Currently, economic growth appears to become the major topic, which is forcing the government and population to ponder about. There are supporters of the idea that such a flourishing economy is the only solution to issues like starving and poverty, whereas others are against it since it can be risky for the nature surrounding us. While it is certainly true that an economic upswing can put an end to such mentioned problems, I believe that the environment is also harmed by a thriving economy as well.
On the one hand, should the countries achieve sustainable economic prosperity, this spontaneously will affect positively the lifestyle of their inhabitants. In other words, being industrially advanced enables states to provide their citizens materially since they would not depend on foreign supply. This can also stem from contraction of unemployment as manufacturing areas create more additional jobs and the population will be able to stay self-sufficient, at least with staple foods. As a result, countries get out of the circle of poverty and hunger.
On the other hand, as the states develop economically, environmental degradation will increase. That is to say, expanding industrial zones results in a growth of discharging chemical waste. The rise in carbon footprint not only can be a detrimental trouble to nature but also even to life on earth. To introduce, ozone layer depletion, which is mostly caused by toxic waste produced in such manufacturing areas, weakens protection from ultraviolet rays or melting icebergs can be a reason for raising the level of water that has an implication for flooding in some cities. Therefore, life on earth is getting worse.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the influence of economic growth of states addresses problems of hunger and destitution, and, at the same time, it can be ground for ecological issues. Should this economic upturn be sustainable not only for the peoples’ status but also for that of the environment, in my view, it ought to be conducted.
Currently
,
economic
growth appears to become the major topic, which is forcing the
government
and population to ponder about. There are supporters of the
idea
that such a flourishing economy is the
only
solution to issues like starving and poverty, whereas others are against it since it can be risky for the nature surrounding us. While it is
certainly
true that an
economic
upswing can put an
end
to such mentioned problems, I believe that the environment is
also
harmed by a thriving economy
as well
.
On the one hand, should the countries achieve sustainable
economic
prosperity, this
spontaneously
will affect
positively
the lifestyle of their inhabitants.
In other words
, being
industrially
advanced enables states to provide their citizens
materially
since they would not depend on foreign supply. This can
also
stem from contraction of unemployment as manufacturing areas create more additional jobs and the population will be able to stay self-sufficient, at least with staple foods.
As a result
, countries
get
out of the circle of poverty and hunger.
On the other hand
, as the states develop
economically
, environmental degradation will increase.
That is
to say, expanding industrial zones results in a growth of discharging chemical waste. The rise in carbon footprint not
only
can be a detrimental trouble to nature
but
also
even to life on earth. To introduce, ozone layer depletion, which is
mostly
caused by toxic waste produced in such manufacturing areas, weakens protection from ultraviolet rays or melting icebergs can be a reason for raising the level of water that has an implication for flooding in
some
cities.
Therefore
, life on earth is getting worse.
The conclusion to
be drawn
is that the influence of
economic
growth of states addresses problems of hunger and destitution, and, at the same time, it can
be ground
for ecological issues. Should this
economic
upturn be sustainable not
only
for the peoples’ status
but
also
for that of the environment, in my view, it ought to
be conducted
.