Poll: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

[captain awesome 12]

As an active debater on my high school team, I thought it would be interesting to post the month's topic to see what people's views are on it. Keep in mind that all opinions must be reinforced with facts or statistics, and that there are two very clear arguments to be considered here.

Resolved, when they conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.

Affirming the resolution is agreeing, negating the resolution is disagreeing. What do you think?

 

[axia777]

I say let's take of both issues as they are both problems. But that is just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation.

 

[Cody211282]

Umm for you 2 cents i think the UN is probably worthless, but out of the 2 i would say the poverty thing, but knowing the UN they will most likly screw it up big time

 

[JRCB]

I dunno. I think maybe the environment should be prioritized, but we should probably help the problem that can be fixed. I'm torn.

 

[The Bandit]

Neither.

 

[Radeonx]

Poverty Reduction. Our future generations can deal with the crappy environment we left them.
After all, Futurama is always right.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Making cars more efficient would do a bit to solving both.
Environmental problems are a more long-lasting significance that cash, so I'm still for the environment.

 

[Nickolai77]

I'm going to go with poverty reduction.

Firstly, in order to prioritise environmental protection you need to get developing countries to cut green house gasses by limiting industrial development, or at least slapping on a lot of regulation on developing world industry, but if this would have any effect is questionable.

Countries like India or Indonesia will not appreciate this, and cause strained relations with the west and within the UN as a whole. If enviromental protection is pursued to fanatically, you could start a war, if on the other hand, the UN takes a softer approach, then green house emissions will not be cut at all.

Now, poverty reduction. In the short term this will increase green house gasses yes, but perhaps not in the long term. Once a developing country catches up with the West, it will adopt it's own environmental protection measures, and standing alongside developed nations, will share Western concerns. It also means that there is a greater pool of scientists and educated people from these developing countries which can contribute to making new technologies which could reduce or at least contain global warming. It also means more trade and wealth for both the West and the developing world, this leads to more overall wealth and thus more money for creating new technologies which could lead to reducing global warming.

woo, that's my answer!

 

[captain awesome 12]

Just something to keep in mind...

The resolution does say "when they conflict." An example pointed out in the briefing was an excerpt from a conference where an Indian official on climate talked about the problems facing India as a country. To briefly summarize, India has the funds to attack either the problems with their energy systems or else the mass poverty in the country. They do not however have the ability to do both.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Neither. The UN should damn well prioritise promoting trade, getting lazy third world nations to pay back their debts and rubber-stamping wars.

 

[Flishiz]

Environmentalism.

Since when did the poor STOP being oppressed? You need to get wtih the times, which is ALL the time. If we fix poverty, it'll all peter out back to the old states eventually, no matter what Marx thought he could fix. The history of class wars is, as Orwell wrote, the middle using the low to get to the high.

But if we ignore our environment, we'll all be paying for it later, rich or poor.

 

[ejb626]

Off topic I'm currently debating this issue and I'm having a hell of a time finding evidence I just can't find anything for the side of enviromental protection could somebody point me in the right direction?

Personally I don't really have an opinion on the issue it depends what country, I actually googled "Enviromental Protection VS Povery Reduction" in my vain atempt to find evidence and found this thread man, this site has a thread for everything.

 

[Cargando]

The Enviroment. The Earth is not ours, if we screw with it much more, we're going to end up with egg on our faces.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

As if the UN ever makes a situation better.

 

[Cpt. Red]

No, as its better to have everyone alive so that we can solve the poverty problem later on then to have a less poverty while the earth is failing around us...

 

[yrogerg]

Taken on a long enough time scale, environmental protection is poverty reduction, being as the nations most likely to suffer disproportionate consequence from failed environmental protection happen to also be the most impoverished. This is something that generally gets ignored when climate change critics argue that it's not worth our time and money, because the effects of climate change will only harm a relatively small share of global GDP.

Environmental protection should absolutely take precedence, given this fact.

As far as doing research for the negative goes, ejb626, I suggest searching for "water conflicts" as a starting point, or possibly searching for poverty and natural disasters.