Should developed countries force developing countries to protect the environment? (3rd)
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do think that developed countries should force developing countries to protect the environment. Developed countries are on the right track if they are recognized as a developed country. A country that is not developed needs to have a country to look up to or to get help from. I don't think that a developed country should just tell them what to do and not assist them because you can't expect a country to be as advanced if they don't have the resources they need. If a developed country were to go to a developing country and tell them that they can't put a dead bodies in the rivers or leave them out in the open then the developed country needs to help them create a different method to dispose of their bodies. It is the developing countries business, but if countries want one country to be developed and that developing country wants help, then I think it is the right thing to tell them what to do. We aren't exactly forcing them if they want help and if they are asking for it then we aren't really trying to take over their country. If we are telling them what to do then its because they need help and because what they have been doing isn't exactly getting them on their way to be developed. And, if we help them protect their environment too then we have a greater chance of keeping the world from being polluted more than it is and maybe even decreasing the pollution. Side: yes
It makes sense, I suppose, if we have a relationship in which we both profit from the export and import of our goods to have some sort of regulation on the environment of the developing country. Otherwise we may be getting contaminated goods for our uncontaminated ones. If the country really can't focus on their envrionment and instead have to focus on feeding their people, then maybe that's what we should give to them. We'll give them food supplies for, say, a precious metal or oil or something that we need that they have in abundance. That way, their people are fed, they can work on the envrionment and we still are trading goods with stronger trust in the products. Side: yes
Forcing developing countries to take care of the environment is a lot like parents forcing their kids to do stuff. Whenever parents force their kids to do chores, kids argue that it isn't fair and complain. They don't realize however, that knowing how to do chores and getting in a habit of taking care of business will serve them well in the long run. By forcing developing countries to take care of their environment we can prevent them from ending up like Mexico City, full of pollution. Society has made the mistake of killing their environment before, developing countries should learn from that. If they fail to realize the effects of an unprotected environment, developed countries should be the big brother and intervene before its too late. Side: yes
Although developing countries may not like for developed countries to force them to protect the environment, it is the best thing to do for all living things. Developed countries have more capital to do researches and they know what is the best thing to do,scientifically, for the world rather then countries that are barely developing. This might be offensive to the developing countries, but hopefully even though they're not very developed, they should be smart enough to listen to what the developed countries have to say and realize they most likely have a point. For this to happen, I think developed countries should be very respectful to them, explain their argument, and show them the reasearches they have done to try to convince them to help in the argument and help preserve the earth. No one likes to be forced to do things, but a smart person listens and should decide what's best for them and for the rest of the world. And if they don't agree to protect the environment then yes they should be forced because the environment doesn't just involve them, but it involves the whole world. For example other countries shouldn't let that countries that have a lot of contamination continue having it, because later it will not only affect just that country but everyone else around. Side: yes
If the developed nations' governments, like the USA or Japan, aided developing countries in supplying material or acted as a regular customer to whatever goods they export, it would help reduce environmental loss due to economical purposes. Yes, many laborers in developing countries find work that harm the environment, like cutting down forests so the timber can be used to build houses or make other material, but if developed nations supplied other materials or even loaned a reasonable amount of money, governments could establish other jobs. It's true that there are other worries – poverty, hunger, illnesses, but the environment plays a major role in these unfortunate realities. If a family lives near a dumping ground or is surrounded by litter because the government hasn't yet established a definite method or dealing with its citizens' waste, illnesses are bound to spread. Developing nations could supply resources such as food to workers' families. Side: yes
The develped countries should force them to some extent. The country will be put in a different situation where it has develop more enviormentally. It will be put in a sink or swim situation where it can swim and develop new advancments or it can begin to sink where the lack of focus in the people and more on the enviorment, but thats when the develpoed country comes in and provides assistance, by taking care of the people so they can continue to make enviormental advances. Side: yes
It is now universally acknowledged that environmental pollution is seriously affecting our planet. It is true that in order to develop,most developing countries need environmental resources. Also,most of them cannot afford new technologies that help protect the environment. However agricultural expansion,deforestation, and gas pollution are warming the Earth and destructing it. I am not saying that developing countries are wrong when focusing more in people than environment. In fact it is totally normal to pay more attention to the citizens. It would have been tolerable if by doing that, they did not kill our nature. That is why developed countries such as the United States and Japan are proposing their help to third world countries. Denying that help will contribute to the early death of our beautiful planet. However if they accept the help, food and other needs will be provided to them so that they can be more active in the saving of the environment. Side: yes
Yes, developed countries should force developing countries to protect the environment. Especially if the developing countries are using the aid for the wrong reasons. For example, if the US was aiding Amsterdam, and Amsterdam was using that money and building nuclear powerplants, then I believe that the US should threaten cutting the aid for that country until they get their act straight. I also think since developing countries are still "developing" then they might not have, for say, cut down that forest, or have large quantities of gas guzzling cars yet. That would be an oppertunity to say, "We will keep funding you only if you preserve the enviornment as you develope, keep that forest, and use eco friendly cars." Side: yes
|
I don't believe developing countries should be forced to protect the environment simply because they are still developing. Developed countries have to put themselves in the developing nation shoes and ask themselves if protecting the environment will help them improve the most. A developing country is going to need help and cutting off that help to force them to protect the environment will only prolong their development. Once a country is developed then you can force them to protect the environment, but not before. Side: No
Developing countries don't have the money to become eco-friendly. It's very expensive and developing countries cannot afford it. They have much greater needs than the environment, like hunger, and taking care of their citizen's needs. Environment can be important, but tending to the people's needs should come first. Cutting off a developing country from aid because they can't afford to protect the environment won't help anything. The sooner they become developed, the sooner they can work on becoming eco-friendly. Side: No
No, like Africa, what if we gave them money. Why would we want them to waste their money on the enviorment when there are human beings just like us that have nothing to eat or drink and are dying because of diseases. We could be giving them money for food supply, aid, and water. So i don't think the enviorment is more important then peoples lives. Side: No
Developed countries should not force developing countries to protect themselves. Developing countries don't have the good healthcare, economy, and protection that developed countries have. Developing countries have problems that they need to worry about and with no help, they wont get any better. When an epidemic, tsunami, hurricane, etc. hits the country, they now have another problem to worry about. Without help, they will never recover. Developed countries are fortunate to be able to take care of themselves, but those that are less fortunate need help. Helping the developing country not only makes it a better place, but it also makes the world a better place. Side: No
1
point
Developing countries don't even have the power to take care of themselves, and shouldn't be forced to protect the environment. They have their own personal issues such as to take care of their economy or as simple as develop their country. For example, El Salvador is a very poor country and is nowhere near the level of where United States stands. El Salvador is still trying to provide homes for people while United States has condos, apartments, hotels, houses and mansions. Poor countries can't handle their own problems they don't have enough power to make a difference, they have enough on their place focusing on surviving. Side: yes
Eventhough protecting the enviroment is vital for our future generations and developing countries should be protecting the enviroment, I don't think they should be forced to protect it. The tiny poor third world countries should be allowed to chose if they have enough economic resources to protect their enviroment. If the developed countries chose to force the developing countries to protect the enviroment the developed countries may cause harm to these younger countries and it may not be the effect they desire. While making a decision the developed countries should consider all the possibilities and the effects of each. Side: No
All countries pollute the world, whether it is by dumping trash in a river or polluting the air with toxic gasses, so what gives developed countries the right to force developing countries to protect the environment when developed countries don't do it themselves? It's hypocritical. It's like a boss telling his employee to work when the boss himself isn't working at all. Not to mention, in order for a country to develop, they need to use all their resources in order to build the country into a developed country. For example, the U.S. cut down forests in order to make room for cities. Those cities helped the U.S. form into what is now one of, if not, the most developed country in the world. If developing countries can't cut down forests, they won't be able to develop. That would make the country a bad place to live and the citizens living in the country wouldn't be able to lead a good life compared to those of citizens in a developed country. So i say let them develop. Side: No
1
point
To force a developing country to protect the environment or we'll stop sending in help or aid, is trying to override that country's authority, to govern themselves, and make their own decisions on how to spend their money to help their country that is trying to develop. These countries cannot be spending their money on protecting the environment, but on the important needs of their country and people. If they spend all their money on protecting their environment by time they're done they'll be out of aid money form other countries giving it to them, that it would be no use anyways. It would be like telling somebody, "I bet you $1 you won't buy that piece of candy.", and then you buy it for $1. Side: No
England, America, Spain, and France were all young developing countries once, so why should they be able to bully other devolping countries. Yes I know that pollution is bad, and that its going to take every countries efforts to save the planet. But, not providing aid to other countries that are trying to develop and killing hundreds of thousands of people is not the way to go about it. When the countries listed above were developing no one bullyed them around. Just because some of the developed countries have been messing up the environment doesnt mean they will make the same mistakes. Side: No
Developing countries shouldn't be forced by developed countries to protect their environment just because they're not developed yet. I think that the environment is an extremely important to some people, I'm one of them, but other things such as strengthen their government, taking care of their people, starting their economy, etc, are more important. Once they have their roots stable, then the enviroment should be taken care of. Side: No
Developing countries scarcely have enough resources to keep their own economy stable and their mortality rate from sharply increasing. They are also constantly trying to maintain support from their habitants and allied countries. So, for a developed country to bully a deveoping one into taking care of the environment is utterly ridiculous. When developed countries were developing they wanted to make mistakes and learn from them and would not want another country prying into their own affairs. Also, the concern for human life takes precedence over the concern for the environment. As noble as it may be, there is no entertainment in watching humans suffer or die in order to save the environment. We would all love to live simultaneously with the environment, but sometimes you must destroy in order to survive and to create a better environment. Side: No
We shouldn't help or interfere with developing countries. If we help them all they will do is cause problems and probably get the developed countries into problems. Developed countries shouldn't have to babysit the developing countries. Just let them struggle and try to become fully developed on their own. Side: No
I understand that developing countries may not have he same knowledge or power as the developed countries, but every country has the right to make decisions for themselves. If a country does not want help, then other countries should respect their decision. For example, if a developing country wants to make stupid decisions that will eventually ruin them, then other countries should just let the ruin themselves. The reults of a country not wanting aid may reult in a positive way. Side: No
|
