Some people say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. However, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It has been argued that economic development of a country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which lead to destruction of human’s ecological system in own one. Although this process may be reasonable, I support that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection would be possible.

On the one hand, there are some reasons to believe that a developed country’s ecomony would put people living environment in jeopardy. Firstly, a numerous of trees would be cut down to make a way for manufacters in megacity which means that those could emit exhause fumes into atmosphere. In fact, this deforestation contributes to prevent absorbing carbon dioxide from trees. More importantly, aquatic ecosystem would be sharped by discharging chemical waste of industrial zones, meaning that water-borne diseases will ensue. Hence, human habitat may be more likely to aggravate when it comes to economic growth.

However, I support the view of those who believe that there would be a range of successful methods to improve environment problems while investing in economy. For instance, either cutting down on emissions or reducing the reliance on fossil fuels proves to this. In addition, the priority of officals, especially investing in renewable energy, could alleviate environmental problems. In certains of the world, in order to decline greenhouse gases from private vehicles, the authority should encourage those commuting to the work by cycling, which is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport.

In conclusion, governments should carry out economic development and environmental issues at that time, generating sustainable development by its own particularly activities.

Please register with a username to get essay help.

yes mr/ms. this is my account on forums. thanks so much

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

Some people say that it is possible for a country to be both economically successful and have a clean environment. However, others disagree. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It has been argued that economic development of a country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which lead to destruction of human’s ecological system in own one. (wrong phrase) Although this process (wrong word) may be reasonable, I support that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection would be possible.

On the one hand, there are some reasons to believe that a developed country’s ecomony would put people living environment in jeopardy. Firstly, First, (Use "first, second, third, fourth, fifth" for enumerations.) a numerous of trees would be cut down to make a way for manufacters in megacity (??) which means that those could emit exhause fumes into the atmosphere. In fact, this deforestation contributes to prevent absorbing carbon dioxide from (more CO2 in the atmosphere since it is absorbed by trees.). More importantly, aquatic ecosystem (wrong form) would be sharped (wrong word) by discharging chemical waste of industrial zones, meaning that water-borne diseases will ensue. (I don't understand what deforestation has to do with chemical waste.) Hence, human habitat (wrong form) may be more likely to aggravate (wrong word) when it comes to economic growth.

However, I support the view of those who believe that there would be a range of successful methods to improve environment problems while investing in (missing word) economy. For instance, either cutting down on emissions or reducing the reliance on fossil fuels proves to this. In addition, the priority of officals, especially investing in renewable energy, could alleviate environmental problems. In certains of the world, in order to decline greenhouse gases from private vehicles, the authority should encourage those commuting to the work by cycling, which is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport.

In conclusion, governments should carry out economic development and environmental issues at that time, generating sustainable development by its own particularly activities.

It has been argued that economic development of a country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which have been a contributing factor in destruction of its own ecological system. Although this may be reasonable, I support that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection would be possible.

On the one hand, there are several reasons to believe that a developed country’s economics would put its resident living environment in jeopardy. First, a large number of trees would be cut down to make way for new factories which means that they could emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. In fact, this deforestation contributes to more carbon dioxide in the ozone layer as it is absorbed by trees. Meanwhile, aquatic ecosystems would be damaged due to discharging chemical waste of industrial zones, meaning that water-borne diseases will ensue. Hence, human living environment may be more likely to be aggravated when it comes to economic growth.

However, I support the view of those who believe that there have been a range of successful methods to improve environment problems while investing in the economics. Either cutting down on emissions or reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, which has completely been carried out in many part of the world, illustrates this. In addition, the priority of officials, especially investing in renewable energy, has magnificently alleviated environmental problems. In Japan, in order to reduce greenhouse gases from private vehicles, the authority has encouraged those commuting to work by cycling, which is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport, for instance.

In conclusion, a number of countries have carried out economic development and dealt with environmental problems at the same time, generating sustainable development by their own particular activities.

fold green 398It has been argued that economic development of a country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which (refers to "problems") have been a contributing factor in the destruction of its own ecological system (the country's lands are already destroyed).

You write that undeveloped countries have already destroyed their pristine lands, forests, and rivers. Environmental problems have played a major role in this destruction. If the country becomes developed, the results of that destruction will make living conditions worse.

You sentence does not make much sense to me.

fold green 398On the one hand, there are several reasons to believe that a developed country’s economics would put its resident living environment in jeopardy.

An environment is the overall status and condition of air, water and land. You cannot put the environment in jeopardy unless you are thinking about removing the planet entirely from the universe.


Pollution can make the environment worse for healthy living.

fold green 398First, a large number of trees would be cut down to make way for new factories which means that they could emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere.
First, a large number of trees would be cut down to make way for new factories which means that they (the trees) could emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere.

I don't think that is what you mean.

First, a large number of trees would be cut down to make way for new factories which which means that they could emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere.

fold green 398In fact, this deforestation contributes to more carbon dioxide in the ozone layer as it (the ozone layer) is absorbed by trees.

The ozone layer is a layer of the atmosphere containing high concentrations of ozone (O3). It is at an altitude of about 10 km above the earth. It is not absorbed by trees.

The environmental problems caused by increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the depletion of ozone in the ozone layer are unrelated.

fold green 398Meanwhile, aquatic ecosystems would be damaged due to discharging chemical waste of industrial zones, meaning that water-borne diseases will ensue.

Water-borne diseases are not caused by chemical waste, which kills all microbes, but human or animal waste. Chemical waste kills the single-cell animals which are at the bottom of the food chain.



Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

It has been argued that the economics of a developed country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which have been a contributing factor in the destruction of its own ecological system. Although this may be reasonable, I support that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection would be possible.

On the one hand, there are several reasons to believe that a developed country’s economics has been having a significant impact on that country’s resident living environment. First, a large number of trees would be cut down to make way for new factories which emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. In fact, this deforestation contributes to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as CO2 is absorbed by trees. Meanwhile, due to water-quality deterioration from discharging chemical waste of industrial zones, aquatic ecosystems would be damaged and the outbreak of water-borne diseases would occur. Hence, human living environment may be more likely to be aggravated when it comes to economic growth.

However, I support the view of those who believe that there have been a range of successful methods to improve environment problems while investing in the economics. Either cutting down on emissions or reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, which has completely been carried out in many part of the world, illustrates this. In addition, the priority of officials, especially investing in renewable energy, has magnificently alleviated environmental problems. In Japan, in order to reduce greenhouse gases from private vehicles, the authority has encouraged those commuting to work by cycling, which is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport, for instance.

In conclusion, a number of countries have carried out economic development and dealt with environmental problems at the same time, generating sustainable development by their own particular activities.

It has been argued that the economy of a developed country might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which have been a contributing factor in the destruction of its own ecological system.

It has been argued that if a country develops an economy based on industry, it might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which have already been caused by human activity such as farming, eventually leading to the destruction of natural ecological systems.

Although this may be true for many cases in the past reasonable, I support contend that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection is possible.

On the one hand, there are several reasons to believe that a developed country’s economics has been having a significant impact on that country’s resident living environment. First, a large number of trees have been would be cut down to make way for new factories which emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere and dump waste into the river systems. In fact, this deforestation contributes to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as CO2 is absorbed by trees. Meanwhile, due to water-quality deterioration from discharging of chemical waste of industrial zones, aquatic ecosystems would be damaged and the outbreak of water-borne diseases would occur. The discharge of chemical waste leads to the deterioration of water quality, damaging aquatic ecosystems. Untreated sewage can breed bacteria which causes water-borne diseases such as cholera. Hence, human living the environment may be more likely to suffer damage be aggravated when it comes to economic growth.

Thank you so much! I post my essay again according to your help. Do this essay have any problems?


It has been argued that if a country develops an economy based on industry, it might significantly exacerbate environmental problems which have already been caused by human activity such as farming, eventually leading to the destruction of natural ecological systems. Although this may be true for many cases in the past, I contend that socio-economic growth coupled with environmental protection is possible.

On the one hand, there are several reasons to believe that a developed country’s economics has been having a significant impact on that country’s environment. First, a large number of trees have been cut down to make way for new factories which emit exhaust fumes into the atmosphere and dump waste into the river systems. In fact, this deforestation contributes to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as CO2 is absorbed by trees. The discharge of chemical waste leads to the deterioration of water quality, damaging aquatic ecosystems. Untreated sewage can breed bacteria which causes water-borne diseases such as cholera. Hence, the environment may be more likely to suffer damage when it comes to economic growth.

However, I support the view of those who believe that there have been a range of successful methods to improve environment problems while investing in the economics. Either cutting down on emissions or reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, which has completely been carried out in many part of the world, illustrates this. In addition, the priority of officials, especially investing in renewable energy, has magnificently alleviated environmental problems. In Japan, in order to reduce greenhouse gases from private vehicles, the authority has encouraged those commuting to work by cycling, which is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport, for instance.

In conclusion, a number of countries have carried out economic development and dealt with environmental problems at the same time, generating sustainable development by their own particular activities.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.