Some feel that it is impossible for a country to be economically progressive and environmentally friendly at the same time. Others disagree with this view. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In recent years, nations around the globe have seen unprecedented economic growth.

However

, it has happened at a cost to our environment. Many claim that it is possible to prosper without harming nature. I disagree with

this

statement. Because, I believe that, there is a direct correlation between rising wealth and natural resource drainage. In

this

essay, both of these views are explained with applicable examples. As cited above, finances are multiplied by exploiting the earth. To give an example, deforestation is carried out to make space for the construction of factories around the world, which are fuel for economies. Unfortunately,

due to

this

, forests and similar biomes will dwindle in number as time

progress

Correct subject-verb agreement

progresses

show examples

and there will come a time when there will be nothing left for spending.

Therefore

,

it is clear that

one must be sacrificed to achieve the other.

Furthermore

, should countries cease the exploitation of nature's bounties, a commercial disaster will follow suit.

For instance

, halting the consumption of fossil fuels will render industries inoperable.

Thus

, there will be a shortage of manufactured goods to be distributed among the population.

Additionally

, it will lead to the civilization regressing back to the previous age.

Hence

, the flow of goods will stop and trading will be impossible. Ergo, the salvation of one would prove to be the downfall of the other.

To conclude

, the task of creating an equilibrium between fund generation and environmental health is herculean indeed. But, with careful ,measures it can be within our reach.