

really that of a heterogeneous and diverse majority, simply in the terms of a homogenizing and

narrow minority. Truman was not the first to use the word. Wilfred Benson. a former member of

the Secretariat of the International Labour Organization, was probably the person who invented it

when he referred to the 'underdeveloped areas' while writing on the economic basis for peace in

1942.' But the expression found no further echo, neither with the public nor with the experts.

Two years later, Rosenstein-Rodan continued to speak of 'economically backward areas'. Arthur

Lewis, also in 1944, referred to the gap between the rich and the poor nations. Throughout the

decade, the expression [developing] appeared occasionally in technical books or United Nations

documents. But it only acquired relevance when Truman presented it as the emblem of his

own policy. In this context, it took on an unsuspected colonizing virulence. Since then,

development has connoted at least one thing: to escape from the undignified condition

called underdevelopment. When Nyerere proposed that development be the political

mobilization of a people for attaining their own objectives, conscious as he was that it was

madness to pursue the goals that others had set; when Rodolfo Stavenhagen proposes today

ethnodevelopment or development with self-confidence, conscious that we need to 'look within'

and 'search for one's own culture' instead of using borrowed and foreign views; when Jimoh



Omo-Fadaka suggests a development from the bottom up, conscious that all strategies based on a

top-down design have failed to reach their explicitly stated objectives; when Orlando Fals Borda

and Anisur Rahman insist on participatory development, conscious of the exclusions made in the

name of development; when Jun Nishikawa proposes an 'other' development for Japan, conscious

that the current era is ending; when they and so many others qualify development and use the

word with caveats and restrictions as if they were walking in a minefield, they do not seem

to see the counter-productivity of their efforts. The minefield has already exploded. In order

for someone to conceive the possibility of escaping from a particular condition, it is

necessary first to feel that one has fallen into that condition. For those who make up two-

thirds of the world's population today, to think of development - of any kind of development -

requires first the perception of themselves as underdeveloped, with the whole burden of

connotations that this carries.”



Environmental protection is a tool of consumerism – used to fuel the

global capitalist economy.

Luke, Timothy W. "The (Un)Wise (Ab)use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized,"

Virginia Polytechnic Institute. 1997. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.PDF>.

“Compared to so many other environmental organizations, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

plainly is doing something immediate and significant to protect Nature--buying,

holding and guarding large swatches of comparatively undisturbed natural habitat.

Yet, it does this in accord with the consumeristic ground rules of the global

capitalist economy. Millions of acres, occupying many diverse ecosystems now are

being held in trust by the Nature Conservancy. This trust is being exercised not only

for future generations of people, but also for all of the new generations of the plants

and animals, fungi and insects, algae and microorganisms inhabiting these plots of land.

Beginning with the 60 acres in the Mianus River Gorge, this organization has protected by direct

acquisition and trust negotiations over 7.5 million acres of land in North America as well as

Central America, South America, and the Caribbean in over separate 10,000 protection actions.

In the past forty years, on pieces as small a quarter an acre to as large as hundreds of square

miles, the Nature Conservancy in the United States has arranged for the ongoing protection of an

area the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island.84 Given that so many ecological initiatives fail so

frequently, this string of successes cannot be entirely ignored. Nonetheless, one must admit

the Nature Conservancy's achievements are perhaps seriously flawed, even though

these flaws reveal much more about the consumption of public goods through a

private property system and free enterprise economy than they show about

environmentalism. Because of what has happened to Nature, how capital operates,

and where resources for change must be solicited, the Nature Conservancy does

what it does: consume land to be held "in trust: for Nature. As a result, the tenets

and tenor of the Conservancy's operations as "an environmentalist organization"



are those of almost complete compliance, and not those of radical resistance to the

fast capitalist global economy.”



Resource endowed countries do not run out of natural resources.




“Certainly we are not qualified to make pronouncements about geographical distribution of

minerals in the earth’s crust, much less within particular countries. But a cursory reading of the

geological literature on mineral stocks convinces us that most geologists would not be surprised

by the patterns we have described. DeVerle P. Harris, for example, notes in a survey article that

“ore deposits of a specific kind, e.g., massive sulfide copper, are created from common

crustal material by earth processes that are characteristic of that deposit type.

Consequently, such deposits exhibit some common characteristics irrespective of where they

occur, e.g., in the African or North American continents. (1993, 1035)” Among these

characteristics are deposit size, average grade, intradeposit grade variation, and depth to deposit.

Mapping the statistical properties of these distributions is now the object of sophisticated, large-

scale computer modeling, such as the Minerals Availability System (MAS) of the U.S. Bureau of

Mines. The broad picture that emerges from such investigations is that the underlying

elasticities of mineral supply are very high with respect to any number of physical and

economic margins. The more that is learned about the effects of deposit features on

“discoverability,” with the information gain that occurs from continued exploration within

regions, the more it is evident that the potential for expansion of the resource base—the

economically meaningful concept of mineral resource endowment—is vast if not unlimited.”





Peru is effectively utilizing its mineral resources.




“Yet Peru appears to be on its way to reaching this potential. For instance, “Roque

Benavides, chief executive of Compania de Minas Buenaventura, is forecasting that by 2008,

output will have climbed to 1.38 Mt [Million tons] for copper, 1.16 Mt for zinc, and 1.46 for

gold” (ibid., 6; these figures represent increases relative to 2000 of 145, 28, and 11 percent,

respectively). A US$3.2 billion project began production at Antamina in 2001 and is expected to

yield 675 million pounds of copper over the first ten years (“Peruvian Mining Convention

Highlights Mining Development and Importance,” Mininf Engineering, December 2001). In

Yanococha, “exploration efforts [by Minera Yanacocha, Latin America’s largest gold producer]

indicated major copper sulfide deposits under the gold deposits…Yanacocha may someday

become a major copper producer in addition to gold” (ibid., 21). In May 2002, Barrick Gold

Corp. announced the discovery of an estimated 3.5 million ounces of gold at its Alta Chicama

property in southern Peru (“Barrick Makes New Gold Discovery in Peru,” Skillings Mining

Review, May 4, 2002, 8). Substantial investments in mineral processing facilities are also

under way (“Peruvian Mining Convention,” 21).”



NEG:%Economy%is%Top%Priority%% Jan/Feb%2014%!!


Developing countries only want to act when they see an economic

benefit.


2013.


arsaw_climate_talks_developing_countries_will_be_source_of_greenhouse_gas.html>

“These two shifts are likely to define the world’s response to climate change for years to come.

Together, they mean the world is likely to address climate change only to the extent that

developing countries believe doing so will serve goals they see as more immediate and

important: providing new jobs, for instance, or cleaning up sooty air. Moves that happen to

curb carbon emissions as a side benefit of accomplishing other goals may not be enough to

avert dangerous effects from climate change. But the traditional alternative—shouting

from the rooftops that the rich world should act in the name of melting glaciers—may

amount to little more than hot air.This wasn’t what diplomats expected in 1997, when they

inked what many hailed as a landmark agreement to combat climate change.”


Journal.



Developed countries are abandoning their environmental policies

because of the economy.


2013.


arsaw_climate_talks_developing_countries_will_be_source_of_greenhouse_gas.html>.

"Further evidence that climate concerns aren’t driving energy decisions came earlier this month.

Australia’s new conservative government floated bills to repeal the country’s tax on carbon

emissions; it introduced an alternative carbon-reduction program, but many observers say that

alternative won’t achieve the same degree of emission cuts. Days later, Japan, the home of

Kyoto, announced it was abandoning one of its key carbon commitments. Japanese leaders said

the country no longer would adhere to an earlier promise to cut its greenhouse gas

emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Instead, the government announced a less

aggressive commitment that amounts to a 3 percent decrease in emissions over the same time

period. The political switch infuriated environmentalists but is a concession to economic

reality. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, Japan has idled the nuclear plants

that were a carbon-free source of roughly one-third of the country’s electricity. Even as Japan

races to ramp up power from solar and wind, it’s firing up coal-fired power plants, boosting the

country’s emissions. The Japanese government’s top spokesman told reporters in Tokyo earlier

this month that, particularly given his country’s post-Fukushima move away from nuclear power,

its earlier pledge to slash emissions 25 percent “was totally unfounded and wasn’t feasible.”


Journal.



China isn’t fixing it right now either; could be because of developed

countries backpedaling.


2013.



Japan’s announcement elicited righteous indignation from China. China, which as a developing

country was exempted from the Kyoto climate accord’s requirements, recently overtook the United

States as the world’s top carbon emitter. As result, it has come under increasing international

pressure to take on a carbon-reduction pledge. But Chinese climate negotiators at the Warsaw

conference made clear their government has no intention of doing so, particularly when

industrialized countries such as Japan are backpedaling.

Jeffrey Ball is scholar-in-residence at Stanford. He was environment editor at the Wall Street Journal.



Chinese emissions high now but may decrease.


2013.



"China’s own emissions are soaring—not just because China has a population of 1.4 billion

people but also because China manufactures for the world. And yet there are signs that

China—yes, China!—may end up curbing its emissions more than any other country. It

has pledged to ramp up the proportion of electricity it generates from nuclear

and renewable energy. It has imposed relatively stringent fuel-efficiency requirements for cars.

It’s rolling out a bevy of policies designed to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants.”


Journal.



China will only change for economic reasons – tangible reasons are

key.


2013.



“Why? Not primarily to curb carbon dioxide emissions. China is beginning to move toward

a cleaner energy mix for reasons far more palpable than a colorless, odorless gas. The air in

China’s major cities is often so dirty that it stings the eyes and sickens the lungs; that’s a public-

health problem that could become a political threat to Beijing’s rulers. In addition, the push

toward cleaner energy sources is creating new jobs and new export industries for China—

another tangible political benefit.”


Journal.



Brazil is also changing for economic reasons.


2013.



“China isn’t the only developing country that may end up curbing its greenhouse gas emissions

for reasons other than climate concern. Brazil in recent years has markedly slowed

deforestation in the Amazon—a major contributor to overall greenhouse gas

concentrations, since trees consume carbon dioxide as they grow. In large part, that success is

due to cash payments made to farmers who refrain from cutting down trees. Some of that

cash comes from European governments and investors looking for cheap ways to satisfy

requirements that they fight climate change. Yet studies in Brazil suggest that slowing

deforestation brings economic benefits of its own. By focusing farmers’ attention on land

that’s already cleared, rather than on clearing additional land, slowing deforestation tends

to increase agricultural output, and thus income, from land already being farmed, according

to some researchers.”


Journal.



Developing countries unwilling to protect the environment without

growth.



“In addition, most of the poor countries, especially in Asia and Latin America, are now

urbanized and semi-industrialized economies with sizable middle classes. These middle

classes expect to achieve a relatively high material standard of living like their counterparts

in the rich industrial countries. They are “oriented towards private consumer goods"

(Redclift and Goodman l99l:13) and are unlikely to be enlisted in the cause of environmental

protection at the expense of economic growth. The resistance of semi- industrialized countries,

such as Malaysia, India, and Brazil, preceding the UN Conference on the Human Environment at

Stockholm in 1972, to industrialized countries' focus on global environmental protection has

continued. Developing countries, especially their governments and economic elites, consider

environmental protection a luxury that can be considered only after the rising level of

economic growth is secured (Grubb et al. I993). Long and hard bargaining preceding the Earth

Summit in Rio focused on the developing countries’ insistence on linkage between

environmental protection and economic development. Poor countries demanded that the rich

countries provide them with increased aid to compensate for their increased costs and for

the adverse impact of environmental protection on their economic growth. The poor

countries also demanded that the rich ones transfer advanced environmentally friendly

technologies to them at low or no cost so that they can protect the environment without

reducing their economic growth rate. Many developing countries refused to reduce their

economic growth targets. China, for example, remains “committed to doubling its gross national

product in twelve years at most” (Newhouse l992:74).”





Research shows that environmental quality rises with increased

income of a country. Therefore, the economy is key in order

to fight environmental problems.

Anderson, Terry L. “You Have to Admit It's Getting Better: From Economic Prosperity to

Environmental Quality.” Hoover Institute. 2004. Web. 7 December 2013.

<http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817944826_xiii.pdf>.

“The doomsayers contend that such growth will ultimately deplete natural resources

and destroy the environment, but Lomborg finds positive correlations between

economic growth and environmental quality. He correlates the World Bank’s

environmental sustainability index with gross domestic product per capita across

117 nations, concluding that “higher income in general is correlated with higher

environmental sustainability” (Lomborg 2001, 32). This idea is known as the

“environmental Kuznets curve,” based on Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets’s earlier work on

patterns of economic growth. Measuring environmental quality (for example, air quality) on the

vertical axis and economic performance (for example, the gross domestic product, or GDP) on

the horizontal axis, the relationship displays a J-curve. At lower levels of income, environmental

quality can deteriorate as people trade environmental quality for economic growth. But as Bruce

Yandle, Maya Vijayaraghavan, and Madhusudan Bhattarai review in Chapter 3, all studies show

that the relationship between environmental quality and economic performance becomes positive

at higher levels of income because environmental quality is what economists call an income-

elastic good. In other words, if income rises 10 percent, the demand for environmental

quality rises more than 10 percent. Generally, the (annual) income level at which the

turning point occurs is between $4,000 and $8,000, with the demand for water quality turning

upward at lower levels of income than the income levels at which the demand for endangered

species preservation turns upward.”



A strong economy is key to promoting environmental protection.



“If you live in grinding third-world poverty, you may want a cleaner stream in the village,

but you cannot afford to do anything about it while your children are malnourished. You may

want a low-emission heater for your hut, but since you have neither the money nor the electricity,

the fire pit will have to do for now. In a world of scarcity, there are tradeoffs. You cannot afford

precious time, energy and resources beautifying your landscape and protecting "greenspaces" if you are fighting hunger and disease.

Environmental protection is a consumption good. Not only that, but it is further up on the

hierarchy of human needs than goods like food and shelter that ensure your family's survival. If a

forest was experiencing a natural, healthy fire and a child was trapped in it, even a passionate environmentalist would not say, "Let it burn; the forest is more important than

my daughter's life." Few would disagree that this is a normal and necessary ordering of human

preferences.

Like all consumption goods, you cannot purchase more environmental protection until you can afford it, and you cannot afford it without economic growth. Economic growth, not

legislation, is the key driver to improvements in environmental quality. There is a great deal

of mythology that suggests passing laws is the key to a healthy earth. Similar to the myth that

laws ended child labor in the United States, cause and effect have been reversed. Try banning

child labor in the third world. Not only will many people die, but enforcement will be nearly

impossible because so many people rely on it for survival. Try clamping down on pollution in

the third world, and, again, lives are at stake and enforcement is not realistic. Only when a great majority of people can afford such laws and only when they are rich enough to spend

time thinking of the welfare of others or the earth do such policy changes occur.”



Environmental protection is impossible without a stable economy.



“Everyone, including environmentalists, has needs more basic than a pristine environment.

We don't worry about the earth until our survival is secure. This is a natural ordering of

needs. Yet environmentalists, after meeting their own basic needs, want to force the poor to

reverse their preferences and put the earth before their own survival. I don't think most

environmentalists intend this, but it is the inevitable result of using the force of government

to enact protection measures. This is neither desirable nor effective in the long run.

You may be able to do great harm to many of the world's poor in exchange for some

government attempt at environmental improvement (more likely to result in special-interest

enrichment), but in the long run it is impossible to convince people to subjugate their

survival to the perceived needs of their ecosystem. The real promise for environmental

improvement is economic growth. Until people are wealthy enough to consider paying the

cost of a cleaner environment, the fight to force their choices is inhumane and ultimately

ineffective.

Environmentalists should seek the freedom that creates economic growth among the poor

so they can afford to care about the earth. They should peacefully persuade those who can

afford it to place a higher value on the environment relative to other nonessential goods.

Economic growth and persuasion, not legislation, will make a greener world.”



Economic growth causes rising living standards without sacrificing

the health of the environment.

Porritt, Jonathon. “'You can't look to solve problems using the mindset that created those

problems in the first place.” U.K. Sustainable Development Commission. 2007. Print.

“We still need economic development. We still have to enable people to improve

their quality of life and in the Third World to improve their material standard of

living. But we have to do it in ways that will not destroy the physical environment

and the prospects of future generations. The book I wrote last year, called Capitalism - As

If The World Mattered, looks at what it is that stops world and business leaders putting this

analysis into practice and implementing measures for a more sustainable economy. Politicians, I

think, are frightened at the prospect. It means they have to challenge some of the strong

messages about economic growth. If economic growth is good, then more economic growth is

deemed to be automatically better. I am encouraged now by the level of enthusiasm, the

sense that public attitudes are beginning to change. People understand that climate

change is going to mean a shift in the way we live. They are beginning to get this

message and are looking for clarity about what they can do to make the biggest

difference.”



Developing countries should focus on protection from the

environment rather than protection of the environment.




“Moving to the second issue, “capacity building”, much like technology transfer, has been a

much abused term in the rhetoric of climate policy. Both north and south reiterate by rote the

importance of building capacity, yet neither has shown much willingness to invest

meaningfully in doing so (Banuri and Sagar, 1999). In introducing the twin concepts of

“adaptive” and “mitigative” capacity (by working groups II and III, respectively) the third

assessment of the IPCC (2001) has made a significant contribution to the policy discourse by

outlining what types of capacities are required, by whom, and when. The most pressing

challenge in this regard is to strengthen the social, economic, and technical resilience of the

poorest and most vulnerable against extreme climatic events. The priority must be on those

countries that are climatically most vulnerable as well as economically impoverished and

therefore unable to “cope” or “adapt” with sudden and significant climatically induced disasters.

This highlights the need to focus on issues of adaptation, especially in LDCs and SIDs

where the threat of climate change is more immediate and intense while the ability to adapt is

least developed (Huq and Sokona, 2001). As mentioned, COP-6 has already made a rather

symbolic gesture in this direction by setting up a set of voluntary funds. However, there

continues to be significant uncertainty about how much money will be available to these funds

and how it will be used (Huq, 2002). The next step must be to fund these initiatives and to set up

clear priorities for their use; depending on how large these funds are and how they use their

endowments, they could be an important step towards aligning the climate change regime

towards sustainable development.”





There is no resource curse if it’s accompanied by domestic

investments. America is a prime example.




“There is good reason to reject the notion that American industrialization should be somehow

discounted because it emerged from a setting of unique resource abundance: On closer

examination, the abundance of American mineral resources should not be seen as merely a

fortunate natural endowment. It is more appropriately understood as a form of collective

learning, a return on large-scale investments in exploration, transportation, geological

knowledge, and the technologies of mineral extraction, refining, and utilization. This case is set

out in detail by Paul David and Gavin Wright (1997) and may be briefly summarized here. For

one thing, the timing of increases in production of a range of minerals in the United States is

striking. Leadership or near-leadership in coal, lead, copper, iron ore, antimony, magnesite,

mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc all occurred between 1870 and 1910. Surely this

correspondence in timing cannot have been coincidental.”



NEG:%Protection%Ignores%Key%Groups% Jan/Feb%2014%!!


Environmental protections have ignored minorities.

Bullard, Robert. "Poverty, Pollution And Environmental Racism: Strategies For Building

Healthy And Sustainable Communities." Environmental Justice Research Center. Web. 6

Dec 2013. <http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/PovpolEj.html>.

“The United States is the dominant economic and military force in the world today. The

American economic engine has generated massive wealth, high standard of living, and

consumerism. This growth machine has also generated waste, pollution, and ecological

destruction. The U.S. has some of the best environmental laws in the world. However, in the

real world, all communities are not created equal. Environmental regulations have not

achieved uniform benefits across all segments of society. Some communities are routinely

poisoned while the government looks the other way. People of color around the world must

contend with dirty air and drinking water, and the location of noxious facilities such as

municipal landfills, incinerators, hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

owned by private industry, government, and even the military. These environmental

problems are exacerbated by racism. Environmental racism refers to environmental policy,

practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended)

individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color. Environmental racism is reinforced

by government, legal, economic, political, and military institutions. Environmental racism

combines with public policies and industry practices to provide benefits for the countries in the

North while shifting costs to countries in the South.”



Small-scale mining has empirical benefits across cultures and

nations.




“In Zaire, over 500,000 people work at small-scale diamond, gold and tin mines (Jennings,

1994), and in Ghana, an estimated 24,000 rural jobs have been created as a result of small-

scale gold mining alone (Amegbey et al., 1997). Similarly, certain countries in Asia and South

American have a disproportionately high percentage of their labour force engaged in

small-scale mining activities. In China, approximately three million people are engaged in

small-scale coal mines (ILO, 1999), and in the Philippines, at Mount Diwalwal n the Island of

Mindanao alone, as many as 100,000 small-scale miners are engaged in gold extraction and

processing activities (Hollaway, 1997). The importance of small-scale gold mining from an

employment perspective is best exemplified by Brazil, where, within the Amazonian region

alone, a human contingent of 500,000 relies on small-scale gold mining for economic

survival (Meech et al., 1998). In neighbouring Bolivia, at least 20,000 people are employed in

small-scale tin mining, Table 2 provides more specific employment for small-scale mining in

selected developing countries.”



London.



Blind environmental protection may lead to human rights abuses.



“One of the strongest points to emerge from this collection of cases is the central role of the

community in maintaining and sustaining resource integrity, and the increasing alienation

of the community from local resources as a result of development (including conservation)

efforts. Efforts to protect a "healthy environment" may in some cases result in human

rights abuse, and depending upon subsequent social response, may ultimately fail to meet

original environmental integrity objectives. And conversely, responding to human rights needs

(including the right to development) while ignoring the environmental context infers temporary

intervention rather than substantive solution, and may serve to initiate or perpetuate a cycle of

human rights abuses. This conundrum leads all of the authors to argue for analyses that

consider the political, economic, and cultural factors shaping and at times distorting efforts

to respond to humane environmental crises.

In regards to solutions, authors argue that securing a healthy future relies on the ability of

citizens and communities to know the risks and dangers involved in industrial and development activity, the right to request and receive environmental and community health

safeguards, the right to monitor conditions, the right to question the reasons for and

benefits from development, the right to say yes, and the right to say no.

Achieving these rights - resolving human environmental crises - requires the creation and

use of mechanisms that radically transform the structural arrangement of power at micro and macro levels. That is: the employment of mechanisms that allow people living with the

problem to gain greater control in defining the nature of the crisis, devising equitable responses,

and prohibiting the reoccurrence. And, at the same time, employment of mechanisms that allow institutions and organization that played a significant role in creating the problem to

acknowledge their culpability and (through their efforts to respond) to carry a greater share of the burden for resolving the consequence.”

NEG:%Protection%Fails% % Jan/Feb%2014%!!


The “hand of the free market” is increasingly recognized as a myth,

consensus is that the market can’t solve environmental

destruction.



“Another reason for the increasing concern with environmental destruction in the poor

countries has been the heightened recognition that the earth's natural resources are finite

and that the existence of modern industrial societies depends on the continuing availability

of these resources. There has been steadily growing recognition by all but a few “true

believers” in the magic of the market (Tucker 1982; Simon 1981, 1980; Beckerman 1974) that

earth’s resources and earth's ability to absorb pollution are already strained and that its

ability to sustain our materially rich lifestyles is in serious jeopardy. Therefore, it is now

widely conceded, especially in the industrial West, that the ea.rth’s natural resources must be

considered in a “global” context. They rnust be utilized in a carefully planned and rational

manner and must be protected from waste and overexploitation (Gamman 1994; Bennett and

Chaloupka 1993; Porter and Brown 1991).”





Neo-classical models of the economy have destroyed the

environment, modern standards of economic growth always

crowd out issues of ecological health.



“This is perhaps the central issue in the global environment debate. The dominant model of

economic growth, based on neoclassical economics, does not consider the environment to be

relevant to economics or economic development. It assumes that “there is not only an

infinite supply of natural resources but also of ‘sinks’ for disposing of the waste from

exploiting these resources— provided that the free market is operating” (Porter and Brown

l99l:27). In this view, “the problems of raw materials exhaustion or pollution are minor

diversions”; environmental pollution is an example of “negative externality" and only a

matter of “minor resource misallocation” (Pearce I986: 15). The environment is in an

enduring conflict with this model of growth (Schnaiberg and Gould 1994). Economic growth

requires exploitation of natural resources for expanding production of material goods and

dumping of the waste products of this production into the environment. The modern

“treadmill of production” inexorably degrades the environment (Schnaiberg and Gould l994:v).

In rich countries, mass production and consumption is a major cause of environmental

degradation and destruction of natural resources. In poor countries, “the creation of value and

access to subsistence are typically linked to sacrificing environmental quality for short-

term economic gain” (Redclift and Goodman 1991 :5). Poverty and subsistence do not always

lead to environmental degradation. The poor often adopt sustainable use strategies, since their

continuing survival depends on such strategies. However, among the multitude of poor and for

most governments in poor countries, survival and reduction in poverty take precedence over

concem for the environment.”



Sustainable development is a myth.



“While sustainable development has become the dominant framework in discussions on

global ecological preservation and intemational aid programs. questions about the wisdom of

tying preservation of global ecology to economics have continued (International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1991; Wells, Brandon, and Hannah 1992; Pearce,

Markandya, and Barbier 1989; Goodman and Redclift 1991; Redclift 1987. 1989). Some

environmentalists have argued that economic growth is incom- patible with ecological

preservation. “The connotation of sustainable growth is that you can have development that

is not detrimental to our environment, and that's where it becomes an oxymoron”

(Robinson l994:4). These environmentalists “fear that the new emphasis on human needs, . . .

means a loss of commitment to the primary objective of conserving biological diversity”

(Fuller l994:2). They worry about the implicit threat that making “everything economic"

poses to “reverence for life" on the planet (Wright l994:3).Others suspect that “the ready

adoption of sustainable development rhetoric implies a continuation of the present

development models and policies” (Porter and Brown l99l:32).





Polluter-pays fails and doesn’t protect the environment. Market

solutions have mixed and often unpredictable results.



“Many of those between the true believers in the magic of an unfettered market and those who

completely reject the market and the modern industrial order attribute the continuing

environmental degradation both to market failure and to state failure (Janicke 1990; Cairncross

1994). Many policy makers and academics, especially economists and political scientists, have

increasingly advocated use of the “polluter pays” principle through market mechanisms such

as green taxes and levies and tradeable pollution pennits, as effective ways of dealing with

market failure to protect the environment (Andersen 1994; Barde 1994; Baptist 1994; Mitnick

1980; Marcus 1982). While there have been relatively few empirical studies of the effectiveness

of these economic instruments (Andersen 1994; Hidefumi 1990; OECD 1989; Hudson, Lake,

and Grossman 1981) there is increasing evidence that such economic instruments in practice

produce more mixed results than economics textbooks predict (Andersen 1994; OECD 1989;

Majone 1989). Market-based instruments have serious limitations in protecting the environ-

ment in practice. Their effectiveness depends on the institutional setting, including national

policy style (Andersen 1994). The willingness and capacity of govemments in poor countries

to enforce environmental policies and regulations are often questionable. Comiption among

politicians as well as bureaucrats is widespread in many poor countries. Polluting industries

and businesses fend off and ignore environmental regulations by routinely bribing or

buying off govemment officials. Wang and Cribb in their chapters in this book provide

examples of the corrupt nexus between businessmen and politicians in Taiwan and Indo- nesia

respectively. In poor countries, there is often a general lack of scientific knowledge about

the environment in the very agencies that are entrusted with protecting it. These agencies

also often lack the professionalism, independence, and resources necessary to effectively

enforce the regulations. In addition, the centralized nature of environmental protection

agencies and policies reduce the govemment’s capacity to control pollution and protect the



environment. Some environmentalists and scholars suggest that grass-roots community and

nongovernmental organizations provide a more effective altemative to govemment agencies in

protecting the environment and in using natural resources wisely (Reilly 1993; Ostrom 1990;

Ostrom, Schroder, and Wynne 1993).”





A focus on global environmental protection statutes wouldn’t help

developing countries.




“The abandonment of the equity principle—particularly in regards to the least developed

countries (LDCs) and in the context of the related principle of “common but differentiated

responsibility”—is of grave concern to the south. The regime’s loss of interest in the principle

of equity and responsibility only encourages the abuse of the principle by its members. Indeed,

the essence of the equity-in-climate-policy argument was turned on its head by the US Congress

(Byrd-Hagel Resolution, 1997), which bemoaned the “disparity of treatment between Annex I

Parties and Developing Countries” in terms of emission requirements and demanded

equity of a different kind by resolving that the US Congress would not approve any agreement

that would “mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the

Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled

commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within

the same compliance period.” From this logic, the disparity between the average American who

emits just under 20 t of carbon dioxide per ear while the average Indian emits less than 1 t and

the average Chinese around 1.34 t, becomes unimportant while that between a US that is

required to reduce emissions and a China that is not becomes paramount. From a southern

perspective, as the desire for efficiency overwhelms both equity and responsibility, the

distinction between “luxury” and “survival” emissions is lost and any discussion of global

or generational fairness becomes all but mute (Agarwal and Narain, 191; Najam and Sagar,

1998).”






Creating laws to protect the environment don’t work in a vacuum. They have to be assigned on a case-by-case basis.

Poesche, Jürgen S. "Punishment in Environmental Protection." Journal of Business Ethics. 1996.

Web. 7 December 2013. <link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00412048.pdf >.

“Since the objective of environment, and watersheds are different making a differentiated

approach ecologically necessary. This means that because of the development of human

settlement and changing values, two originally equal sites may become unequal over time.

This is another example showing the dynamic nature of environmental protection. This

discussion shows that the environmental protection authorities (and the relevant law) has to

be adaptable in order to be flexible enough to be used in a dynamic context. At the same

time, the courts have to be careful not to give cause to allegations of partiality and favouritism. It

is very difficult to formulate more specific rules, because every case has to be viewed in

light of its own merits and circumstances. The previous discussion has shown that an agent is

defenceless if he/she undertakes major investments in order to satisfy the environmental

demands, but later on they turn out to be insufficient or even detrimental. This is especially

disturbing in cases when a government agency has either explicitly or implicitly forced the

agent to undertake the investment. In order to avoid or reduce the risk involved in

adopting novel technology for environmental purposes the agent should have some

guarantee to reimburse his/her costs.”



When dealing with environmental protection, forcing countries to

adhere to policies may have negative side effects.

Poesche, Jürgen S. "Punishment in Environmental Protection." Journal of Business Ethics. 1996.

Web. 7 December 2013. <link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00412048.pdf >.

“Punishment and environmental protection have been the starting points for this paper on ethical

behaviour. It has been argued that a punishment is relative to the violator of a rule.

Additionally, it is difficult to determine that an act is ethically punishable because of

information problems in particular. The attempt to force other agents to act ethically may

result in unethical behaviour of side effects, defying the original goal because of lack of

information, etc. Collective punishment is not ruled out because of functional

considerations. From a practical standpoint, flexible punishment rules and laws are needed

in the field of environmental protection because of its dynamic nature and the diversity in

the recipient's characteristics, but care has to be taken to avoid a perception of partiality,

favouritism and inequality. At the same time, a flexible system is needed in order to be

viewed as a real threat from all members of our society.”



Western Environmental Policies hurt the people of developing

countries – DDT ban proves.

Roberts, James. "How Western Environmental Policies Are Stunting Economic Growth in

Developing Countries." Heritage Foundation. Web. 6 Dec 2013.

<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/how-western-environmental-policies-

are-stunting-economic-growth-in-developing-countries>

“While the DDT ban continues to cause needless suffering, people in the developing world

now must bear additional burdens imposed by a variety of U.S. and European Union (EU)

environmental and trade policies. EU bans on forestry products and vegetable oils produced in

the tropics have endangered millions of private-sector jobs in developing countries. The U.S.

Lacey Act,[1] which outlaws trafficking in “illegal” wildlife, fish, and plants, is having a similar

effect. Misleading campaigns against genetically modified organisms (GMO) by green

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and European agricultural interest groups have put more

millions at a higher risk of starvation to protect a few wealthy U.S. and European agribusinesses.

Some of these efforts by green NGOs have been funded by the taxpayers through grants from the

EU and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These sad consequences

starkly contrast with the fundamental assumptions and motives underlying the West’s

traditional policies on trade, development assistance, and environmental protection. The

pernicious effect of these policies and regulations on developing countries’ economic

freedom and growth is evident from their impact (real and potential) on trade and

investment flows, job creation, and changes in per capita income.”

James M. Roberts is a Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth at The Heritage

Foundation.



Environmental protections are a mask – they seek to limit the ability

for countries to develop.





“Governments and large agribusinesses are increasingly using the environmentalist

movement and its policy arm of green NGOs to justify imposing protectionist non-tariff

barriers (NTBs) on developing country producers while skirting World Trade Organization

(WTO) rules. NTBs have become the primary vehicle for erecting trade barriers, which

hinder economic freedom and growth. This trend actually began innocently enough decades

ago, when Silent Spring, a book by Rachel Carson, led to an almost complete ban on the

pesticide DDT. DDT is the most effective pesticide to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Carson’s

analysis claimed to find serious dangers from using DDT— claims later shown to be deeply

flawed. Nevertheless, the book became a foundational document in the creation myth of modern

environmentalism. Zealous environmentalists cajoled governments around the world first to

ban DDT and then to ban a series of other products and practices that activists linked to

environmental concerns.This included imposing green NTBs. Environmental activists and

monopoly-rent-seeking businesses have since become partners in lobbying governments for

statutes and regulations that have erected de facto NTBs. Public relations campaigns have

been used to demonize certain products or to insert discriminatory double standards into relevant

EU and U.S. laws and regulations. For example, EU and U.S. regulations arbitrarily

categorize certain agricultural production methods in developing countries as “illegal” or a

“threat to biodiversity.” This paper reviews some of these campaigns.”


Foundation.



Environmental legislation can be devastating if done incorrectly –

usually by NGOS.





“Left unchecked, U.S., EU, and World Bank environmental and trade policies—as well as

the opportunities for cronyism, corruption, and green protectionism that they provide—

will inflict massive economic misery on some of the world’s poorest nations. Tens of millions

of Asian and African men and women rely on the jobs and economic growth provided by export

industries.The green NGOs’ campaign to restrict production of forestry products, palm oil,

GMOs, and other commodities in developing countries combined with U.S. and EU protectionist

measures block future job creation, higher living standards, and poverty reduction in the

very countries the NGOs claim to be protecting.”


Foundation.



End green protection now – its an issue of principles for the U.S.





“The EU and the U.S. should stop green protectionism because it flouts decades of

beneficial work in expanding free trade around the world. The West should uphold the core

principle of economic freedom and poverty alleviation through free trade and investment

to encourage economic growth. Green protectionism that undermines economic growth in

developing countries is reprehensible. The WTO should define green protectionism as an

illegitimate (and actionable) intervention by governments in the marketplace.”


Foundation.

Champion Briefs

Documents

Transcript of Champion Briefs