I stand to negate the resolution: The United States ought to prohibit the extraction of fossil fuels

on federal public lands and waters.

The value premise is justice, defined by Aristotle as “giving each their due.” This is the best
value premise because governments, by definition, have to act justly.

The best criterion for justice is minimizing structural violence, defined as the making choices
that acknowledge and combat systemic oppression.

This is the best ethical framework for two reasons:

First, minimizing structural violence is most important for justice because oppressive systems
exclude some people without any good reason. We can only behave justly when we make sure
that everyone matters.

Second, structural violence is hard to see because it’s set up so that we think it’s “natural” or
“normal.” In order to deal with this kind of oppression we need to pay close attention to how our
society’s rules and norms harm oppressed groups in our everyday lives, so this is the most
valuable ethical topic to talk about in a debate. Winter and Leighton explain:

“Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have
[can be] painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to
structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-

groups and out-groups. Those outside our group [which] lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we
love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle.

Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the[ir] injustice they suffer.
Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must
be vigilant in notic[e]ing and listening to [the] oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships,

communication, and appreciation of diversity.”

Winter, Deborah, & Leighton, Dana. “Structural violence.” In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. Winter (Eds.), Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace
psychology in the 21st century. New York: Prentice-Hall, 2001.

I will prove that prohibiting fossil fuel extraction on federal public lands and waters contributes to
structural violence through two contentions.

Contention I: A prohibition on fossil fuel extraction on federal public lands and waters
would violate the rights and sovereignty of Indigenous communities

Many Indigenous communities are located on or near federal public lands and waters. These
groups have been historically oppressed and the treaties that guarantee them the right to make
their own decisions about their lands have been violated over and over. A federal ban on fossil
fuel extraction would violate these agreements again because many Indigenous groups want
fossil fuel extraction to go ahead because it is key to their economies. Alice Fordham writes:

\“But not all tribes in the area agree with [a fossil fuel ban] that. This remote, ancient landscape has become the center of [There is] a
debate among Indigenous groups weighing the value of ancestral sites against the economic potential of their future, and coming to
very different conclusions. “The federal freeze on any more oil and gas leases is tak[es]ing away from the economic opportunities for our
Navajo people,” said Brenda Jesus, who heads the Navajo Nation Resources and Development Committee. Chaco Canyon is surrounded by a patchwork of land, known as the checkerboard, with some patches
allotted to Navajo families. Some of those allotments are already leased for fossil fuel extraction, and under the rule, others still could be. But some allottees and Navajo politicians argue the withdrawal of

leasing rights on public land, right next to Navajo allotments, could make it harder for them
to sell their drilling rights. And Jesus said the population living in the area is in desperate need of income.
“Some of our constituents out there,” she said, “still don’t have the infrastructure of water and wastewater. There are still constituents out there that still don’t have
[or] electric [service] to this very day.” Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said his government respects ancient sites but that his responsibility is to help his people get out of poverty. He said he has
witnessed first-hand the impact of the hopelessness that comes with intractable poverty. “Having grown up with a mom who I lost to alcoholism, relatives,

even as of this past week, really close relatives that I grew up with, losing them to alcoholism and seeing them lose hope that there’s not enough jobs, they can’t build

a family, they can’t build a home. “They just feel a lot of the helplessness that we’re never going to get anywhere on the Navajo Nation.” The Department of the Interior says there
was extensive consultation on the new rule, including with tribes. But President Nygren said he personally wasn’t consulted enough. “ Tribal sovereignty should be honored,

even though it’s tough,” he said.”

Fordham, Alice. “Tribes at odds over drilling ban around ancient Chaco Canyon.” Source NM, October 9, 2023.
https://sourcenm.com/2023/10/09/tribes-at-odds-over-drilling-ban-around-ancient-chaco-canyon/

Many Indigenous groups do want to limit fossil fuel extraction, but it’s a stereotype to assume
that all Indigenous people feel the same. If we want to protect Indigenous rights, we shouldn’t
ban fossil fuel extraction; instead we should leave those decisions up to the Indigenous people
who depend on the lands. Bryan Montoya explains:

“He acknowledged that the park holds cultural significance for tribes throughout the Southwestern U.S. but that development surrounding [of federal land] Chaco should
be determined by the Navajo Nation and the thousands of individual Navajo landowners who are affected.
“The [government] Biden administration did not properly seek out tribal input [before announcing the ban] and
[They] have [put] effectively implemented a destructive chokehold on tribal revenue and economic prosperity,” Crane said. Although the Navajo
Nation has been among the tribes to seek protections for sacred areas within the Chaco region over the decades, Navajo leaders had proposed a smaller buffer around the park to limit the economic consequences of a federal ban land

parcels. Navajo [leaders] President Buu Nygren contends that the [government] administration gave
locking [for] individual Navajo [residents]

no weight to the tribe’s concerns [about] before imposing the ban. “The withdrawal was done without meaningful consultation and [The
ban] fails to honor the Navajo Nation’s sovereignty,” [the leaders stated] he testified. “Respect for tribal sovereignty must be consistent
even when it is not convenient.’”

Montoya Bryan, Susan. “Oil and gas withdrawal around US park stirs debate over economic costs for Native American tribe.”
Associated Press, July 13, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/chaco-oil-gas-ban-navajo-nation-
879b7d693140282dd1ca2bb8f8c374b2.

This impacts to minimizing structural violence because forcing a ban on Indigenous groups
continues the history of oppression and further harms them economically. Only by leaving land
management decisions to these groups can we end this oppression.

Contention II: A prohibition on fossil fuel extraction on federal public lands and waters
would cause energy poverty.

The price of energy is set by supply and demand. A sudden drop in the supply of fossil fuels
would cause a big rise in the price of energy; the poor and communities of color would suffer the
most from this sudden increase. Katie Tahuahua explains:

“Energy poverty is among the most crippling but least talked-about [a] cris[is]es of the 21 century. Billions like Aysha in Africa, Southeast Asia, South America, and even
st

parts of the United States live with little to no access to electricity. Electricity is the one of the simplest solutions to improve[s]d
health, economic opportunity, education, [and] nutrition, and comfort in the developing world, especially for women and girls. Yet among President Biden’s “Climate Day” executive
orders is a unilateral ban on “international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy.” In layman’s terms, the United States of America will no longer extend foreign aid funds to

developing nations seeking affordable, reliable energy to lift their citizens out of poverty. For Aysha, that funding could have offered clean running water flowing right to her home, [eliminates] a safer

way to cook without inhaling the toxic fumes from burning wood, kerosene or even dung, the opportunity to go to school like her brother, and even such simple gifts as walking
safely through her village at night. Westerners unfamiliar with the harsh realities of extreme poverty — many well-meaning renewable energy advocates among them — might imagine shipping solar panels to

Africa to be a simple fix. But reaching anywhere near constant power via renewable energy requires deploying massive quantities of renewable energy infrastructure [and]

along with expensive battery storage for when the wind isn’t blowing or sun isn’t shining. As attractive as off-grid solar might sound for developing countries, there just isn’t enough battery

storage in the world — and there won’t be for several generations — to make renewables [are] more than a tiny Band-Aid on a gaping wound.And without battery

storage (or fossil fuel power backup generation), electricity that only works sometimes is little better than no electricity at all. Intermittent, occasional power doesn’t help hospitals

[can’t] refrigerate life-saving vaccines, [and] schools [can’t] and churches feed hungry children, or entrepreneurs start
their businesses. Instead, the best solution to lift communities like Aysha’s around the world out of [for] poverty [is] remains affordable, reliable

energy from fossil fuels. It’s no accident that nearly every statistic we use to measure quality of life has improved drastically along with increasing use, and decreasing cost, of fossil fuels.
Electricity makes every part of our lives both easier and safer.”

Tahuahua, Katie. “Biden’s anti-fossil fuel agenda hurts the world’s poor.” Real Clear Energy, March 3, 2021,
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/03/03/bidens_anti-fossil_fuel_agenda_hurts_the_worlds_poor_766600.html

The negative effects of a ban on fossil fuels wouldn’t be small. Many people who can’t afford to
heat or cool their homes or to safely cook their food would suffer and even die. Statistics show
that lower fossil fuel energy costs save thousands of lives. Nick Loris writes:

“Affordable, reliable power is essential for American households and businesses that want to maintain living standards. People depend on
power to heat and cool their homes, run their hospitals and transport their kids to school. They aren’t set up to live
without electricity, heat or air conditioning for sustained periods of time. When Americans pay more for electricity and gasoline, fewer dollars are [less is]

available for health care, clothes and food, which disproportionately harms older populations, low-income families
and communities of color. Higher energy bills can be the difference between life and death. Mortality
rates rise in colder months. On the other hand, affordable heat saves lives. A 2021 journal article in the Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics
Working Papers found that because of [increased natural gas mining, a] the shale revolution the “42% drop in natural gas

prices in the late 2000s averted 13,000 winter deaths per year in the US.” 21 The same study also found the positive impacts
to be “especially large in high poverty communities.’”

Loris, Nick. “What More Public Lands Leasing Means for Achieving U.S. Climate Targets.” Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources of the Committee on Natural Resources, December 2, 2021.
https://www.c3solutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Loris_Testimony_12_2_Final.pdf

This is the biggest impact to minimizing structural violence because it shows that a sudden ban
on fossil fuels would literally kill potentially thousands of low-income Americans.
As an OBSERVATION, the negative doesn’t say that we can’t work to reduce fossil fuel use.
Rather, we have to do this carefully and gradually over time. A sudden blanket ban on fossil fuel
extraction on US federal public lands and waters would have terrible unintended consequences
for the most vulnerable Americans, so we must negate the resolution.