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.

[Spirited Away]

That would be nice.

See I'm mainly for the economy simply because you need money to help the envrionment in the first place. On the other hand, the environment can't help the economy. Also, I remember when I researched this topic that our natural resources aren't running as low as you think they are. If I find an example or fact, I'll get back to you on that.

Ah, but the environment can help the economy, of course, not as much as the economy can help it.

You wouldn't buy a house if it's built near a polluted water source or settle close to a congested freeway. Why? You wouldn't want to breathe in smelly water and air nor would you want your house to be infested by rats... The house that you would not buy then, results as a loss. The economy is not allocating its resources very efficiently if it produces something, and the output is not being used.

Each year, millions of American enjoy hunting, camping, outdoor recreational activities. You see, the environment IS a business. You get allergies from the environment, you can get sick if you live in a polluted area... You come to doctors and buy drugs to ease your sickness which is caused by the environment...

Even though people may say that water is the utmost concern, I think that air and water are equally important in sustaining our health. Nowdays, our health can stand as a market by itself.