In the request for development, many countries allow their natural environment to be affected. Such a strategy is well worthwhile, and economic development should always be placed ahead of the environment. Argue both sides, and give your opinion. v.1

The past decades have seen many countries strived for economic growth which took a heavy toll on the environment. Some maintain that environment should be placed ahead of economic growth. I similarly believe this, and my reasons are twofold. First of all, it is undeniable that over exploitation came a cost of climate change with growing carbon emission. Extreme weather has contributed to disastrous ruins in several places. One obvious example of this is a fire in Australia - the fire lasted for a few months, millions acres engulfed by the blade, and millions residents evacuated. Thus, it is pressing that certain policies should be made for government in term of environmental protection. Admittedly, entrepreneurs often claim that environmental protection to certain extend confines development greatly for those developing countries. For instance, Paris agreement constrained carbon emission; thus, several countries raise expenditure to reduce a dependence on fossil fuel. However, in view of both development and our environment, it seems that those actions are necessary and urgent. Equally essential to environmental protection is the preservation of endangered animals. One compelling example of this is can be seen in polar bear; additionally, some researches predicted that polar bear will be wiped out within a few decades. By way of conclusion, in terms of next generation, environment protection and preservation outweigh the economic exploitation, although it is necessary to increase funding on those practices.