Some people say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. Others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Sample 1:

It is believed by many that a country is unable to grow its economy successfully and protect the environment concurrently. While this is true to some extent, I am of the opinion that achieving sustainable development is not an impossible mission.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that economic growth is often associated with environmental pollution. First and foremost, it is clear that developing countries depend mainly on the manufacturing industry, which consumes a huge amount of fossil fuel. This is one of the main causes of air pollution. In addition, as a consequence of a more advanced economy and higher living standards, citizens have much greater demand for consumer goods. As a result, increasingly more waste is thrown into oceans and rivers, which causes serious water contamination.

On the other hand, I side with the opinion that it is feasible to ensure economic development as well as environmental sustainability. Firstly, due to technological advancements in recent decades, numerous measures have been figured out to reduce negative impacts of economic activities on nature. For example, fossil fuels have been gradually replaced by renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. This helps cut down on the amount of carbon emissions released, thus improving air quality. Secondly, many countries are joining hands and spending their resources to remedy pollution. For instance, in 1997, several developed nations signed the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. Such emphasis on sustainable development would allow the economy to thrive in the long run. In conclusion, although economic prosperity indeed does harm to the environment, I would argue that it is still possible to preserve it while ensuring economic development.

Sample 2:

The correlation between economic growth and environmental sustainability remains a subject of constant debate. While some people contend that achieving equilibrium between economic prosperity and a clean environment is an unattainable goal, I am inclined to agree with the contrasting viewpoint, as I believe this quest is feasible through the implementation of appropriate policies and innovative techniques.

On the one hand, it is irrefutable that economic activities engender significant deleterious effects on the environment. Operating machines, lighting, and transporting goods all necessitate the incessant combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, which are the main contributors to air pollution. Moreover, enhanced production goes hand in hand with the rise in consumption, or increasing waste disposal, in other words. When being carelessly discarded, garbage has the potential to contaminate rivers and lakes, causing the death of thousands of aquatic species and rendering adjacent regions uninhabitable.

Nonetheless, it is not impossible for a clean environment and a strong economy to coexist. Firstly, countries can adopt policies to foster a green economy, such as reducing taxes on products with biodegradable packaging or funding recycling programs. This will provide incentives for businesses to transform into green manufacturing. In addition, the technological revolution assists countries in their effort to minimise the environmental impacts of their production activities. Singapore, for instance, has developed a comprehensive waste management system that allows it to make use of the heat from the incineration process to generate electricity. This initiative not only curtails the volume of waste disposed in landfills but also reduces the pollution caused during electricity production.

In conclusion, although the repercussions of economic activities on the environment are inevitable due to the huge amount of waste and emissions involved, various measures could be taken to tackle these issues. It is recommended that governments pay equal attention to economic development and environmental preservation in order to strike a balance between prosperity and sustainability.

Sample 3:

Sustainable development has gradually become a growing concern in the age of globalization. While some people believe that it is impossible to balance economic growth and environmental protection, others agree with the opposite point of view. I personally agree with the latter opinion.

First, for most the part, it is common for society to think that economic progress is associated with increasing pollutant emission and resources consumption, which affect negatively to land resources. For instance, urbanization is one of the driving forces leading to the loss of agricultural land. As a result, not only farmers lose their land for cultivation, but natural habitats that are home to wildlife animals are also endangered. In addition, exhaust emissions from manufacturing factories are contaminating the environment at an alarming rate. The pursuit of high growth at all costs could lead to severe pollution, for example China – world’s second-largest economy has become one of the most polluted countries.

On the other hand, I still strongly believe that the combination of economic and environmental sustainability is achievable. In this era of high technology, scientists have developed alternatives to replace traditional sources in many fields. The rise of renewable energy from wind, sunlight or ocean waves can be the answer for the rising demand. Furthermore, various countries in the world are now working together to cut down industrial pollution. Commitment among nations to protect the environment and give priority to sustainable development without exhausting the resources may boost the economy in the long run.

In conclusion, even though achieving economic goals is crucial to every nation, each should also include environmental issues in their policy making process. Only by this way, can the human exist and develop in harmony with the nature.

Sample 4:

The intricate balance between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability continues to spark global debate. Critics argue that industrial expansion often leads to environmental harm, exemplified by increased pollution and reliance on fossil fuels. In contrast, examples from countries like Germany and Sweden show that strategic policies can align economic growth with environmental preservation. This essay will explore these viewpoints, asserting that with thoughtful governance, economic progress can indeed complement environmental health.

Critics of economic growth frequently point out the environmental degradation that can accompany unchecked industrialization. For instance, heavy reliance on fossil fuels for energy has escalated carbon emissions, contributing to global warming and climate change. Moreover, the rapid expansion of industrial activities often leads to significant waste and pollution. This is particularly evident in regions where industrial growth outpaces the establishment of environmental regulations, emphasizing the challenges that arise when economic priorities overshadow environmental concerns. Such examples clearly demonstrate the potential environmental costs associated with economic development when it is not managed with environmental considerations in mind.

Conversely, examples from nations like Germany and Sweden illustrate that economic growth can coexist with environmental sustainability. Germany’s Energiewende, or "energy transition," showcases how government-led initiatives can steer economic activities towards sustainable practices. By heavily investing in renewable energy, Germany has not only diminished its carbon footprint but also strengthened its economy by becoming a leader in green technology. Similarly, Sweden’s robust carbon tax policy has effectively reduced carbon emissions while preserving economic stability. These examples suggest that with thoughtful legislation and a strong commitment to sustainability, economic advancement can indeed support and enhance environmental health, demonstrating a harmonious balance between economic and environmental objectives.

In conclusion, while economic expansion can lead to environmental issues such as increased emissions and waste, nations like Germany and Sweden demonstrate that strategic environmental policies can harmonize economic growth with ecological sustainability. Therefore, economic prosperity and environmental health are not mutually exclusive when governed wisely.

Sample 5:

The debate on whether a country can simultaneously achieve economic success and maintain a clean environment is polarized. Proponents of sustainable development argue for harmonious coexistence, while skeptics cite historical conflicts between economic growth and environmental health. This essay will explore both perspectives, ultimately advocating that a balanced approach can enable both economic prosperity and environmental preservation.

Those who believe in the feasibility of a country being both economically successful and environmentally sound often cite the concept of sustainable development. They argue that through innovative technologies and renewable energy sources, economic growth does not have to be synonymous with environmental degradation. For instance, countries like Denmark have made significant strides in wind energy, which contributes to their economy while reducing carbon emissions. This approach advocates for a balance where economic activities are conducted with a long-term vision for environmental health, suggesting that the two are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.

Conversely, others argue that economic growth inherently leads to environmental damage. This view is grounded in historical precedents where industrialization and economic development have often led to air and water pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. Critics point to countries where rapid economic growth has been achieved at the expense of environmental health, such as China, where industrial expansion has led to significant pollution challenges. They contend that economic activities, especially those reliant on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources, are naturally at odds with environmental conservation.

In my opinion, while the challenges are significant, it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and maintain a clean environment. The key lies in embracing sustainable development and green technologies. This approach requires a paradigm shift in how we perceive economic growth, prioritizing long-term environmental health alongside short-term economic gains. By investing in renewable energy, enforcing strict environmental regulations, and encouraging sustainable practices, a balance can be achieved.

In conclusion, the prospect of a country being both economically prosperous and environmentally sustainable is not a utopian dream but a viable reality. It demands a commitment to innovative solutions and a redefinition of what constitutes true economic success.

Sample 6:

There have been debates about whether countries can achieve economic success while maintaining a clean environment. Since the industrial revolution, numerous countries had sacrificed the environment to pursue rapid economic growth; however, nowadays, more countries are successfully strengthening their economy and keeping the environment unpolluted. Hence, this essay believes that countries can have both economic success and environmental protection at tandem.

Overly obsession with economic growth could lead to environmental degradation. This is because modern manufacturing technology involves massive machineries and a huge volume of production that release toxic wastes. To be more specific, national economic booming engines, such as giant cars and chemical industries, need a large volume of energy to keep the machines running. They burn a massive amount of fossil fuel, such as coals and oil, which could release a huge amount of harmful gas into the air. For example, over the last 30 years, even though Beijing has been incredibly successful in terms of economic growth, its industry releases have been bombarding the waste managing drainage system, and the pollutant gas is creating a smog layer in its skyline.

However, multiple developed countries are actively adopting ecological modes to develop their economies. New and clean resources such as wind, solar and nuclear energy have been employed in factories to reduce pollution. Scientists have been exploring how to use these types of technologies to promote energy efficiency, and to ensure the environment is not harmed. For instance, many West European countries such as France and the UK are developing nuclear energy to generate electricity for factories and households. As a result, these countries are not only enjoying an economic boom, but also maintaining a sustainable development.

In conclusion, economic growth could lead to pollution and damage to the environment, but modern technology has been constantly seeking new energy to promote efficiency and decrease pollution. Therefore, it is viable for countries to develop their economy and protect the environment simultaneously.

Sample 7:

The relationship between economic growth and the environment has become a long- lasting debate. Although some believe that they cannot exist together, I would argue that they are indeed positively related.

On the one hand, opponents of the question co-existence of a developed economy and a healthy biosphere point to the fact of global warming that we have been experiencing today. They say, in order to achieve an economic progression, we need to rely heavily on transportation systems. While more vehicles carry goods to transfer nationwide boosting its economy, they also produce higher level of carbon emissions – an essential element for raising the global temperature. Moreover, Industrial waste is also believed by some to be act as a pollutant. They contend that larger factories are hailed as an indicator of powerful economy, meaning that excessive waste produced by them is continuously damaging our Earth. However, this could easily be mitigated by thoughtful disposal and better enforcement of laws by the authorities.

Conversely, I side with those who believe that a country can not only be economically successful but also environmentally friendly. First off, economically advanced countries tend to budget more to protect the environment. This is to say if national reserve is higher enough to provide essentials such as health or education, government is more likely to spend further on cleaner air or other environmental issues. This evidence can be clearly seen in Canada. Additionally, the more countries become economically stable, the more they can spend on mass education, leading them to have a better environmental awareness. If we consider India, we can see people are indiscriminately disposing litters in the streets which is a rare incident in a developed country like Australia.

To sum up, while some criticize widespread traffic and waste materials of an advanced nation can damage the environment, it could possibly be overcome by stricter regulations. Therefore, I believe that having extra funds and educated citizens of developed countries can rather protect our surroundings.

Sample 8:

It is undeniable that humans have an inextricable relationship with the environment. While many believe that it is impossible to protect the environment if countries want to develop their economies, others argue that keeping the environment clean in tandem with having a wealthy country is not too difficult. This essay is going to examine the reasons behind these views before revealing my personal opinion.

On the one hand, it is understandable why some subscribe to the view that governments could not focus on both economic development and the environment at the same time. As more and more industrial parks and factory plants are helping boost countries’ economies, toxic fumes are almost unavoidable, as they are released from these places into the air. Beijing is a case in point. The city with a large number of factories has been reported to have a hazardous level of air pollution in many years that could not be solved by the government.

On the other hands, I believe that the aforementioned drawbacks are not intractable, and governments can still protect the environment when they pay attention to develop the economy. To begin with, severe punishments must be administered to individuals or organizations that deliberately harm the environment. For instance, governments must fine factories that emit excessive toxic fume, thereby keeping the environment clean. In addition to this, focusing on environmental protection, nations should channel rewarding programs for businesses. This would encourage businesses and other stakeholders to keep the environment clean.

In conclusion, while it is difficult to keep a clean environment along with substantial economic development, I would contend that it would be unwise to overlook the importance of the environment to human lives. Therefore, governments should take actions to ensure that the environment is protected while they develop their economy.

Sample 9:

There are those who opine that achieving both a successful economy and a healthy environment is feasible for a nation, while others are skeptical about this view. This essay discusses both sides of the argument and why I believe this is totally possible.

There are understandable reasons why some advocate the view that a country’s economy can thrive without environmental damages. First of all, using environmentally acceptable materials in the manufacturing process can be encouraged by governments to keep the environment clean. For example, New Zealand produces much of its energy from hydroelectricity and geothermal sources enabling it to run its industries without producing a lot of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the development of vehicles running on electricity, which is a substitute for petrol, can ease the problem of air pollution resulting from vehicles’ exhaust fumes. Therefore, this can promote the growth of the automobile industry and simultaneously protect the environment.

On the other hand, it is believed that the growth of the economy cannot be maintained with environmental protection. First of all, many developing countries are heavily relying on the exploitation of natural resources to grow their economy. This primary industry can have negative impacts on the environment which are irreversible. For example, in Vietnam, the exploitation of bauxite in the Central Highland has seriously destroyed the local environment. In addition, developing the tourism industry requires the construction of facilities and accommodation to serve tourists, so the environmental damages such as the clearance of trees for building hotels and resorts are unavoidable. For instance, all the garbage that gets thrown out by tourists polluting the pristine national parks of Vietnam.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that both sides of the argument have their positive points. However, I am inclined to believe that it is totally achievable for a nation to grow their economy without affecting the environment because the usage of eco-friendly materials in manufacturing products and the growth of electric vehicles outweigh the dependence on exploiting natural resources and unavoidable environmental damages resulting from the development of the tourism industry.

Sample 10:

When it comes to a nation's possibility to succeed in both economic and environmental terms, this probability is questionable, leading to a debate between those who believe in it and those who are sceptical. Truth be told, I find this double success possible rather than impossible.

On the one hand, a number of people think that it is improbable. They might be right, especially upon considering such countries as China, which is famous for being extremely economically successful, but which fails to be environmentally friendly. China is a striking example of a nation focusing too much on economic development with environmental consequences coming at a price, thus facing one of the most dangerously high levels of air pollution in the world. Therefore, China seems to be making efforts to become a "green" country by "exporting" its polluting technologies to other nations.

On the other hand, I am more supportive of the view that this condition is actually possible. The point here is not that it is universally feasible but rather that it is viable in certain countries. Examples like China do not mean that no nations have ever succeeded. This has been proven in several countries of great success, including Switzerland and Singapore, to name but a few. It is indisputably clear that they are prosperous and possess a world-acclaimed clean environment. They are capable of having achieved what many other nations can only dream of.

In conclusion, it remains debatable as to whether it is likely or unlikely to gain national success both economically and environmentally, but my firm belief is that this is not the so-called "mission impossible".

Sample 11:

Several students believe that, in this period of increasing industry and urbanization, a country may accomplish economic growth while also maintaining a clean environment. Another segment of the public, on the other hand, is dissatisfied with this viewpoint since they believe both aims are negatively connected. This article will examine all sides of the debate, as well as my personal viewpoint on the subject, before coming to a logical conclusion.

On the one hand, many people feel that greater industrialization and urbanization would have a negative impact on the environment because economic prosperity is a result of increased industrialization and urbanization. Furthermore, supporting the economy necessitates a significant quantity of industrial output, which poses environmental risks. For example, air pollution is produced by the emission of industrial waste into the atmosphere, while the majority of water pollution is generated by the flow of factory waste into rivers. As a result, compatibility between these two elements is seen to be exceedingly challenging.

Several people, on the other hand, think that achieving environmental purity during the process of economic growth is not difficult if the element of eco-safety is inculcated from the start of any industrial or manufacturing activity. To give an example, any industrial production should be required to use environmentally friendly raw materials. Another option is to make environmental safety requirements a top priority in each commercial decision and to impose sanctions for those who break them. As a consequence, prioritizing environmental health in one's everyday work may naturally result in a safe environment as well as success.

To sum up, I believe it is feasible for a country to have a thriving economy while still being ecologically conscious. Nonetheless, we can only get there if we put a lot of effort into caring for the environment.

Sample 12:

Human existence is becoming more demanding than it was previously. All countries strive to improve their national economies while also considering the environment as a whole. That remark might lead to two distinct interpretations. First, a group of individuals is convinced that those two things can be accomplished at the same time, while the second believer does not. As a result, in this article, I will explore both points of view and offer a reasonable conclusion.

To begin with, many youthful generations may believe that everything is possible. It discusses their perspectives on life. That's how they came up with some novel ideas. In this case, they would employ what is known as a sustainable system, which is a prevalent trend in many areas in our period, and which is made possible by the use of technology. As a result, numerous more environmentally friendly solutions have emerged. One of the outstanding ideas of this decade, for example, is the development of ethanol from green algae. This might assist to minimise CO2 emissions as a source of energy.

Traditionalists and skeptics, on the other hand, may hold a different viewpoint. It's no surprise that they're opposed to this idea after witnessing how commercial activity has exploited natural resources for years. So, why do people think that way? It is due to the fact that wealthy countries, such as Australia, which has a greater GDP than Indonesia, are ranked as the third-largest CO2 emitters. As a result, some people formed opinions on those two features. In other words, they feel that a desire to raise GDP is not required to improve the environment.

In summary, while the data from Australia may sway some people's opinions, young people's creativity is more enticing and exciting. As a result, in my honest opinion, I agree with the first choice, that the aim to increase the nation's wealth while preserving the environment is achievable.

Sample 13:

Some individuals think that in this age of modernity and technological advancement, society can both preserve a clean environment and achieve successful economic development. Others think that these two ideals have an inverted function in current society. Nature does not appear to suffer as a result of progress, in my opinion.

On the one hand, the sector is a critical economic driver for the country. In reality, the by-products of profit-driven companies frequently pollute the environment. As a result, pollutants like exhaust gases and carbon are discharged into the environment, damaging air and water resources. China is an excellent example of this, where the permanent manufacturing line determines the world's highest air pollution index. Eventually, both preserving a clean environment and manufacturing hazardous products appear to be delusory at the same time.

On the other hand, despite the negative impact on the sector, it is still feasible to conserve a considerable number of natural resources without negatively impacting the country's economic growth rate. Modern technology may enable manufacturers to use environmentally friendly materials and recycling techniques. Similarly, reusing water, plastic, and paper may help the environment by reducing waste. Germany, for example, has begun to utilize an innovative approach to reusing and recycling trash by investing in the formation of special firms. As a result, if each country implements eco-friendly policies, global pollution will be decreased.

Finally, focusing on society's riches cannot coexist with environmental preservation since hazardous compounds are released into the sky. Nonetheless, putting current involvements into practice will assure the ability to reduce the variety of pollutants.

Sample 14:

The debate surrounding whether a country can be economically progressive and environmentally friendly simultaneously is a topic of great significance in today's world. While some argue that these two goals are mutually exclusive, others contend that they can coexist harmoniously. This essay will discuss both viewpoints and present my opinion that a country can achieve both objectives simultaneously.

Those who believe that economic progress and environmental friendliness are incompatible argue that economic growth often comes at the expense of the environment. Industrialization and rapid economic development can result in increased pollution, deforestation, and depletion of natural resources. For instance, the rapid growth of manufacturing industries in some countries has led to high levels of air and water pollution, negatively impacting ecosystems and human health.

On the other hand, proponents of the opposing view argue that economic progress and environmental sustainability can go hand in hand through the adoption of sustainable development practices and green technologies. They emphasize that investing in renewable energy sources, improving resource efficiency, and promoting eco-friendly industries can drive economic growth while minimizing harm to the environment. For example, countries like Denmark and Costa Rica have successfully integrated wind and solar energy into their energy grids, reducing carbon emissions while experiencing economic growth.

In my opinion, the relationship between economic progress and environmental friendliness could be complex, but it is possible for a country to pursue sustainable development models that prioritize both economic and environmental aspects. Long-term economic prosperity depends on the preservation of natural resources and the mitigation of climate change. This is why it is very much possible for a country to achieve economic prosperity while also being eco-friendly.

In conclusion, while some argue that economic progress and environmental friendliness are mutually exclusive, I believe that it is possible for a country to achieve both objectives simultaneously. While there may be challenges and trade-offs along the way, the integration of sustainable practices, green technologies, and a shift in societal values can create a synergy between economic growth and environmental preservation.

Sample 15:

Around the world, economic progress has often come at the expense of the environment, and many people believe that this is inevitable. It is, for sure, a complex issue, and avoiding environmental damage is exceedingly difficult. This essay will look at both sides but argue that it is possible.

Looking at the world, it sometimes appears unavoidable that countries grow rich by sacrificing their environment. After all, the easiest way to make money or develop infrastructure is to utilise your natural resources, and this often means logging or mining. Countries like China, whose economy is growing at a staggering rate, have also annihilated their landscape at unprecedented rates, creating wealthy societies but very unhealthy environments. Beijing may now be a rich city, but it often enveloped in thick smog, and the natural landscape has been utterly devastated.

Yet one can look at developed countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to see that success does not have to come at the price of the environment. It is possible to become successful without destroying the natural world and poisoning your air. What it takes is for a value to be placed upon such matters, so that they are not simply commodified or destroyed in the pursuit of more money. Some developing countries, too, are now realising that their country’s natural beauty can even attract tourism and thus generate income, which is one more reason to avoid polluting and logging. Thailand has made efforts to protect its coral reefs and forests by turning away tourists and exchanging a small financial sacrifice for long-term gains.

In conclusion, the easiest way to develop is to abuse your natural resources and pollute the environment, but there are better ways to do it. If a country places a value upon its cleanliness and pledges to respect the health and happiness of its people, it should be able to avoid destroying its environment.

Sample 16:

The strength of any nation does not come without costs, one of which is upon the local environment whose resources fuel each and every sector of the economy. And yet many people believe that a strong economy and a clean environment can co-exist. I do not entirely deny this belief; however, I find myself more convinced of the fact that we cannot have them both.

For years, scientists have developed ways to replace traditional sources of exploitation in many fields, like electricity and fuel. The use of alternative renewable energy from sunlight, wind and geothermal heat, have been applied in many areas, which helps to keep the environment away from harm. In addition, many environmental activists say that it is certainly within our reach to minimize the damage caused by industrial activities and protect Mother Earth. Many have even succeeded in convincing governments to take action in such regard.

Nevertheless, we should not forget that there are things that make it impossible to relieve our dependency on natural resources. For example, the automobile, mining and steel industry are without doubt taking a heavy toll on the environment on account of carbon emissions and chemical waste. But those prove to be indispensable and irreplaceable to the progress of many economies. Furthermore, tremendous damage has already been done, and many people fear that the environment’s state of cleanliness cannot be restored. Take Beijing as an example. Air quality there is the worst in the world, with thick layers of smog covering the atmosphere.

In conclusion, my firm conviction is that no matter how hard we try to preserve the environment, while we continue to exploit its natural resources for the sake of the economy, we will never have both of them at the same time.