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.

[stryker76]

I hope you people know that plants respire (I'm using the biology term. "repire" here does NOT mean "breathe in and out") just like us - they use oxygen to convert glucose into energy and give off carbon dioxide. Especially at night when there is no sunlight, plants behave just like us, taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. So in effect, planting a tree may not change anything at all - photosynthesis may produce oxygen, but if we compare the volume of oxygen the tree has produced during it's lifetime with the volume of carbon dioxide it produced via respiration and during it's decomposition after it's death, the net difference may be negligible. Significant differences are seen when there are a vast number of plants - like the rainforests.

WHOA hold on here...please no false info...no offence i truly do not mean to be rude but plants us CO2 to make there good...the waste of the metabolic process is O2(oxygen) we breathe because of plants...and plants survive because of heterotrophs breathing out CO2....i just wanted to point that out sorry if i offended ne one it was not intentional...im just testin my self for my Bio exam at the end of the year