Debate A.D.A. - Economic Growth v. Environmental Concerns

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: There has always been an endless debate as to what two countries prioritize: economic growth, environmental concerns. And now we're going to discuss this debate once again. The motion before today is that this house believes that developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental concerns. Before we begin to start this debate, I would like to clarify some of the few terms with this definition and to set the basis. First, developing nations are countries that have a human development index of less than 0.5. Prioritize is to consider more important. Economic development is basically economic growth, increasing GDP, employment rate, equity or low inflation or any other growth in economic growth. And environmental concerns are taking methods that are most suitable to preserve the environment. There are many LEDCs right now that are struggling to balance the budget and to preserve the environment as it is at best condition. We have South Sudan, we have Bangladesh, India and many, many more throughout the world. So therefore, a balance must be struck. No, thank you. A balance must be struck in order to say which one must be prioritized. And today this side of the house must prove that it is beneficial for LEDCs to prioritize economic development. We will do this through three main arguments. Firstly, can't have the best of both worlds. Secondly, why is economic growth more important? And thirdly, national and international policy. Starting off with the first one, can't have the best of both worlds. There's a highly unlikely chance of the countries that are struggling with their environmental concerns to develop in the long run at a faster rate. This does not happen. It's very slow. Countries cannot have the best of both worlds. If they invest a lot of capital into a long-term investment that pays off very little and they cannot grow by investing in solar panels. They are very expensive and they do not provide that much energy for the country to industrialize or to continue on producing more production. No, thank you. We can see that, for instance, other countries have other priorities. No, thank you. Like other priorities other than economic development. For instance, 70% of the population of Bangladesh is living under $2 a day. And they're expecting that country to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure in order to maintain their environmental conditions. People are dying. They do not have enough food to pay for the next day's meal. This [00:02:59] Speaker 2: is extreme poverty. Yes, please. If you are planning to spend money on building installations to provide more economically friendly environments and the way of producing, then how are you planning for the country to develop? You're not willing to do that. [00:03:15] Speaker 1: Just to your point, however, we never said that we should ignore completely environmental concerns. We said that the balance must be struck. And within that balance, we should prioritize economical development. Therefore, some things should be considered, maybe, as not throw oil at the sea or at the river for no reason. But on this side of House, we believe that we should prioritize economic development over environmental concerns, not just disregard environmental concerns and go full on economic growth. A balance must be struck once again. So we can see that we can't have the best of both worlds because we don't have enough money. Scarcity is what economics studies basically. We cannot do everything we want. We need to choose what do we want to do? Do we want to develop or do we want to preserve the environment for future generations so that they are again poor and they do not have enough money? And therefore, they try to develop. And throughout history, countries have not developed yet. We're still in the 21st century and we countries are starting to develop hundreds of years ago and they're still in a worse, in a very inhumane situation. Many of these countries are not suggesting that all other countries have not developed. The ones that have developed and are concerned about economic consequences developed before and not worried about the economic concerns before. So we can see that we can't have the best of both worlds in the first place. So we must choose. So what should we choose? What's it going to be? Well, why is economic growth more important? This would be our second argument. It's like life. You can, first you're born, then you crawl, then you walk and eventually you run. You cannot just simply be born and the next day start running. Humans don't work that way, ladies and gentlemen. Maybe some horses can walk as soon as they're born, but humans don't work that way. So let's look at history. Which countries are worried about economic concerns now? Let's see. The United States, maybe the UK, some countries in Europe, South Korea, Japan. But what happened to these countries? How did they get to this position in order to be able to be worried about environmental concerns? They developed in the first place. They polluted a lot to the environment. They did not worry about those conditions. We can see that, for instance, Japan imported a lot of oil until the 70s and now they developed, they stopped or they reduced that amount and they are going nuclear. But we can see that in the first place, these countries did not worry about economic or environmental concerns. They worried about getting money and getting developed and improving their economy and GDP, keeping a low level of inflation, and all the benefits I mentioned before. Red points, sir. One moment, please. Well, now let's look at the president. What do we have? We have Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa. These countries are trying to develop and develop. And they are developing. They are the big countries. However, they are still polluting constantly. The countries that are developing in the present are one of the countries that are So, for a little more. China, for instance, has passed the United States in the amount of pollution. Yes, please. [00:06:20] Speaker 3: However, Japan is not a developed country. Japan is still a developing country. And therefore, if they applied to this system, they would not, as you are saying, this gradual development, they are not even near developing. [00:06:34] Speaker 1: Japan is a pre-developed country. They have a lot of things that we consider development. We define development as having a human development So, there is a place of less than, of more than 1.5 that will be developed. And Japan, I'm sorry to tell you, but it is developed. And they are, have a huge industry. They have multinational companies that are everywhere. We all know of many companies that make video games, for instance. So, firstly, that point is not applied. And Japan is actually developed. And they are worried about their mental concerns. And in the first place, they polluted a lot. So, we can see that, either looking at history or looking at the present, countries that are developed, polluted in the first place. And they did not pollute and worry about the impact on the environment. They polluted and did not worry. They polluted and grew. And now, they have the great powers of the world. And what happened? They are expecting other countries, other less economically developed countries, to just start by not polluting while they are still trying to fix the problems of their countries. So, we can see that the only way that history and the present has shown us is that countries, in order to reach the ability to be able to be worried about the environmental concerns, is to develop in the first place. So, briefly, what I have said so far, we can see that countries have to choose between whether to invest in economic growth or whether to preserve the environment. And we can see that they have to choose because they do not have infinite sums of money. And we can see that economic growth is more important in the first place. And therefore, we have proven our burden of proof, which was that it would be beneficial for the animals in question. So, therefore, for those reasons, we believe that first we crawl, then we walk, and eventually we run. Thank you. [00:08:19] Speaker 3: When the last tree has been cut, the last glacier melted, and the last water resource polluted, then we will realize that we cannot breathe money. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The motion before today is the House believes that developing nations should prioritize economic development over economic and environmental concerns. We will accept the definitions provided by the other team, but we want to start by clarifying that we do not accept the fact of the 0.5 scale in order to consider a country less economically developed. Why? Because we would be leaving aside countries such as China, which are not yet developed as a whole country, but still do not reach this great. So, therefore, we are not going to consider that part of their definition. Now, yes, to start with our problem. What we believe is that nowadays countries are willing to obtain financial development at the cost or the expenses of damaging the environment. And they do not care if this damage is little or it's big. They want to develop. And therefore, the issue in this debate is whether or not developing countries should sacrifice the environment issue in order to develop their economies. And therefore, the proposition would have to prove to us, one, that the economic development at the expenses of the environmental damage will be beneficial for the financial growth and for the social growth of the people, not only in the long term, in the short term, but also in the long term. Now, yes, we will develop three main arguments, which are desperate countries approach desperate measures, exponential growth of technology, and finally, nature's payback. But first, we will start by refuting the points provided by the other team. To begin with, they started talking about how we should choose from both worlds, from the environmental world and from the economic world, and from there, start building our country. Let me tell you something. Following what he stood up and told, what the first speaker stood up and told us, he said that first we are born, then we crawl, then we walk, and then we run. That, as he recognized, takes a long time to develop. Why? Because it is a slow process. Therefore, if we follow this, which he also spoke about, the development of alternative energies, for example, as a slow process, we're following this pattern. However, what we believe is that if we do not apply it right now and start crawling and start walking and then be able to run with alternative energies, what will happen to us is that in a future, in a very near future, we will be born and we will have to start running. Why? Because we will have no no chance to develop gradually all of our alternative energies. And therefore, what we find tonight is that if you do not prioritize right now your environment, in a future, you will have to start running before you are born. So, in order to choose, what we believe at the end of the day is that if you want your country to be able to develop in a future, to be able to run in a future, what you will need, first of all, is a basis, a strong basis in order to base all of your increased economy. Why? Because if you do not build this from now, you will have to build it later. And this makes us also speak about this thing of not throwing, for example, he stood here and told us that we should not throw oil into the sea, for example, or we should not do any illegal practice. However, what we believe, not to that extent, he stood up and told us, however, what we believe is that this is actually what happens. This is what all of this damaging to the environment consists of. And therefore, this huge damage will not be able to be repaired in a future. And what will happen? We will have no more resources. We will have no more water to drink. And there is where we will have to start running. Running to get water, running to get resources, and running to get our country, to get our country's economy in a fair way. Therefore. Now, yes, going, yes, sir. [00:11:53] Speaker 1: So, basically, you're saying that we should invest in women instead of giving people the water they saw once before they came in. [00:11:58] Speaker 3: I understand your point. They do have the water, because now we do not have exactly the crisis that we will have in the future if we do not start right now. Therefore, prioritizing, as you will say, is to pay more attention too. It doesn't mean that we are leaving the economic growth aside. It means that we are leaving it in a second step, but in order to promote the well-being of our people in a future. Why? Because if not, in a very near future, you will not be able to give the water you actually have now, you will not be able to give them the food they need, and therefore you will have no population. And there is where you will have to start running. Now, yes, no, deny. Now, yes. Let's speak about our first argument, which goes with the desperate counter-approach desperate measures. To begin with what we would state is that we have two different cases: short-term scenario and long-term scenario. Let's go first with the short-term. What we have now is a slightly beneficial economy for those who are actually applying these practices, which do not at all prioritize environmental concerns. However, what we believe is that if they accept the fact that in the future we will need these energies, then they are in mind approaching this prioritization. And therefore, if we consider that this will be a session in the future, why do not start now? Why do not start here in the short-term? Look at short wait. No time. So, as regards to these developing countries, what we find is that we have developing countries with sufficient resources up until now, or with scarce resources, but still they are able to extract them. However, if we let this time go on, if we let these countries still develop their economy over their resources, what we find is that in the future, in the long-term, they will have no resources and they will be a developing country. What does this lead us to? A crisis. Why? Because they, first of all, will still be a developing country. What have we seen? Let's take the example of Argentina or Venezuela. Countries who are actually polluting, as they will say, because they're using, for example, fracking to extract oil. Let's forget about the external companies coming and taking most of the revenue, but they are still polluting from years ago, from many years ago, and still are developing countries. So therefore, the logical link clearly is not applied to reality. Before we continue. Just a moment, please. However, they do not seem to understand that if now we reach the moment in which they have no more resources, we will have a crisis. Therefore, we will need to develop alternative energies and, finally, we will not be able to afford them because we are developing countries. Therefore, we will be in a deeper crisis than the one we were before. But you disagree. [00:14:32] Speaker 4: You are not taking into account that the countries that most pollute the world are the ones that are great powers, such as the USA, such as China. [00:14:39] Speaker 3: They understand, but they are still polluting. This doesn't mean that they do not pollute any longer. They are still polluting. And I don't think the USA, for example, despite the fact that they develop partially their environmental, they have the environmental concern. However, they are not as developed. And therefore, when we find their environmental concerns are starting to come up as a new method to promote their economic growth. Why, ladies and gentlemen? Because they have found that at the end of the day, they will be the ones which will have no more resources. And if that time comes, then that is where they will need desperate measures. And that is when they will regret the fact that they did not start developing alternative energies before. So, yes, now, continuing with what we were saying, they will need to make this switch sooner or later. What do we believe? That if we can be approached towards green energies right now, it won't be late in the future. However, if we get to the point where we need to develop these alternative energies, we will have two cases. Those who will be able to develop them, as he was said, they take a long time to be developed and therefore will have a long time with no resources. And those who will not be able to develop them because each time years pass, they get even the cost increases each time more. And therefore will have, in both cases, a failure in their economic system. Why? Because they will not be able to develop in the basis that they didn't even create. So therefore, what we find is that the problem in that time will not only be the problem of the environment, the problem of the scarcity of the resources, but also the problem of the economic development. Therefore, in the future, if we do not start developing them now, if we do not prioritize a bit more these environmental concerns that we will have in the future, it's a greater crisis. It's a greater problem for not only the people who live there, but also for the society as a whole. And therefore, because we have proven to you that in the short term and in the long term, it will be beneficial, not only for the country, but also for the society living in it, to prioritize these environmental concerns if we believe that you cannot buy nature with money. Thank you very much. [00:16:42] Speaker 4: Proposition thinks today that there is a clear balance that has to be made by proposition and opposition in this debate. We think that there is no complete win. We think that we're going to lose something. The thing is, proposition is living in reality. Proposition is living in reality where countries can't take this measure. And because of these reasons, we believe in the motion, this House believes that developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental concerns, we're proud to oppose. I will divide my speech in two parts. First, I'm going to refute all the arguments given by the first speaker of the opposition in three main points. First, reality. Second, pressure. Third, urgency. In my second part of the speech, I'm going to give my argument about from the inside to the outside. So, starting with the reputations. There is a clear evidence here that these countries do not have the money or do not have the stability to take care of these international concerns. We're seeing that in reality, the reality where proposition is living, countries such as South, sorry, countries such as South Africa don't have the abilities to take care of solar panels when they do not have the money to provide their people and to provide the population with the needs they have. We need to prioritize what's happening inside of a country before going into what's happening outside of it. But physically, talking about physically, financially talking about this, there's no way and there's no money that can be used by these countries to develop these kinds of technology. If there's no economic growth and we do not have economic stability, we can't have money to put into solar panels or into windmills. Or such things. So, in this reality we live in, we don't have the money to progress in these countries. We don't have the money to progress in these concerns. So, no, no, no. In my second point, what I want to clarify here is that opposition is, of course, very worried about environmental concerns, and so is proposition. But the thing is that proposition believes that we are putting pressure into developing countries that need the stability economically to empower themselves to provide the population with concerns that all other powers can do. We think that the ones that have to, no thank you, that the ones who have to develop technologies and have to develop new ways for these countries to use, for these countries to use, to get better at these environmental concerns, to start making progress and start making a change towards a world that is going to live in the future, where we can have clean water, where the boats don't melt. But this starts from the Indian side. This starts from developed countries that will grow eventually, leading to have money to make this possible. But what happens when we have this urgency that opposition is talking about. We believe also in the origins of these concerns because time passes. But we think that the ones who should be concerned are the ones that pollute most, such as the USA, such as China, one of these. These should be the countries that, in the first place, provide ways for developing countries to, more economically, better economically measures for these developing countries to take, and in the second place, take these measures. Yes, please. [00:20:35] Speaker 3: However, those countries who pollute are not the ones that are only affected by pollution. Each country in the world is affected by the pollution that these countries provide. [00:20:42] Speaker 4: I get your point. I get your point. Everywhere in the world, we are affected by pollution. Every country in the world is affected by pollution. But in this moment, by the pollution the US, China, these great powers are making. So, we believe that it is their responsibility to take care of this pollution that they once created, and that they keep creating. No thank you. So, I'm going to follow up for my argument about from the inside to the outside. What do we mean by this? We mean that the internal policy of a country is more important than the international policy. Why is this? We believe that the state has a responsibility to take care of themselves, to take care of the people. Meaning that they should take care, no thank you, take care of their literacy level, the quantity of doctors they have in the country, the jobs they offer, the running water standards of living, basic living standards. Why? And why is this achieved by economic growth? How do they do it? By industrializing, by being financially independent, we provide people living in a country a way to get jobs, a way to have more doctors for themselves. We need to take care of the society that lives inside a country. We need to take care of the society that lives inside a country. We can't physically and socially take care of concerns of all the world when the people that live inside a country can't pay the rent, when they do not have a job. So, we think that it is legally speaking, the responsibility of a state to take care of the population first, before taking care of the rest of the world. So, when this country has the financial ability to provide the population a place where they can live in and a place where they can work, it is before, it is after we do this, that a country can develop this technology and this way of clean living. But if not, as we explained, this is impossible because of money, because of economic, because of economic means, and because of social meaning, because of the responsibility that the state has. Yes, please. [00:22:57] Speaker 3: However, if we take the case of Venezuela, for example, based on your pollution case, who will have, is a country that is a mono-producer of oil, and therefore in the future when oil runs out, they will not be able to develop on that basis. [00:23:10] Speaker 4: So, what you are basically saying is that they are going to follow up the policy of polluting the environment with their oil. The thing is that we believe that other countries that are more developed, such as the UK, should develop ways of getting oil without being so polluting, or find out ways, invest in technology, to find how we can provide the world and the society with energy, rather than polluting with oil. And that is the great power's responsibility. Why? This is the great why. Because they are the ones that are non-polluting most. They are the ones that drove us here, to this urgency, and they have the economic power and the financial power to do this. So, we keep pressuring these countries to take these measures. We are not allowing them to grow. We are not allowing them to become great. And we are taking out responsibilities to these countries that are the ones who should search for these measures. So, we need to analyze here what is more important. If we are talking about the society of a country that is going, that is such as, I don't know, such as the countries in Africa, where we are going to prioritize that these countries that are already economically grown should take these measures. Let's get an example. So, Germany, for two decades, was worried about its population development, achieving good standard of living. And now, it's one of the most of the countries that has the most of solar panels. They now developed environmental ways of doing a better way. This is a clear example of how first the country has to develop, and then the country has to take turns around on these issues. That is why we believe that we should grow, walk, then run. Thank you very much. [00:25:04] Speaker 2: We can't live with less money, but can we live without the world? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the House, honorable judges, honorable opposition. The motion before us today is that this House believes that developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental movements. I will start with our case by refuting what was said by the second figure of team opposition. First of all, I would like to clarify that China is a developing country. Even though it is one of the most economically strong countries, almost half of its population lives in rural areas, and a lot of its economy is based on agriculture. So, therefore, it cannot possibly be a developing country. Our second point was reality. Team proposition insisted that we are not opening our eyes. But what we can understand from this situation is that team proposition is the one which is not opening its eyes. This is a chance for developing nations of not repeating the mistakes that were made by developed countries. Why should they wait until they are completely developed to start taking measures to stop damaging the environment? We don't see this point in waiting. We should stop damaging the world and we should stop damaging it now. Why should we wait? No, thank you. Why should we wait to see later what happens in the world? To see what the problems we are creating now so that we can solve in the future? We should just avoid committing mistakes that can lead to problems in the future. Because I can assure you that it is much more cheap to stop the problems now than to have to fix them in the future. [00:26:45] Speaker 1: Hold that point. [00:26:46] Speaker 2: No, thank you. So, does China lack enough stability to develop alternative energy resources? Or is it too focused on its short-term economy to see that in the long-term it will have no future? Because what nation could possibly grow in the future without thinking in the long-term? China, for example, is a developed country that only focuses on the short-term benefits to plan its economy. It should focus on the long-term problems that it should have to fix if it keeps on polluting at the rate at which it is polluting today. So, what we also disagree with that was led by the same proposition is that developed countries should reduce pollution. Because, yes, it is true, developed countries should reduce pollution. But why only developed countries? Why shouldn't we all try and do our best to reduce pollution? Because at the end of the day, it is all of us who are living in the planet, not only developed countries. So, yes, they should try their best to develop new technologies and new mechanisms and new ways of producing that. Yes, please. [00:27:58] Speaker 1: How can you expect people that can't even pay for their food to invest in developing new technologies and invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into things that will maybe pay off in a hundred years? [00:28:10] Speaker 2: Because in a hundred years, they will have children that will have to live in the very same world. And as our first speaker said, they will have not only little money and little to invest, they will also have little water, they will also have little available land to plant, they will also have to deal with the heat that comes from global warming and that is destroying the world. In the long term, it does only damage the future populations and it is still having effects nowadays. And I will continue to explain that with our arguments. So, what was also said by the government is that we should take care of the population first. So, let me ask you something. Isn't the point of the government to improve the standards of living of the population? Because, yes, in the short term, probably as entrepreneurs gain more money, as people earn more money, they can have better short term living conditions. But tell me something. In the future, how can people have better standards of living if they have no clean water? They cannot take a bath, they cannot drink water, they cannot even produce food to eat. Or matter. No, thank you. So tell me, how can we have better standards of living if we don't think about the future and the long term? [00:29:37] Speaker 4: How can we be concerned about the water that is going to be in the people's glasses in 20 years when they can't drink water now? [00:29:49] Speaker 2: Because now, at least they have water available to drink. In the future, they won't even have access to water, but they won't even have water. Not the rich people, not the poor people. No one will be able to have clean water. So, how I said that, I will now proceed to explain our second argument, which is exponential growth of technology. We can all agree that the sooner we start developing technology, the more it can advance in the future, because its growth is exponential. A little change that we can consider today to be almost relevant in the future can be the base of a whole new method of producing. For example, we have alternative energy sources. Many years ago, some turbines that needed the use of water in order to move and create energy were established. So, that change that, at that time, seemed almost relevant, is now the base of hydroelectricity, which is the most widespread resource of renewable energy. So, a little change that happened many years ago, when farmers didn't have enough money to install hydroelectric power plants or many other things. So, that little change now means that we have a better world, that we pollute a lot less than we did before, that we are burning less fossil fuels to improve our industry. So, the more you develop today, the more resources you develop today to help fight environmental pollution, the wider base you have tomorrow to create mechanisms and technology to have in the future. And that also answers to the point that was explained by Dean Gardner, that we should walk and then run. We should walk now by creating technologies that prioritize environmental protection, so that in the future we can run. We can run, but we can run with clean energy resources and with a much larger base to develop new energy, before we develop many other new methods of production that involve less damaging the environment. Had I said that, I will now state our third argument, which is nature's payback. Let me tell you something. Are you familiar with Case Katrina? Yes. It is a hurricane that happened some years ago and had its most big effect on Louisiana, which is on the United States. Okay. That hurricane was much worse than the ones from years before, due to global warming, which was produced by the freeing of CO2 in the atmosphere. That hazard was very extreme and was even worse on developing countries because they had less infrastructure due to their focus on developing the economy and not developing the better centers of the population and not investing in cleaner energy resources. Because it attacked worse developing countries, but the natural hazard in the end cannot choose which path to follow. It attacked the Caribbean. It also attacked the United States. It attacked many countries, regardless of if they were developing countries or if they weren't even developing countries. So, should countries sacrifice environmental concerns for economic development? No, they shouldn't. And this is fun. [00:33:27] Speaker ?: Thank you very much. [00:33:30] Speaker 5: We can live with less money. Yes, of course, people in Bangladesh can go out through a day with one dollar a day. Yes, of course, they can buy their food, they can pay their rent, they can pay their electricity, they can pay every single bill they have. Yes, we can live with less money. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As we have been seeing, this debate has crystallized in three main points of contention. The first one is, we can't have both things. The second one is, nature versus economy. And the third one is, national policies over international policies. But before I continue with the first point of contention, I'd like to remind you several things that the team opposition failed to do or forgot to do. First of all, they did not address, when we talked about the social benefits, the benefits that the people would receive after having this economic development. People would have infrastructure. They would get running water to their houses. They would get electricity to their houses. They would get a better standard of living. No, thank you. More doctors per person. That means better health system. More education. A better literacy level. All these social benefits we mentioned were completely ignored by the opposition. So therefore, we can assume that they stand, just because no thank you, they stand. Now, moving on to the second part. Team opposition also failed to recognize that the environmental concerns that they are mentioning, that this environmental development that they are looking for can only happen when countries have money. Because environmental development, environmental causes, environmental concern costs a lot of money. So now let's say, okay, let's put the example of Bangladesh, where people are living with two dollars a day. Can they actually invest thousands of dollars into being concerned into the environment? No, ladies and gentlemen, this is completely utopic. So we have an opposition team that is living in the utopia, saying, yes, of course, let's invest. But no, ladies and gentlemen, let's come back to reality. No, thank you, madam. Now, let's go to the first point of contention, which is, we can't have both things. What we have been saying, team opposition, with our first argument, is that we can't have both things at the same time. Because both things cost money. But the most important thing to recognize is that environmental concerns cost more money than economic development. And after we have economic development, we can start to look for environmental concerns. But what, no thank you, but what happens? What does team opposition tell us here? Yes, of course, but what will happen? In the future, those countries will no longer be able to look for environmental concerns because they would have been completely prioritizing an economic development. But they fail to recognize that there are also more economically developed countries that are doing that nowadays. They are concentrated in environmental development and environmental concerns. So then, when these countries are now economically developed countries, they just have to copy what the other countries are doing. So this development that they said, we need the development now, so that is why less economically developed countries should be trying to develop environmental resources, concerns, and everything. Just because in the future we won't have them. We have countries like the USA, which has tons and tons of money spent in their army. They have a lot of money that they use in education and they also have billions of dollars in environmental concerns. So then, when a country, say Bangladesh, let's say Venezuela, has finally reached an economic development, they just have to copy the environmental policies that those countries have. It's clear and simple. So this point clearly falls. No thank you madam. And they also talked about how the technology develops drastically and now the hydroelectric plants are a great part of our society. Yes, they are a great part of our society. But can a less economically developed country run its entire energy demand only on hydroelectric plants? No, ladies and gentlemen, no thank you. They have to go into what is coal energy. They have to go into some energies that do pollute, but in the end result in economic development. So that is why we see that this point of contention clearly goes for team proposition. And it also shows how we proved the burden, which is it brings benefits to that country. Now, before I continue to my second point of contention, I'd like to take a point information if the opposition has one. Opposition has one. [00:38:30] Speaker 3: As regards Bangladesh example, what we would like to say is that if they have two dollars a week or something like that, if we consider that, how will they magically be a developed country? [00:38:39] Speaker 5: I understand your point, Madam, I understand your point. But what I did was a cost-benefit analysis. An analysis of how much money would require for the environmental concerns and for the economic development. And that analysis was that the economic development was much more costly. So therefore, we can see that they could start by this. So then later, when they are a developed country, they can start with environmental concerns. Now, moving on to the second point of contention, which is nature versus economy. What did the opposition came here today and say is they told us that nature comes back and she comes with a payback. She said that nature is too late to be concentrated in the environment. But we have been proving to you that they came here with the example of Venezuela. Their economy is based on oil. But sorry to tell you, Saudi Arabia's economy also was based on oil. But nowadays, they have a great part of their economy is services and technology. So what do we see? They start with oil and then their economy changes because the need of a country changes and the government follows what it should be doing, which is providing food, work, education, water, electricity to the population, thus giving them benefits and then giving them the possibility to have an economy that is not based in polluting the world. So ladies and gentlemen, what the opposition has been saying, again, false. And now let me remind you what we said. We said that it is more important to have economic growth because after you have economic growth, now thank you madam, you go to environmental development. Now moving on to the third point of contention, which is national policies over international policies. What we said is that no country can start and concentrate in things that are to the well-being of the whole world when they are not ensuring the well-being of their own population. Because what happens, ladies and gentlemen, if the government, let's say the government of Venezuela is more concentrated in the population of Argentina, Chile, Bangladesh, Brazil, whatever, their population will be dying because what? They don't have water, they can't get food, they can't pay their houses, they are illiterate, they have no education, no way to prosper. So if we give the society the benefits, if the government concentrates in national policies first, to then assure a development, to then assure the possibility to start focusing in international policies such as environmental concerns, then we will achieve a point in which we can concentrate on that. But what we are trying to prove to you today is that the social benefits outweigh the little, outweigh what could be considered as environmental concerns, environmental detriment. But we have to bear in mind, the more economically developed countries are fighting against those detriment. So, because these three main points of contention fall first in proper decision, and they show that we proved our burden of proof today, which was proving that it was more beneficial for the government and for the society of that country, that is why we believe that you first crawl, then walk, and then run. Thank you. [00:42:06] Speaker 6: If the proposition believes so strongly in their people, shouldn't they focus more on their people's future? Do we want a future in which their people are drinking water with more contents of lead than anything else? More contents of lead that come from the factories that actually made this country a little bit more developed in the short term? No. Do we want kids trying to climb trees that don't exist anymore because of what they have done? No, I really don't think so. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, honorable audience and honorable judges. I stand here proudly opposing the motion this house believes developing nations to prioritize economic development over environmental concerns. So, what did team proposition have to show us to win this debate? They had to prove that it was beneficial for financial growth and society in the long and short term. Now, during my speech, I'm going to go through three points of clash that were during this debate, which were, first of all, their tumbling balance, second, the leaking development, and third, unending cycle. After that, I'll make a quick summary of the debate. So, first of all, certain clarifications. We heard the USA as an example, that this was one of the countries that pollutes the most, one of the most evil countries out there. But what do we know about this as well? That it's also one of the countries that develops alternative systems of energy the fastest. Now, developing countries aren't the only ones polluting, and this is a big fact here. And another point is that they are not the only ones that will be affected. All countries in the world are affected by this, and affected at different lengths. Therefore, so, if the people are in bad conditions now, and this is barely a short term solution, let's think about their future. What will happen there? Things where there will be no water, no trees, it will all be a barren land. And now they will drink this water, totally contaminated, because they won't even have the option of clean water. So, going to the first point of class, which was their tumbling balance, in which they told us during their first speech, that they would like to find this optimal balance between economic and environmental. Now, what would we like to say about this? This balance simply doesn't exist. It does not exist. Why? Because the one prioritized will be a great way above the other, and we can't afford to have nature destroyed. We can't afford to lose something that will not be replaced. No, thank you. So, we want to ask everyone here, every single one of you, what will happen when the natural resources run out? When deforestation of the Amazon gets way out of half more than it is right now? When the pollution of water and the skies get worse than it is today? Because of what the proposition is wanting to focus on. We really think this will lead to detrimental nations, and a detrimental future for the populations in general. Once forests and species no longer exist, will the balance be equal? No. Do we want this? No. We will get to something that we won't be able to go back to. So, no thank you. Going to the second point of class, which was the leading development. Now, I'm quite fond of this one, because we heard from team proposition that they would like developed countries to develop these environmental technologies and spread them, because you know what, they're able to. But what's the problem here? And, well, actually, they gave us a point called reality. So, now we want to give them one with the same name. So, they mentioned Saudi Arabia, and how it was actually developed, and how they were actually now not relying on oil anymore. But what's the problem here? I think they forgot to mention that Saudi Arabia was one of the richest countries in the world. And, as well, let's do another reality check. How many countries received technology from Saudi Arabia? No, none. No, that's the point. Absolutely none. Saudi Arabia did not give anything away. Why would we expect other countries and developed countries to give it away as well? This is just simply not going to happen. So, their cute theory here that this will just... Their cute leaking theory here that developed countries will give their technology to developing countries will actually just cause a real flood, due to the detriment of nature. And, as well, since we're talking about Saudi Arabia, the example that was completely invalid, we want to say that they gave no other example, no other valid example, where this technology has been leaked and given to other countries for use. Now, we believe, therefore, that this point is totally irrelevant. Point of information? No, thank you. So, we also would like to ask how countries like Bangladesh, as my first speaker has mentioned, will go from $2 every day to copying this technology. This makes absolutely no sense at all. They told us, well, yes, you know, and I'll take in a second, maybe Bangladesh has $2 to spend every day, but once, you know, they focus on the economically developed aspects, they'll be able to take from everyone else. And maybe, you know what, Saudi Arabia will donate, but I don't think so. Yes, please. [00:47:10] Speaker 4: That is why the proposition said that we think that the developed countries should look for other, cheaper ways of these countries to develop in this country. [00:47:19] Speaker 6: I understand your point. But the thing is that developed countries don't have in mind other developing countries. Now, this is a sad reality, but developed countries, and any country has its priorities in order, with it being itself the top one. Therefore, it will be looking for alternative energies for itself, and it will not give them away to developing countries for no reason at all. Or maybe the developing countries will be able to pay for it since they will develop from one day to another. So as I was talking about Bangladesh, it can't go from $2 to just copying technology this quickly. No thank you. And even if they were to do so, the country will have passed a point of no return. Why is this? Nature will be in a point that no one can take it back. Nature cannot be bought with money, as we have said. Even if the country were developed, no thank you, it won't be able to get its nature back, its resources, its water, its clean skies. None of this will happen, and we want all of you to realize this. So, and then one more point about Bangladesh, or any other developing country for that matter. No thank you. How long has Bangladesh been a developing country? I'm pretty sure it's been a long time. And has it been focusing on the environment, prioritizing the environment? No. Therefore, is this a solution? Absolutely not. So it's not as black and white as team proposition is telling us. We would like to point this out. Now, going through the third point of class, which is the unending cycle. No thank you. We would like to say that countries that are developing and focusing on the economy will have, as they told us at some point, no way to prosper. There will be absolutely no way to prosper, because the people now don't even have the option of buying good food, of buying clean water. These options will be totally eradicated by the ways the team proposition is telling us to go by. So, making a summary of what we have seen in this debate, and why we have actually proven the different points that we had. Why the team proposition actually didn't prove their burdens, which were financial growth and society's benefits in the long and short term. So, our first argument, which was desperate countries, look for desperate measures. We showed that even if we accept that this would be slightly beneficial in the short term, in the long term, countries with no resources, in a crisis, it won't be able to develop alternative energies, and this is all a vicious cycle that it will never be able to get out of. So, it will be too late to switch to other energies. Second argument, exponential growth of technology. We need a strong base of technology now. Not tomorrow, not the day after, right now. Because once there is this base of strong technology, it can be expanded on, it can be built upon. And finally, our third argument, which was nature's payback, we showed how this would actually lead to even worse natural hazards. Things getting worse, while it will keep hitting developing countries harder and harder each time. That is why, for all these reasons, we believe that you cannot buy nature with you. Thank you very much. [00:50:20] Speaker 3: We do not inherit our natural resources from our ancestors. We borrow them from our children. Good afternoon, for the last time, ladies and gentlemen. The Motionist House believes that developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental concerns. We will divide our black speech into two main questions. First, is it beneficial in the short term while always speaking about society and the people living in it? And second of all, is it beneficial in the long term? Now, to begin with the first one. As regards to the short term, we heard a proposition that stood up here and told us. Two main things. First of all, the role of the government is to take care of their people and therefore of their population as a whole and provide them with, for example, food, shelter, health system and all of these things that were social benefits that they provided to us. However, on this side of the House, we proved to you that we are going to care about them right now because we are not eliminating the economic growth, but we are going to care about their future too. Why? Because we choose to prioritize environmental development in order to be able to guarantee them a future. So therefore, at the end of the day, let me ask you, who focuses more on the people? Who fulfills the role as a government? Second of all, we find that all of their benefits were resumed to all of these economic growth, which of course we did not cancel when we were speaking about environmental issues. However, when we find these benefits, when we analyze them in depth, what we find is that one of the benefits, for example, is water with lead. Still, what we believe is that in 20 years, all of these people which were drinking water with lead will not be able to drink water at all because they will have no more water. And therefore, if we do not take our environment seriously right now, we will have a bigger problem in the future. Now, yes, speaking about Bangladesh, which was the example they provided to us, we have Bangladesh people who win $2 a day. Therefore, what we believe is that there was no clear proof why Bangladesh, with people winning $2 a day, would magically become a developed country and further on develop alternative energies. Still, on this side of the house, we proved to you that progressing the environment is not forgetting about the people. It's thinking even more about the people. Second of all, as regards Venezuela, the example we provided to you, we explained to you how the damage to the environment which has been done, the pollution that has already been done, hasn't led Venezuela to a further step in the chain that they provided. We gave two answers for that. First, we should not be so rude to give the Venezuelan people so much hope that in the future they will be able to develop their alternative energies. Second of all, in case in 15 years, in 20 years, in case all of this oil runs out, what is going to happen? We heard nothing from their side. And let's consider that they are mono producers, so therefore all of their economy will be slowed down. They will not be moving forward, neither progressing. But there is when their fairy godmother appears, which is Saudi Arabia, and saves them from the crisis. Now, yes, analysing the second question in the replay speech, is it beneficial in the long term? As regards to the improposition, we heard that we are born, we crawl, we walk, and then we run. However, this is a slow process, which has to be started right now, because if not, our future generations will suffer the consequences. Still, what they fail to understand is that if they do not accept that we should start right now, that we should start prioritizing our environment right now, in the future, we will be born and we will have to start running. Now, let me give you this logic that they presented to us as regards development. They said that they polluted them, they go to bed, they wake up, and they are a developed country with alternative energies. As there are no children in the room, I allow myself to say that this is like Santa Claus. Santa Claus comes, you go to bed at night, you wake up the next day, and you have your presents. What happens there? This has no logical link. And therefore, as we laughed in all of their case for a logical link, what we believe is that their case was flawed. However, on this side of the house, we presented to you three main arguments, which explained to you how, in the short and in the long term, both, this would not be beneficial for the countries. So therefore, when it comes to a choice, we believe that the environment should be a priority over the economic growth. And for all these reasons, we believe that you can buy nature with money. Thank you very much. [00:54:44] Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen, in today's debate, what the opposition has done is passed from a utopia to a dystopia. We invited them to reality, but they stood in this position. We are now again trying to provide an example of why what they are trying to do is not possible and it is not beneficial. And that is the two questions I am going to clarify today. What is it possible and what is it more important and beneficial? So, to start, I want to make a clarification about this whole case. That they never refuted our first argument. So indeed, they accepted that we can't have both things. We can't have economic growth and we can't have economic concerns at the same time, which was contradicted by the reply speech just now. But throughout their whole speeches, they said that we can't have both things. Why is it this? Because it's not possible. We already explained to a couple of times that we can't be concerned about environments and about environments when we have people that are dying because they don't have water in their houses. But in their logic, they don't have water now and they will not have it in 20 years when the poles melt and we don't have water. So, basically, what opposite is telling you today is they will never have it. They will never have water because in 20 years, the poles are going to melt, the streets are going to disappear, everything is going to be black and dead and we are not going to have water either way. We believe that there is a chance to get out of this. Why? Because we have developed countries that can develop new technologies, cheaper technologies for these developing countries to achieve. So, answering the question about what is more important, we see two positions here. We see an opposition that is talking about pollution, that we are not going to be able to have water in a future time, and that we are distracting nature. Opposite proposition here believes this too. It believes that we are distracting nature, but it's not in the concern of developing countries to go around these waves when they are having problems in their own states. We need to take concern of our own interests, our internal interests, and then attend to the international ones. So, we are making a cost-benefit analysis, a very deep cost-benefit analysis, because we are losing two important things. We are losing our nature, we are losing our states. But in the opposition side, we are losing completely all the countries that are developing right now. Why? Because there is no coming back. They stated that there is no turning point in the nature's life, in what we are going to have in the future. So, if we are all going to lack of water in the future, they are saying that all these states that don't happen now, if we sacrifice them, dependent countries will have them. So, we are indeed sacrificing a whole bunch of states, states that are developing now, states like Bangladesh, that are eating with $2, for the dependent countries that are already economically grown. We believe that we should make a balance in the world. We should get the countries that they are so insistently telling us that they do not want to do it. So, why developing countries should? We should achieve that developed countries grant new ways of getting the environment better, of getting a way out of the situation that concerns us all, while developing countries start their economic growth. for in the future, be able to insist in this concern, be able to have the money to take measures against these concerns. And because of all these reasons, we believe that we first walk, then we walk, first walk, first walk, and then run. Thank you very much. [00:59:10] Speaker ?: Thank you very much.