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.

[shawty_redd]

I acknowledge that.. but realize that environmental preservation and restoration takes a lot more time and effort than you may think, and strictly referring to the current US fiscal situation and the half a trillion dollar deficit, obviously we can't spare any money now to protect the environment.. maybe when times are better...

Anyways, what this argument boils down to is long term versus short term, focusing on economics rather than environment helps us in the short term but kills us in the long term, while the converse helps us in the long term but will ruin things in the short term

So, think about this, we spend a lot of resources and we protect a lot of the environment; meanwhile, our economy goes down the drain, budget cuts in education, health care, social security, because all the money is being spent on the environment, sure we'd have a cleaner environment, more resources, but our standard of living will ultimately decrease

much of the deficit comes from the war..the us is spending so much on it that other things like quality of life, education and enviroment get less attention. if your pre-occupied with other things like war then the quality of life can't help but go down