关于 economic development is more important than protecting the environment 的辩论陈述英语辩论显然要英文版。。。要是有独特见解中文也行我是正方，如题。。

关于 economic development is more important than protecting the environment 的辩论陈述英语辩论显然要英文版。。。要是有独特见解中文也行我是正方，如题。。
关于 economic development is more important than protecting the environment 的辩论陈述
英语辩论
显然要英文版。。。要是有独特见解中文也行
我是正方，如题。。

关于 economic development is more important than protecting the environment 的辩论陈述英语辩论显然要英文版。。。要是有独特见解中文也行我是正方，如题。。
你要正方还是反方?
Pro:
1.The poor need to be fed before we talk of things like global warming,the reasons for which are debatable.Why did ice melt thousands of years back?There was no pollution then.
2.If the economic development takes place,in future,the environment can be taken care of like estabishing better forms of energy,etc.
3.The millions need to be fed.A hungry sttomach cannot think about global warming.An uneducated can hardly realise what the environment is.
4.the desire to have a clean environment (clean air,nice trees,more biodiversity,more national parks and green spaces) increases as people get richer.Richer countries are more economically advanced in terms of technology as well - they use cleaner and more efficient methods of generating energy,automobiles,etc.Thus on both the supply and demand side,economic development can help foster a better environment in the long-run,even though many countries pass through an intermediate stage where pollution increases with economic development.
5.Also,it is difficult to put a value on the environment.People can show how they value things through how they vote (do they vote for green parties or pro-development parties) or what goods they purchase (cars,gas,electricity using appliances,wood products,etc.).Yes,the environment is to some extent an externality,but it has no "intrinsic" value from the point of view of people - it has a value that is composed of a combination of its aesthetic value (people think it is pretty) and some instrumental value (clean air leads to less cancer).To the extent that most people prefer economic development - and poor people often do - attempting to protect the environment is really just benefitting a small elite that has decided that its priorities matter more.
6.One can also argue that when there is lots of mortality and human suffering due to low economic development,this far outweights any losses to animal species,deforestation,etc.
Cons:
1.We are behaving suicidal and our own mother earth is suffering.
2.Sustainable development should be implemented.
3.It is not as without a sustainable environment a countries raw natural exports and resources will fail therefor creating a "gap" in the countries income.furthermore without a healthy environment how are people supposed to live?what has to be asked is is short term gain and long term pain a better choice than short term pain and long term gain.
4.the only time when economic development gets into trouble is when it is unsustainable.Although basic economics says we value stuff more now than in the future,so it makes sense to do things that benefit us now but hurt us later,this way of thinking suffers from an intergenerational problem (future generations will suffer for our benefit,which may not be "fair" to them in our minds).So we don't want economic development to come at the expense of sustainability - ultimately turning Las Vegas into a giant resort full of swimming pools and fountains is probably a bad idea,especially when Las Vegas could have been located somewhere with a more appropriate climate and environment.
5.Economic development should not be at the expense of its environment.Devastation of forests,distruction of animals ,pollution etc will be difficult to recoupe and threaten economic progress though some revenue may be obtained by neglecting these
中立,没有可比性：
Economic development and environment have nothing to do with each other.Eco-friendly measures bring about economic development.Growing trees,growing grasses,switching on to bio-farming or natural farming from existing chemical farming (excessive use of chemical fertilizers,chemicsl insecticides,weedicides and pesticides),establishing wind mills to generate power,use of farm wastes to produce power etc help build environment and develop economy too.It is in the mindset.If entire 25 million hactare waste land in India is brought under cover of firewood trees India will not face any energy crisis for deacdes.This is good renewable source of energy and helps build environment.If one millionth of money spent on major irrigation is spent on growing grasses ground water table rises and using minor irrigation techniques we can bring about irrigation in most ecofriendly way.This would help us reap fruits many times more than that from major irrigation project.People and the politicians need to be educated in this regard.
Develop environment before using it for economic development

点关键词 搜网页
或 去 外国的经济杂志网站

要英文版还是中文版？

http://www.cpa-conference.org/uploads/docs/Plenary%201%20Protecting%20the%20environment%20to%20assure%20sustainable%20development.pdf
好
http://www.cciced.org/2008-02/02/content_9638955.htm
好
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080409011227AAgae0o

我的资料最全了哦
pros
1.Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than saving natural resources, most of which are renewable anyway. We cannot expect developing nations to s...

全部展开

我的资料最全了哦
pros
1.Taking care of millions of people who are starving is more important than saving natural resources, most of which are renewable anyway. We cannot expect developing nations to share the green concerns of developed countries when they are faced with dire poverty and a constant battle for survival.
2.The industrialised world’s emphasis on green issues holds back developing countries. Because this is seen as interference in their affairs, it also contributes to a greater divide between the First and Third worlds. Many also believe it is a deliberate attempt to stop possible economic competitors. After all, the USA and EU already put high tariffs (import taxes) on products made cheaply in developing countries (e.g. canned tomatoes, shoes) which could be sold in America or Europe. By limiting the development of profitable but polluting industries like steel or oil refineries we are forcing nations to remain economically backward.
3.Economic development is vital for meeting the basic needs of the growing populations of developing countries. If we do not allow them to industrialise, these nations will have to bring in measures to limit population growth just to preserve vital resources such as water.
4.Obviously the world would be better if all nations stuck to strict environmental rules. The reality is that for many nations such rules are not in their interests. For example, closing China’s huge Capital Iron and Steelworks, a major source of pollution, would cost 40 000 jobs. The equal application of strict environmental policies would create huge barriers to economic progress, at a risk to political stability.
5.Rapid industrialisation does not have to put more pressure on the environment. Scientific advances have made industries much less polluting. And developing countries can learn from the environmental mistakes of the developed world’s industrial revolution, and from more recent disasters in communist countries such as China and the USSR. For example, efficient new steelworks use much less water, raw materials and power, while producing much less pollution than traditional factories. And nuclear generating plants can provide more energy than coal while contributing far less to global warming. We are also exploring alternative, renewable types of energy such as solar, wind and hydro-power.
6.It is hypocritical (two-faced and unfair) for rich developed countries to demand that poorer nations make conservation their priority. After all, they became rich in the first place by destroying their environment in the industrial revolution. Now that they have cut down their own trees, polluted their water sources and poured billions of tons of carbon into the air, they are in no position to tell others to behave differently. In any case, as countries become richer they become more concerned about the environment, and can afford to do something about it. For developing countries conservation can therefore wait until they are richer.
7.The “Green Revolution” has doubled the size of grain harvests. Thus, cutting down more forests to provide more space for crops is no longer necessary. We now have the knowledge to feed the world’s increasing population without harming the environment. Genetically modified crops can also benefit the developing world by requiring much less water, fertiliser or pesticide use while giving better yields. This is another example of economic development leading to environmental benefits.
Yes because:
1. The poor need to be fed before we talk of things like global warming, the reasons for which are debatable. Why did ice melt thousands of years back? There was no pollution then.
2. If the economic development takes place, in future, the environment can be taken care of like estabishing better forms of energy, etc.
3. The millions need to be fed. A hungry sttomach cannot think about global warming. An uneducated can hardly realise what the environment is.
Pro: the desire to have a clean environment (clean air, nice trees, more biodiversity, more national parks and green spaces) increases as people get richer. Richer countries are more economically advanced in terms of technology as well - they use cleaner and more efficient methods of generating energy, automobiles, etc. Thus on both the supply and demand side, economic development can help foster a better environment in the long-run, even though many countries pass through an intermediate stage where pollution increases with economic development.
Also, it is difficult to put a value on the environment. People can show how they value things through how they vote (do they vote for green parties or pro-development parties) or what goods they purchase (cars, gas, electricity using appliances, wood products, etc.). Yes, the environment is to some extent an externality, but it has no "intrinsic" value from the point of view of people - it has a value that is composed of a combination of its aesthetic value (people think it is pretty) and some instrumental value (clean air leads to less cancer). To the extent that most people prefer economic development - and poor people often do - attempting to protect the environment is really just benefitting a small elite that has decided that its priorities matter more.
One can also argue that when there is lots of mortality and human suffering due to low economic development, this far outweights any losses to animal species, deforestation, etc.
附送一篇报道
When cornered, Americans believe economic growth more important than environment
Published Thursday, July 31 2008 - (0) Comments
As economic conditions worsen, people who are asked to make a decision between protecting the environment or economic growth and development have moved even more strongly into the economic growth column. Specifically, a Harris Poll conducted online among 2,454 adults aged 18 and over between June 9 and 16, 2008 by Harris Interactive found:
- U.S. adults are divided on how they perceive things in their own community as 38 percent say it is going in the right direction while 37 percent believe things have "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track". This perception has gotten better in the past few months. In November, almost half (47%) of adults felt things were going off on the wrong track in their community and one-third (32%) felt they were going in the right direction;
- More than three in five Americans (63%) say economic growth and development is more important to their region while one-quarter (27%) believe protecting the environment is more important. Just over three in ten Easterners (31%) believe protecting the environment is more important while seven in ten Midwesterners (69%) believe economic growth is more important;
- The focus on economic growth has grown over the last year. In June of 2007, Americans were more divided as 48 percent thought economic growth was more important and 43 percent believed protecting the environment was more important. In November, a small 51 percent to 37 percent majority believed economic growth was more important; and,
- Looking ahead to the future, just over half of U.S. adults (56%) believe that the quality of life in the area they live in will decrease for their children and grandchildren while 44 percent believe it will increase. Younger generations are more optimistic on this �over half (56%) of Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) believe the quality of life will increase compared to 38 percent of Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62) and one-third (32%) of Matures (those aged 63 and older).

收起