While several individuals argue that the only way to eliminate poverty and hunger is to boost the economy, others are of the opinion that economic growth should be regulated since it causes environmental problems. This essay will elaborate on both perspectives before presenting a personal viewpoint, asserting that economic development can be harmful to the environment.
On the one hand, there are numerous reasons for the belief that improvement of economies could be the only way to end the world of poverty and hunger, with the primary one being boosting incomes of residents. People generally become poor and hungry as their incomes are not high enough to make a living. Economic growth, if prioritized by corporations and the government, would lead to higher salaries for employees, enabling them to afford essential goods like food, electricity, and water. As a result, some people believe that there is no better way than promoting economic growth to help the residents escape from poverty and hunger.
On the other hand, I still believe that economic growth can bring environmental drawbacks. In the era of industrialization, the use and release of myriad harmful chemicals, such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, are associated with economic growth, resulting in severe contamination. For instance, a cigarette factory frequently discharges toxic fumes, including nicotine, during production, which damages the atmosphere and results in serious air pollution and ultimately the social well-being. As a consequence, due to the environmental damage caused by improving economies, it must be regulated to protect the environment.
In conclusion, despite the potential of economic development to address hunger and poverty, I remain concerned about its detrimental effects on the environment due to the release of toxic substances. People should strike a balance between improving the economies and preserving the environment.