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.

[ComradeRed]

Hmm...I suppose people aren't considering the resolution. It doesn' say specifically any country; it applies universally as Minda (ComradeRed) said. Also, it's not choosing sides here, but simply asking which is more important; which the government has an obligation to. I'm just keeping you on track here.

Oh, and about long-term, short-term...how long are we talking about here? A long time, right? Long enough to have the economy stable and for there to be enough time and money to spend on the environment.

Precedence means which should come FIRST. You can argue that the environment is more important, but we still have to develop the economy FIRST to protect the environment, and still negate, or vice versa. If one's better short-term and the other's better long-term, you have to support the short-term one in this res.