Final Draft

 

The environment should be prioritized over Economic development.

         by Donghui Jung

               16/6/2023

 There is a famous quote said by William Ruckelshaus (1990) "Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetite." This sentence comes from a mind that wants to curb people's greed while still valuing nature and thinking more about the environment. However, during the third and fourth industrial revolutions, people failed to control their greed, and nature was destroyed. People are recklessly destroying the environment and focusing on economic development. Recently, the governments of many countries have joined forces to protect nature, and many organizations are working to revive nature, but it is still not enough. Therefore, the environment should be prioritized over economic development.

  According to Penn State, ‘environmental protection’ is the reduction of environmental risks from hazardous materials and pollutants such as waste, fuel, and oil. And, according to the oxford dictionary, 'economic development' means An economic transformation of a country or region that leads to the improvement of the well-being and economic capabilities of its residents.  In the process of economic development, hazardous substances and wastes, and many fuels such as oil and natural gas are generated, which pollute the environment. 

 According to National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, On August 3, 2023, the world will consume more natural resources in one year than the Earth can regenerate. The earth's resources are limited and the fact that we used up a year's worth of resources on August 3 means that the earth is dying faster and faster. 

 The main component of the current environmental degradation is the manifestation of global warming destruction. According to WWF(World Wide Fund for Nature), Scientists noted that since the beginning of the century, the average surface temperature of the planet has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius, reaching a record high. Professor Brian Hoskins from Imperial College London reported that due to air pollution, and ocean pollution, etc. caused by the continuous operation of factories, etc. that CO2 levels were the highest in about 4.5 million years, with fossil fuel burning and deforestation being the main symptoms of the increased global warming. In addition, the last five years have been the warmest five years on record, and the Arctic Ocean has warmed much faster than expected. The United Nations estimates that climate-related disasters have caused $1.4 trillion worth of damage globally in the last decade. In just 40 years, people have caused a 60% decline in wildlife on land, sea, and freshwater. This decline in biodiversity can affect humans as well.

 First, the reason why the environment should be prioritized over the economy is a healthy environment is linked to a healthy economy. According to EPA, determined that for every $1 the US spent on cleaning up the environment, it would save about $5 from reduced health care costs, reduced property damage, reduced damage to crops, and increased worker productivity, This phenomenon can contribute to economic growth as individuals earn more and countries spend less. Also, According to the World Bank, air pollution costs the global economy trillions of dollars each year. This is because the process of treating air pollution requires removing carbon dioxide and hiring people to run pollution treatment units. The bottom line, protecting the environment actually saves money and improves the economy. The problem with understanding this is that benefits are distributed to each individual and are not easy to see, but they are there, whereas costs are easy to see in government or corporate spending. For example, polluting factories and fossil fuel companies and automakers each see direct costs that they can directly measure in dollars. Thus, the costs of cleaning up pollution are more visible than the costs of pollution. This means that the economic gains are millions of individuals paying lower medical bills, thousands of farmers having slightly better yields, millions of employees paying less sick leave, etc. It is hard to see that, and individuals do not usually agree based on benefits they do not directly see. 

 The second reason the environment should be prioritized over the economy is that prioritizing environmental protection will create new jobs in long-lived industries. Retrofitting homes, alternative energy, and sustainable urban planning are just a few of the emerging industries whose demand extends far into the future. According to Euronews, Someone will make and sell air pollution control technology for power plants and cars. Someone builds sewage and water treatment facilities. Someone will make money from solar cells and wind power, and even bigger jobs will be created by those who invent the 1,000-mile, high-capacity batteries that will one-day power electric cars.

 Finally, the reason the environment should be prioritized over the economy is that the environment helps economic growth. Some things people want are free, like air, walking, and for some people, water. Most important things, like water, food, and shelter in cities that people pay for through the economic system, rely on natural resources, i.e. primary production. The limits of primary production are largely dependent on the environment. Without the basics, there is no use in advanced economic systems like entertainment and luxury goods. A key aspect of considering the importance of the environment is that in the short term, People can cope with degradation levels without affecting our economic systems, but in the long term, this is not the case. The economy depends on the environment, but in the long term, to sustain billions of people on the planet, People can have both and there is no reason to have neither because the real economy is not against the environment.

  However, the main argument against prioritizing the environment is that it increases the quality of life for members of society. However, this fails to take into account the negative effects of environmental degradation and climate change on the poor. According to UNICEF, air and water pollution causes disease for people who cannot afford to move to less polluted areas, and resource depletion destroys livelihoods. UNICEF also suggests that climate change will be a major cause of rising food prices due to reduced yields, which will have a greater adverse impact on the poor, widening the gap between rich and poor. However, prioritizing the economy will not improve people's health by increasing air, soil, and ocean pollution. It will also reduce biodiversity, making the planet less self-reliant.

 Not prioritizing the economy doesn't mean the economy will regress, it just means we'll have to put more effort into preserving the environment. According to CEO Magazine, investing in energy transition technologies creates three times as many jobs as nuclear power, so current jobs will be maintained. In addition, jobs will grow as we preserve the environment.

 Obviously, despite the opposition, the environment should be prioritized over economic development. The reason why the environment should be prioritized over economic development is because the economy is connected to the environment, protecting the environment will create more jobs, and the environment helps the economy grow. With global environmental issues bubbling to the surface, now is the right time to put economic development aside and prioritize the environment. The ultimate goal of prioritizing the environment is to sustain our beautiful planet. In this context, people can leave a good environment for future generations. Pausing economic development and prioritizing the environment will be the first step toward future generations living with a smile on their face.  

Reference list

Climate change and environment. UNICEF. (n.d.). https://www.unicef.org/environment-and-climate-change 

Environmental protection. Environmental Protection | Environmental Health and Safety. (n.d.). https://ehs.psu.edu/environmental-protection 

Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). EPA. https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts 

Gourtsilidou, M. (2021, June 7). How can the protection of the environment create new jobs?. CEOWORLD magazine. https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/07/how-can-the-protection-of-the-environment-create-new-jobs/ 

Open data platform. Open Data Platform. (n.d.). https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ 

 Professor Sirbrianhoskins. Imperial College London. (n.d.). https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/b.hoskins 

Press release June 2023 English. Earth Overshoot Day. (2023, June 5). https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/press-release-june-2023-english/ 

Positive environmental stories: A 2023 roundup. euronews. (2023, May 18). https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/05/18/here-are-all-the-positive-environmental-stories-from-2023-so-far 

World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Climate. WWF. https://www.worldwildlife.org/initiatives/climate 

Technology can help us save the planet. but more than anything, we must learn to value nature. World Economic Forum. (n.d.). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/here-s-how-technology-can-help-us-save-the-planet/ 

United Nations. (n.d.). Support Sustainable Development and Climate Action. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/our-work/support-sustainable-development-and-climate-action 

Conclusion (new)

Obviously, despite the opposition, the environment should be prioritized over economic development. The reason why the environment should be prioritized over economic development is because the economy is connected to the environment, protecting the environment will create more jobs, and the environment helps the economy grow. With global environmental issues bubbling to the surface, now is the right time to put economic development aside and prioritize the environment. The ultimate goal of prioritizing the environment is to sustain our beautiful planet. In this context, people can leave a good environment for future generations. Pausing economic development and prioritizing the environment will be the first step toward future generations living with a smile on their face.  

Refutation (new)

 However, the main argument against prioritizing the environment is that it increases the quality of life for members of society. However, this fails to take into account the negative effects of environmental degradation and climate change on the poor. According to UNICEF, air and water pollution causes disease for people who cannot afford to move to less polluted areas, and resource depletion destroys livelihoods. UNICEF also suggests that climate change will be a major cause of rising food prices due to reduced yields, which will have a greater adverse impact on the poor, widening the gap between rich and poor. However, prioritizing the economy will not improve people's health by increasing air, soil, and ocean pollution. It will also reduce biodiversity, making the planet less self-reliant.

Not prioritizing the economy doesn't mean the economy will regress, it just means we'll have to put more effort into preserving the environment. According to CEO Magazine, investing in energy transition technologies creates three times as many jobs as nuclear power, so current jobs will be maintained. In addition, jobs will grow as we preserve the environment.

Cofirmation (new)

First, the reason why the environment should be prioritized over the economy is a healthy environment is linked to a healthy economy. According to EPA, determined that for every $1 the US spent on cleaning up the environment, it would save about $5 from reduced health care costs, reduced property damage, reduced damage to crops, and increased worker productivity, This phenomenon can contribute to economic growth as individuals earn more and countries spend less. Also, According to the World Bank, air pollution costs the global economy trillions of dollars each year. This is because the process of treating air pollution requires removing carbon dioxide and hiring people to run pollution treatment units. The bottom line, protecting the environment actually saves money and improves the economy. The problem with understanding this is that benefits are distributed to each individual and are not easy to see, but they are there, whereas costs are easy to see in government or corporate spending. For example, polluting factories and fossil fuel companies and automakers each see direct costs that they can directly measure in dollars. Thus, the costs of cleaning up pollution are more visible than the costs of pollution. This means that the economic gains are millions of individuals paying lower medical bills, thousands of farmers having slightly better yields, millions of employees paying less sick leave, etc. It is hard to see that, and individuals do not usually agree based on benefits they do not directly see. 

The second reason the environment should be prioritized over the economy is that prioritizing environmental protection will create new jobs in long-lived industries. Retrofitting homes, alternative energy, and sustainable urban planning are just a few of the emerging industries whose demand extends far into the future. According to Euronews, Someone will make and sell air pollution control technology for power plants and cars. Someone builds sewage and water treatment facilities. Someone will make money from solar cells and wind power, and even bigger jobs will be created by those who invent the 1,000-mile, high-capacity batteries that will one-day power electric cars.

Finally, the reason the environment should be prioritized over the economy is that the environment helps economic growth. Some things people want are free, like air, walking, and for some people, water. Most important things, like water, food, and shelter in cities that people pay for through the economic system, rely on natural resources, i.e. primary production. The limits of primary production are largely dependent on the environment. Without the basics, there is no use in advanced economic systems like entertainment and luxury goods. A key aspect of considering the importance of the environment is that in the short term, People can cope with degradation levels without affecting our economic systems, but in the long term, this is not the case. The economy depends on the environment, but in the long term, to sustain billions of people on the planet, People can have both and there is no reason to have neither because the real economy is not against the environment.

Narration (new)

 According to Penn State, environmental protection is the reduction of environmental risks from hazardous materials and pollutants such as waste, fuel, and oil. And, according to the oxford dictionary, 'economic development' means An economic transformation of a country or region that leads to the improvement of the well-being and economic capabilities of its residents.  In the process of economic development, hazardous substances and wastes, and many fuels such as oil and natural gas are generated, which pollute the environment. 

According to National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, On August 3, 2023, the world will consume more natural resources in one year than the Earth can regenerate. The earth's resources are limited and the fact that we used up a year's worth of resources on August 3 means that the earth is dying faster and faster. 

The main component of the current environmental degradation is the manifestation of global warming destruction. According to WWF(World Wide Fund for Nature), Scientists noted that since the beginning of the century, the average surface temperature of the planet has increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius, reaching a record high. Professor Brian Hoskins from Imperial College London reported that due to air pollution, and ocean pollution, etc. caused by the continuous operation of factories, etc. that CO2 levels were the highest in about 4.5 million years, with fossil fuel burning and deforestation being the main symptoms of the increased global warming. In addition, the last five years have been the warmest five years on record, and the Arctic Ocean has warmed much faster than expected. The United Nations estimates that climate-related disasters have caused $1.4 trillion worth of damage globally in the last decade. In just 40 years, people have caused a 60% decline in wildlife on land, sea, and freshwater. This decline in biodiversity can affect humans as well.

If current trends continue as technological advancement is prioritized, not only will available resources be depleted, but the rapid rise in global temperatures will cause the glaciers in the Arctic to melt and submerge much of the land. This will make the environment uninhabitable for living things, including humans. 

Introduction (new)

"Nature provides a free lunch, but only if we control our appetite." This sentence comes from a mind that wants to curb people's greed while still valuing nature and thinking more about the environment. However, during the third and fourth industrial revolutions, people failed to control their greed, and nature was destroyed. People are recklessly destroying the environment and focusing on economic development. Recently, the governments of many countries have joined forces to protect nature, and many organizations are working to revive nature, but it is still not enough. Therefore, the environment should be prioritized over economic development.

Thesis statement (new)

The environment should be prioritized over Economic development.

Conclusion

 Certainly, the claim to ownership of Block 7 should be continued and seen as essential. It could lead to a reduction in dependence on oil prices and stabilization of prices, which could exponentially develop the country's economy. By continuing to assert ownership of Block 7, South Korea can close the economic gap with China and Japan. It can also set the stage for South Korea to become a stronger developed nation. South Korea cannot afford to lose this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. By asserting our ownership of the zone, we can enjoy a night without worrying about tomorrow.

refutation

 Criticisms of the ownership of Block 7 have always existed. Opponents argue that the process of obtaining ownership of Block 7 is complicated and that claiming Block 7 has the potential to negatively change diplomatic relations with Japan and China. However, this is an unfair argument given South Korea's lack of resources. As an economy as a whole, South Korea is highly dependent on oil, ranking first in oil consumption (5.7 barrels of oil per $10,000 of GDP) and fourth in per capita oil consumption (18.0 barrels of oil per capita) among OECD member countries (37 countries) as of 2020. Even if we were to win only a small portion of Block 7 through diplomatic maneuvering, it would be a huge gain. China is also in an adversarial relationship with us. China has an enormous advantage by holding onto Block 7. China has already unilaterally installed 16 oil and gas fields in the western part of Block 7, and is continuing to develop more in 2018. It has even been confirmed that the 12th of these installations is equipped with surface-to-air radars for maritime patrol vessels, surveillance cameras, and even a helicopter landing pad, suggesting that it could be used for military purposes. It would be highly unreasonable to give them such vast resources untouched. 

It will not be easy for South Korea to resolve these issues, but it is very appropriate for South Korea to assert its ownership of the seven blocks given the resources they contain. In March 2020, it was confirmed that the South Korean government was reactivating the development of Block 7 after 34 years of neglect due to a joint development treaty with Japan.  Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy decided to reopen the 7 blocks on the continental shelf, and on January 2, it was confirmed that Korea National Oil Corporation was appointed as the developer. Also, even if the agreement is finished, it does not immediately become Japanese territorial waters. There is no reason for South Korea to agree to this, and in fact, it is in principle not to go to court, as it requires the consent of both countries. From Japan's point of view, it is a blank slate of an agreement that was signed when South Korea was in an advantageous position, and Japan wants to create a favorable situation, but Japan cannot immediately go to court and make it its territorial waters just because the agreement is over.