Who is liable for enviroNmental damage?

Debate Topic: This House would hold corporations liable in their home country for environmental damage in developing nations. 

Government Side Speaker #1: By imposing strict corporate rules, the suggested policy prioritizes environmental preservation and economic stability in developing nations. Businesses that harm the environment would face high fines, holding them responsible and deterring future infractions. Companies would have a significant financial incentive to refrain from damaging practices and prioritize environmental stewardship over profits as a result of these fines. Reforestation, the reconstruction of natural habitats, and the support of ecosystems damaged by corporate activity are just a few of the vital restoration projects that would be funded by the money raised from these fines. This strategy also seeks to combat the propensity of businesses to conduct business in developing nations because of lax regulations and undeveloped resources, which frequently result in overexploitation. This strategy will guarantee that businesses support sustainable development rather than harm local surroundings by striking a balance between economic opportunity and stringent environmental protections.

Opposition Side Speaker #1: As significant economic drivers and taxpayers, corporations frequently play a critical role in developing countries. These nations' economies are based on large firms that maintain societal structures, affect market dynamics, and ease international trade. They contribute to the stability of the country by paying taxes that support government operations and promote trade with other countries. Given these contributions, it can be argued that it is unreasonable to hold people responsible for environmental harm that occurs outside of their nation of residence. Furthermore, cross-border environmental issues are already covered by international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and other environmental conventions. A more balanced and successful strategy for encouraging environmental stewardship without placing penalties on businesses in their home nations may be to strengthen these current frameworks. Additionally, these frameworks encourage international cooperation to fulfill international environmental criteria while upholding national sovereignty.

Government Side Speaker #2: First, we argue that, in the worst case, the Opposition's strategy would turn vast swaths of the globe into deserts, depleting our natural resources and impeding economic development. As resources grow more limited, the gap between the rich and the poor would grow. The Paris Accord and other agreements are not enough to bring about immediate change. They have objectives, but they don't have a clear plan for reaching them. We require not only a final objective but also a workable plan to get there. Even when there are sustainable alternatives, many firms nevertheless take advantage of the environment, even though they may help maintain economic stability. To increase profits, foreign companies regularly relocate to developing countries, often at the price of indigenous ecosystems—an undesirable practice. In our ideal society, resources are conserved, and sustainable practices are valued, including through the utilization of wind turbines and other renewable energy sources. This strategy would assist poor nations sustainably revitalize their economy.
Furthermore, developing nations need to understand the gravity of environmental deterioration and drastic temperature swings. Their first goal should be to address these issues to ensure a sustainable future.

Opposition Side Speaker #2: Strict corporate penalties and fines are emphasized in the proposed policy, but this strategy runs the risk of doing more harm than good, especially for developing countries that depend on foreign investment. Strict penalties can deter businesses from making investments in these nations, denying them access to critical technological innovation, job creation, and economic prospects. It ignores the nuanced economic incentives at work when it is assumed that sanctions alone will force businesses to embrace sustainable practices. Additionally, punishing companies without encouraging cooperation or offering workable, affordable substitutes may strain ties and force companies to take shortcuts elsewhere, which may have negative effects elsewhere. The idea that large swaths of the earth will turn into deserts in the absence of this legislation is similarly oversimplified. Punitive actions against companies that operate in underdeveloped nations are insufficient to address climate change; a comprehensive and cooperative global response is needed. Furthermore, rather than depending on fines imposed by other nations, which may compromise their sovereignty, developing nations ought to have the authority to establish and implement their own environmental regulations. To ensure that these countries have the means to adopt sustainable practices, it is preferable to assist them with technological transfers, infrastructural investments, and capacity-building. Collaborating on these solutions would promote environmental stewardship without sacrificing national sovereignty or economic expansion.