There is a belief that pollution and environmental damage cannot be avoided as a country becomes richer and more developed. From my perspective, I totally disagree with this point of view because national development does not necessarily come at the cost of destroying the environment.
Proponents of this view might argue that industrialization, essential for development, poses some potential risks to the environment. As there would be greater demand for factory construction, transporting goods and fuel consumption, the ecosystem can be damaged due to greenhouse gas emissions and resource exploitation. However, once countries become richer, they can have adequate financial strength and resources to invest in green technology, solar farms, electric grids and emission treatment systems, thereby reducing pollution and resource depletion. Therefore, economic development and environmental protection can coexist.
Some people might believe that when countries are getting wealthier, their residents would earn more money, resulting in an increase in personal vehicles like cars, motorbikes for commuting. Over time, emissions like CO2 and SO2 from a large number of vehicles can contaminate the urban air, while oil and gasoline leakage can poison the water. Meanwhile, when countries become more developed, there is likely to be more investment in more metro lines, electric buses which will encourage people to use public transport. As a result, there would be a reduction in private vehicles and an improvement in the air quality rather than environmental damage.
In conclusion, during national progress, the environment can be harmed by industrialisation and the increasing popularity of personal vehicles. However, I think that is not the case as development and environmental protection can coexist.