Going Green: Environmentalist Affirmatives on the April 2014 Topic

The April 2014 topic reads Resolved: Prioritizing economic development over environmental protection is in the best interest of the people of India. On face, the topic requires debaters to analyze the apparent forced choice between development and environmental protection. But on further examination, I think the affirmative has a diverse and creative set of strategic options that minimize and even eliminate negative ground by explaining and contextualizing the ambiguous concepts in the resolution. Most of the negative literature that critiques development from an environmentalist standpoint assumes a certain type of development – namely, development driven by fossil fuels. Specifically, most of the literature likely assumes the use of strip-mined coal, because there's historical precedent for India relying on it for power. This sets up two tactical strategies for the affirmative; cross examination strategy and case strategy. In cross-x, debaters should inquire specifically about evidence read by the 1NC that links development to environmental pollution. What type of development does it assume? Does it assume multi-sectoral development, like energy and health and agriculture, or is it limited to the particular sectors advocated by the aff? Does it assume transportation and infrastructure efficiency increases as development progresses? What sources of energy does it assume power development? The form of these questions is also important. Rather than asking "does your evidence assume _____" claim – which any debater worth their salt will answer with "yes", debaters should add one word to give the question teeth: where. "Where does your evidence assume ____" is a much more powerful question because it puts the onus on the other side to prove their evidence does indeed assume the consideration in question. Since their evidence almost certainly doesn't explicitly assume such variables, these cross-x questions serve to set up credibility and indict arguments in the next speech. Many of these questions are only relevant if the negative reads evidence directly linking development to environmental degradation. If the negative reads no evidence tying development to pollution, then the affirmative has a cakewalk, because it can argue that there is little to no tradeoff between protecting the environment and developing India. The 1NC description of pollution's harms becomes little more than a convenient FYI rather than a reason to reject development. If promoting development does not come at the cost of protecting the environment, then listing the benefits of protecting the environment cannot and does not negate the topic. The other tactical strategy for the affirmative requires a little more forethought and mildly more risk – but a risk I think is worth taking. I think the affirmative can pre-empt the negative's best offense and argue that development should be prioritized, but to specify that the development is green development. In practice, that means that development focuses on green energy technologies, environmentally conscious agricultural production, and pollutant-minimizing infrastructure construction practices. The strategic benefit of this case is twofold; first, it minimizes the links between the neg's harms and the aff. If the aff minimally contributes to pollution – or does not contribute to pollution – then the above-made opportunity cost argument applies and the negative's pollution arguments are not a reason to reject. Second, the case strategically gives the affirmative inroads into solving pollution. If the affirmative transitions Indian energy production away from traditional polluting sources towards clean, renewable energies that promote growth then it has solved India's development of paradox: it is both environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable. The negative is unlikely to levy a specific plan of action for reducing environmental damage (such as building water sanitation plants, replanting trees or sequestering carbon) which means the affirmative has the unique advantage of action. This sets up a powerful rhetorical framework for the Final Focus: affirmatives can argue that they are the only chance for a sustainable future because they actively end polluting activities, which means that the affirmative captures all the benefits of development and environmentalism. Since the negative cannot access development's benefits but the affirmative can access environmentalism's benefits, voting affirmative is net beneficial. The most common negative arguments against this type of affirmative will attempt to argue that the affirmative's specification of green development is unfair. There are a couple of ways to hedge effectively against this type of argument; the first is to argue that development discussion is impossible in the abstract, because different types of development change the desirability of development. The affirmative should be allowed to advocate for the best version of the resolution since it would be unfair to artificially restrict them to admittedly poor options. The second type of argument avoids the theoretical debate entirely and instead argues that the affirmative is descriptive of present trends in Indian development. For example, if India is doing green development now, then the affirmative is merely a description of the development conditions as they exist. This argument requires evidence to make, but may be more persuasive to ideological judges who see this type of affirmative as an impermissible "plan" banned by the rules of PF. It's worth noting that these arguments aren't mutually exclusive either; the affirmative can (and in my opinion, should) advocate both simultaneously. To advocate the latter argument, debaters need evidence either that India is currently using green development or that its trends are transitioning to green development. An example of "green development now" evidence comes from Eoghan Macguire, a reporter for CNN World, who notes that though "Europe attracts most of the investment, the renewable energy sectors of emerging economies such as India and China have been given the biggest boost"¹. Macguire quantifies the growth of green energy development specifically, noting that "India meanwhile saw the fastest expansion rate for any large renewables market last year, with a 62% increase in capital funding"². It's also possible to argue that India is trending towards green development. A survey of development experts conducted by Shakuntala Makhijani and Alexander Ochs noted that "[t]he vast majority of experts" agreed that India was likely to pursue environmentally-friendly development because "low carbon development is in India's best interest, and most found it to be compatible with India's poverty eradication efforts"³. Some experts went as far as stating that "there is no alternative" to green development. These scholars note that green development is feasible in India in ways that were not available to developing societies of the past. Makhijani and Ochs describe the significance of building on previous technological developments in other societies, noting that development experts⁴:

…highlighted the opportunities for India to leapfrog technologies and avoid going down the same carbon-intensive development path that today's industrialized countries followed, thereby reducing serious air pollution problems and economic and security risks associated with reliance on fossil fuel imports, and allowing India to reap the economic benefits as a leader in rapidly growing global green energy markets.

Makhijani and Ochs give already existing examples from India's energy sector; "for example, India has installed high-voltage direct-current cables to deliver electricity with greater reliability and efficiency than the alternating-current cables prevalent in the United States"⁵. They conclude that development and environmental protection can be achieved by properly targeted development policies to simultaneously "ensure high energy security" and "create greater employment"⁶. The product of environmentally friendly development is what Aditya Ramji characterizes as "an equitable green economy"⁷. Ramji argues that green development creates a cascading breakthrough effect, where gaps in technology and access produce an incentive for entrepreneurs to create new innovations to meet those needs. As India's green development progresses, it's entrepreneurs will benefit from economies of scale and learn how to build more efficiently and less expensively⁸. These best practices inevitably result in the diffusion of environmentally friendly technological innovation to the whole of India. This diffusion is significant because⁹:

Access to modern energy services is fundamental to fulfilling basic social needs, driving economic growth, and fueling human development. This is because energy services have an effect on productivity, health, education, safe water, and communication services. As emphasized by the Indian government, both energy security and energy access are integral to sustainable development and to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Green development is not only an effective strategy to reduce poverty and environmental damage – it may be the only strategy because of the environmentally harmful practices produced by poverty. Ramji notes that over 400 million Indians "lack access to modern forms of energy", instead relying on polluting traditional forms of energy for fuel¹⁰. He finds that "almost 76% of rural households still depend on the most polluting traditional biomass fuels to meet their cooking fuel requirements" including "firewood and other traditional biomass fuels, such as, chips, charcoal, and dung cake"¹¹. Green development is not only an alternative to polluting energy sources; it also actively displaces those fuel sources. Affirmatives interested in advocating for green development should research the specific types of environmentally friendly practices employed by green developers and be ready to explain them in cross-x. With that ability, the green development affirmative has the potential to eradicate the entire spectrum of negative offense. Since this topic is also the topic for the rapidly approaching Tournament of Champions, every strategic edge matters.

 

Works Cited

1. Macguire, Eoghan. "Who's Funding the Green Energy Revolution?" CNN World. CNN, 12 June 2012. Web. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/world/renewables-finance-unep.
2. Ibid.
3. Makhijani, Shakuntala, and Alexander Ochs. "Low Carbon Development in India: Challenges and Opportunities." Worldwatch Institute, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/Low%20Carbon%20Development%20in%20India%20input%20paper.pdf.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ramji, Aditya. "Sustainable Energy Transitions Is Fundamental for Growth and Development in Rural India." Green Growth and Development Quarterly. The Energy and Resources Institute, Oct. 2012. Web. .
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.