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.

The past decades

saw

Suggestion

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

overexploitation

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

bushfire

in Australia - the

bushfire

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 constrains carbon emission, several

countries raising

Accept comma addition

countries, raising

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

preservation

Suggestion

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

funds

Suggestion

funding

on those practices.