Governments should prioritize jobs over environmental protection for big projects.

Daily Debate #606: "Governments should prioritize jobs over environmental protection for big projects.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Thiel.

No. Environment is bigger than evrything. If there is no environment what will we do of the projects

You're arguing from YOUR side now, which means you've already lost ground. But let's demolish this: "no environment, no projects" is true, yet it proves nothing about *priority*. A dead project in a living world beats a thriving project in a dead one. So which do you actually fear more?

A dead environment

Exactly—so you admit the environment is the prerequisite, not the alternative. That means it *must* come first, not second. Jobs depend on a functional planet. Why would you sacrifice the foundation to build on rubble?

You're twisting my words. I never said environment comes *second*—I said it's the *foundation*, which is exactly why we need jobs and resources to actually *protect* it. You can't clean up pollution with thoughts. Poor countries destroy their environment faster because they're desperate for survival. Prosperity funds conservation.

False choice. You're claiming poverty funds conservation—backwards. Wealthy nations outsource their dirty manufacturing to poor countries, then lecture them on emissions. India and Brazil have protected vast forests despite poverty; rich nations have gutted theirs for profit. Prosperity doesn't fund conservation—it funds consumption. Where's your evidence that prioritizing jobs over environment in big projects actually leads to the funding you promise?