Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Round 2. ilovepizza V John bull 1: Environment and Aid

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Developed countries should force developing countries to protect the environment by making it a condition of aid."

ilovepizza will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
John Bull 1 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours. If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
According to Webster a developed country is a country “having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living”. Developed countries know how to keep their country a prosperous and desirable place to live in. The wiser countries (developed countries) will be able to teach other countries that are struggling to thrive. A very important part of a wise country is the ability to balance natural resources and the environment around them while still being industrialized. Developed countries that give aid to developing countries need to enforce that the country they are helping makes sure their environment will stay safe from harms way. If developing countries do not take care of their environment they will fail at becoming developed. I will show these ideas and more in depth in the rest of the debate.

Good luck John_bull_1



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   
This proposition appears reasonable.Doesn't it?

Afterall it's our money, in the form of taxes ,that makes up this aid and shouldn't we get something in return for it?

Actually it's a populist and ignorant policy argument to a very complicated subject.

For many it's easier to agree with such a simple policy argument rather than having to look deeply at the issues of enviroment and aid.

I'm not going to write a long opening statement on this but I am going to list now some important issues that must be addressed during this debate.

1/ Who consumes? Yes who consumes the natural resources that this proposition wishes to protect? It's often not the countries that are home to these natural resources but developed countries.

2/ Who decides that these natural resources should be harvested in return for hard currency? Often it is not the countries that are home to those natural resources but the World Bank who acts on behalf of developed countries that have given loans.

3/Developed countries also have sensitive enviroments yet because they do not need aid they are free to continue to damage the enviroment without recrimination?

4/What is the purpose of aid?

I hope to go into detail on these four points,giving examples,but I think the crux of this argument is centered around that last point.What is the purpose of aid?

You see I too would like to protect this planet's enviroment but tying enviroment to aid will neither protect the enviroment nor aid developing countries.

As this proposition can not be successful anyone who argues for it simply hopes to continue to consume the natural resources of sensitive enviroments while having a quasi-intellectual excuse for not giving aid.

Good luck ILP.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
In a perfect world developing countries would not need aid and the environment would be in perfect condition. We do not live in a perfect world so developing countries need help to make their country and environemtn better. Poor countries that are developing need a way to make money. A great way to make money is to export natural resources.

Countries in South America are a perfect example. The Amazon rain forest is full of many different types of plants and animals. Countries main industry comes from logs and other materials found in the rain forest. Land is cleared for animals to graze on. Trees are cut down to sell the logs. Other plants and animals are used to make money for the poor countries. If the richer more developed countries were able to help aid these poor countries, some of this destruction of the forests could stop. Developed countries could teach the poor countries other ways to make money and in return have the poor countries not destroy as much of their environment. Poor countries exploit their environment because it is one of the only ways they know how to make money.

Of course the aid given to poor developing countries is payed for with money collected from taxes. You think the country that gives aid should get money in return. That defits the whole point of giving aid. Developing countries may not directly give money back to the countries that help but they do indirectly. If a developing country becomes developed, other countries will benifit. Countries will be able to do more buisness with the newly developed country. Money is also not the only form of payment for help.

If developed countries enforce that developing countries take care of their environment, the whole world is getting payment. Saving 10 trees may not seem like much of a payment to countries for help but it is. Humans depend on trees to live. Other animals also depend on these trees to live. Most changes in the environment inderctly affects everything else. You may not be able to see how saving the environment is payment but it is one of best forms of payment.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
If the debate allows I'm going to deal with each of the four points I have raised in my opening statement in order.

1/ Who consumes? Yes who consumes the natural resources that this proposition wishes to protect? It's often not the countries that are home to these natural resources but developed countries.

ILP rightfully mentions the Amazon so let's look there first.

The current state of logging in the Amazon is out of control. According to the government of Brazil, 80% of all logging in the Brazilian Amazon is illegal(we can assume that this is a similar situation across the Amazon Basin).This means that 80% of logging is beyond the control of the Brazilian Government.

With the decrease of viable forest stocks around the world, trans-national corporations are now targeting the Amazon as a key source of forest products. Huge majestic trees like the Samauma, also known as "Queen of the Forest," are being cut down to make cheap plywood for construction companies in the United States, Japan, and Europe. Illegal logging is fast becoming the major threat to the survival of the Amazon rainforest.

Is tying Aid to Enviroment the best and most effective way of dealing with the problem?

No,Of course not.If developed countries are really looking for a way to help save the enviroment then tying it to aid won't help.

What will help is if the developed countries were to work harder to stamp out the illegal trade in Amazon wood by:

a)Prosecuting and heavily fining trans national companies caught dealing in this illegal trade.

b)Enforcing the existing import bans on these goods.

c)Encouraging retailers to look to sustainable supplies of wood thereby cutting the demand for than illegal supplies.

Surely,rather than financially punish developing countries who are already trying yet struggling to police the natural resources that they are guardians to we should instead enforce the laws that we in the west have already put in place.

Without the demand the supply will dry up.

Making Aid a condition of enviromental control won't stop illegal logging in the Amazon.If anything it will mean that developing countries will have less financial resources to police this huge area.Simply enforcing the enviromental laws that the USA,EU,and Japan already have in place will help.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   
It would be nice if developing countries such as Brazil could put an end to trees being cut down illegally, but they do not have the resources to successfully enforce laws pertaining to logging. Developing countries are more concerned about providing the necessities for their citizens. When the necessities are taken care of, the rest of the money is spent on other things that will help make the country develop more. The environment is important but not enough resources are left to adequately protect it. If developed countries aided developing countries there would be more money for environment. Lets say a country spends half of the money it makes a year on food and shelter for the people. If a developed country came and aided that country the developed country might be able to pay for half of the food and shelter cost. This would leave ¾ of the developing countries money to be spent other ways. One of those ways could be the environment.

Developed countries have high standards they live by. They have high standards of making sure their environment is safely protected. Is there any thing wrong with wanting developing countries that get aid to have the same high standards of the developed countries? No, there is nothing wrong with that. If the countries giving aid, do not enforce that developing countries to have the same high standards developed countries have, the developing countries will never become developed. Environment is such an easy thing for countries to not care about in their quest to become developed. The developing countries need to be forced to take care of their environment when becoming developed. The smarter more developed countries that give aid are the only ones who can enforce this.

Countries are starting to make sure the lumber they import is legal lumber. If you had done a little more research you would have known countries are working on making sure the lumber they import is legal lumber. “Until recently furniture manufacture was the principle end use of Brazilian Mahogany, mainly in the US and the UK. But in 2002 countries at the meeting for the Conventional of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) agreed to regulate the trade of mahogany to ensure it comes from legal and sustainable sources.”
www.greenpeace.org... ional_en%2fcampaigns%2fintro%3fcampaign%255fid%3d4006&campaign_id=4006

These two paragraphs you posted are not your original ideas. You made it seem like they were but they are not. Most of the two paragraphs are just copied word for word from the site you go them from. You failed to cite where you got the information from which means you plagiarized someone else’s ideas in your debate.


Originally posted by John bull 1
The current state of logging in the Amazon is out of control. According to the government of Brazil, 80% of all logging in the Brazilian Amazon is illegal(we can assume that this is a similar situation across the Amazon Basin).This means that 80% of logging is beyond the control of the Brazilian Government.

With the decrease of viable forest stocks around the world, trans-national corporations are now targeting the Amazon as a key source of forest products. Huge majestic trees like the Samauma, also known as "Queen of the Forest," are being cut down to make cheap plywood for construction companies in the United States, Japan, and Europe. Illegal logging is fast becoming the major threat to the survival of the Amazon rainforest.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
2/ Who decides that these natural resources should be harvested in return for hard currency? Often it is not the countries that are home to those natural resources but the World Bank who acts on behalf of developed countries that have given loans.

"12 February 2004 - The Rainforest Foundation - together with hundreds of Congolese environmental, development and human rights organisations - today called on the World Bank to halt projects that would lead to a massive expansion of the logging in industry in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Foundation and local organisations believe that plans for the development of Congo's forests being developed by the World Bank and UN FAO for the "development" of DRC’s forests would have “major repercussions for the rights and livelihoods of millions of Congolese citizens, with serious and irreversible impacts” on the forest environment."

uk.oneworld.net...

Far from cutting down trees for their own selfish interests many developing nations are forced by the World Bank to harvest natural resources to repay loans.

Loan repayment in developing countries take up a significant percentage of GDP.This means that western countries have to give aid while natural resources are raped to repay long term debts and the interest on those debts.

Most observers today recognise that if western countries really do want to help save the enviroment and reduce poverty in the third world then wiping the debts of the poorest countries is the most effective way of doing so.The present system where by developing countries are kept in perpetual poverty,forced to repay loans,yet only given just enough aid to keep their people from starving is not even a solution.It just allows Western countries to perpetuate the status quo,a kind of economic imperialism.

Add to this present situation the proposition supported by ILP and you can see just how unworkable it really is.

If debts were wiped for the poorest nations and aid and investment targeted to create sustainable ways of living and food production then after a short time those countries would no longer require aid from developed countries nor would they have any reason to harvest the natural resources thus helping to save the enviroment for the entire world.

I'm reminded of an old advertisment from Oxfam.

If you give a man a fish you'll feed his family for a day.If you give him a fishing net he can feed his family for years.

If you give a man a loaf of bread he can feed his family for a day if you give him the grain and the tools he can feed his family for years.

This is what I mean by sustainable investment.Rather than keeping nations in poverty through loan repayments and giving them enough food to keep alive on a week to week basis it would be better to wipe the loans and give the people the oportunity to safeguard their own future.

In the long term this will save money as aid will not have to be paid except in emergencies and it will help protect the enviroment.

While this proposition,making aid a condition of enviromental protection,will just make this present situation even more hypocritical than it already is.



posted on Mar, 12 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I never said that developing countries should pay back for the aid they receive. In fact I said that is a bad idea because it does not help the developing country become more developed. You can give enough money to a developing country to pay off their debt, but is that really going to help the environment? No it is not for a two reasons.

1) One of those reasons is a country needs a way to make money. With the country more developed they will just be able to sell more of the natural resources. Getting rid of a developing countries’ debt does not help save the environment any more it just make the environment more vulnerable.

2) Paying off the debt of a developing country may have good short term affects but not many long term ones. Just paying off the debt does not teach the developing country how to become and stay developed. The country that had their debt paid off would need to have it paid off every once in a while. The developing country would still exploit the environment to make some money for the country.

A developing country is not as smart as a developed country is. Guidance may not be enough sometimes and force is sometimes needed to for a developing country to do the right thing. Protecting the environment and making sure it is kept healthy is very important. The only way for a developed country to be sure that the developing country they are giving aid to is getting better is by force. The developed countries know what is best and sometimes need to enforce laws against nature so that the environment stays protected, beautiful, and clean. It may not be fun or easy to enforce developing countries to protect their environment in return for aid, but it is realy important.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Before I continue I should say that ILP appears to be mixing up aid and loans.Loans must be paid back whereas aid is charitable.

3/Developed countries also have sensitive enviroments yet because they do not need aid they are free to continue to damage the enviroment without recrimination?

Another way of describing a developed country is to say that it is industrialised.Developed nations are basically those that have already used their natural resources to kick start their economy.Those industrialised nations continue to use those natural resources of their own and import resources to feed their industrialised economies.

There is a growing acceptance that global warming is a very real phenomenon and global warming is not the consequence of developing nations using their natural resources,though this will make the problem worse in the long term.Global warming is the consequence of developed or industrialised nations disregard for the enviroment over more than a hundred years.

And industrialised nations continue unabated.The European Union and the United States account for the vast majority of carbon emissions in the world.

But we are doing something about it right?

Wrong!

Below are just some the accomplishments of the Bush Administration in it's first few months.

*Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.

*Delayed rules that would reduce "acceptable" levels of arsenic in drinking water.

*Cut funding for research into cleaner,more efficent cars and trucks by 28%.

*Revoked rules strengthening the power of Government to deny contracts to companies that violate enviromental laws.

*Allowed Secretary of Interior Gale Norton to request suggestions for opening up national monuments for forresting,coal mining,and oil and gas drilling.

*Broken campaign pledge to invest $100 million per year in rain forest conservation.

*Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol,ultimatly signed by 178 other countries.

*Cut half a billion dollars from Enviromental Protection Agency's budget.

*Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

*Approved plan to for oil and gas developement off of Florida.

*Announced plans for oil drilling in Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest.

*Tried to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging.

*Proposed the selling of oil and gas tracts in Alaska Wildlife Preserve.

Source:Stupid White Men by Michael Moore.

Now,I'm not on an anti American rant.I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of things that all western industrialised nations can do to protect our enviroment.



I don't want judges to look at any one of the three arguments I've set out in my posts but to look at them as a whole.If the suggestions I make:

*Prosecuting and heavily fining trans national companies caught dealing in this illegal trade.

*Enforcing the existing import bans on these goods.

*Encouraging retailers to look to sustainable supplies of wood thereby cutting the demand for than illegal supplies.

*Rather than keeping nations in poverty through loan repayments and giving them enough food to keep alive on a week to week basis it would be better to wipe the loans and give the people the oportunity to safeguard their own future.

*Getting our own act together.

If these suggestions were enacted then we would have a better chance of preserving our enviroment.

Over to you ILP for your closing statement.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I have shown that developing countries benifit from aid, not aid in loans. I have also shown that this benifits the environment because the developing countries do not need to use their resources as much to make money. Countries and companies are starting to take notice to illegal logging. This process can be helped greatly if the developing countries recieve aid. I have proven my side of the topic so there is nothing left for me to say.

John_Bull_1 it is all yours, and good luck



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
To finish with the final question.

4/What is the purpose of aid?

Aid is like charity.It is a gift from wealthy nations to the starving.These starved people are often neglected by their own governments.

Who will suffer if aid is made a condition of of enviromental preservation?

Not the rich bankers.Nor the wealthy importers of illegal goods and certainly not the often corrupt third world governments.

Aid is often given to non-governmental organisations who can bypass corrupt government and put it directly where it's needed.

And if aid is conditional?

Yes,you've guessed it.The only people who suffer are those that need aid the most and are in no position to ensure the enviroment is being looked after.

In this debate I have not just argued against making aid conditional on enviromental control.I have also shown how the enviroment can be protected,often by simply enforcing existing legislation.I've even shown ways in which developing countries can shake off their dependence on aid so that devolped nations,in the long term,can save money.

Aid can not be conditional.I have no problem with loans being conditional or loan write off conditional but aid is charity and what conditions are morally right to decide whether you save a starving child's life?

Anyway,over to the judges and goodluck ILP.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Finally!

Good work guys, I'll get on the Batphone and call in the judges.



posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I was able to drag the judges away from their Guinesses and shamrocks long enough to make a decision on this debate.

The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-0 is John Bull 1. But a hearty congratulations also to ilovepizza for a top job in this debate.

Some of the Judges comments:


John Bull 1 gets my vote. I felt he got his point across better than ILP. Good debate,ILP did a good job,but came up a little short.



Ever amazed at the growing debate abilities ilovepizza, both debated this "twisted" topic quite admirably. I commend both, but I found that John Bull1 argued his position solidly and with no doubt, or hesitation.


Good luck JB1 in the next round.

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Kano]





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join