Environment vs. Economy Options

[*Kathleen*]

All right, so since I want to see a different topic out there...this one's from February's Lincoln-Douglas topic:

Resolved: A government's obligation to protect the environment ought to take precedence over its obligation to promote economic development.

I'm on the negative side for this, seeing that only by providing a healthy, stable economy can you be able to help the environment. The products of a good economy are what help improve the environment.

Haha don't worry...I have more points...I've researched both sides to this, so bring it on.

[EmeraldKnight]

haha this topic reminds me of policy debate this year.. see, either we'd screw their plan over on economics or we'd screw them over on environment, cuz its just not possible to fully compromise, we dont live in an idealistic world, it has to be one or the other.. but you can't just pick one in general.. it depends on the situation..

Sure, if the government can afford it, they should focus on environment, because thats what matters in the long run, but considering the current fiscal crisis in the united states right now, with a project $521 billion deficit, i think we can afford to put off the environment for now, more than we can afford to put off economics.. and luckily the judges thought so too

I guess what i'm trying to say is (cuz i cannot be concise if my life depended on it..) that there is no universal priority, it depends on the current situation and which needs more attention at the current moment