The world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” In light of the fact that nations are increasingly pursuing wealth by compromising the environment’s health, Gandhi’s quote reflects how an endless desire for economic development is simply unsustainable. With the rising number of natural disasters and environmental catastrophes in recent years, there has been a growing debate on whether choosing greater economic development to improve standards of living over environmental conservation is a choice that is still justifiable. Proponents of prioritising environmental conservation argue that reckless economic development unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental disasters and that urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the future impact of environmental catastrophes such as global warming. However, others believe that economic growth is necessary to raise the standard of living in developing nations, even at the expense of the environment, and that the environment can only be protected with revenue from economic progress. Hence, although the immediate benefits of economic growth may seem to outweigh its long-term harms, it should not be prioritised over environmental conservation due to the undue harm of reckless economic development and the urgency to solve environmental issues before they cause irreversible damage.
Despite the pressing need to take steps to curb environmental devastation, proponents of economic development believe that the economy takes precedence over the environment due to the immediate need of developing nations to raise their citizens’ standard of living. Although developing countries may initially damage the environment when obtaining natural resources for economic growth, the revenue gained from doing so allows them to invest in the economy and reduces reliance on natural resources in the long run. Developing nations have a wealth of untapped resources, such as minerals and wood, which can generate income to provide their citizens with an adequate standard of living. Unfortunately, these resources are often locked away in forests and mountains, making it impossible to obtain them without causing damage to the environment. Hence, in order to extract these resources for the sake of economic development, developing nations cut down forests and excavate mines for goods to export. Although this may come at some cost to the environment, the immediate benefits of increased revenue, which improves the lives of impoverished citizens, outweighs the harm done. With more income, governments of developing countries can invest in sectors that help to improve their citizens’ lives, such as healthcare and education. Better living standards and education equip citizens with the ability to acquire better-paying employment, lifting themselves out of poor living conditions. This improves the economy, reducing developing nations’ reliance on extracting natural resources for economic growth. In today’s world, economic progress is important as it is the key to ensuring a nation’s continued success in the global economy. The falling prices of commodities and growing tertiary sectors mean that countries must move away from relying on raw materials as their key source of income. Causing some damage to the environment to lift millions out of poverty is an acceptable sacrifice, especially for a less developed nation whose citizens are struggling to make a living. This is seen in the case of Botswana, which focused on diamond mining to gain revenue, despite the harm it caused to the environment. The income was invested heavily in education and healthcare, lifting 40% of its population out of poverty. Thus, economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection as it alleviates the immediate problem of poverty in developing nations.
Furthermore, economic growth should take precedence over environmental conservation as environmental protection can only occur with economic advancement. Although economic growth may harm the environment, the increased revenue allows governments to purchase improved technology and to invest in research and development. Hence, economic growth provides nations with the funds needed to restore the environment. An improved economy gives governments more money to spend on environmental conservation, improving its ability to conserve the environment. Conversely, poorer nations have less funding, causing them to be less able to protect the environment. In today’s world, the field of research on environmental conservation is constantly growing, from new sustainable sources of energy to conserving endangered species. Economic growth provides developing nations with the funds to sponsor such research for their own country, acquiring technology to negate pollution. They also have the finances to invest in creating nature reserves for vulnerable species which may have lost their habitats due to economic development. An example of a nation that used economic growth to promote environmental conservation is Austria, where fund accumulated from economic development in the past allowed it to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy, such as nuclear plants, today. Hence, economic growth should be prioritised over environmental protection as it is a prerequisite for effective environmental conservation to occur.
However, although economic development may seem like a sustainable solution to all environmental issues, it should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental devastation. Not all nations are created equal, with some possessing much more economic clout than others. The beneficial effects of economic development are limited to a nation’s own populace, but its detrimental effects on the environment are often regional, affecting multiple nations around it. Pollution such as haze and industrial waste is able to transcend national borders, spreading to other nations through the air or shared waterways. A nation’s carbon footprint from industrialisation causes the Earth to grow warmer and sea levels to rise, placing vulnerable island nations at risk of sinking under the sea, despite the fact that they contribute to less than one percent of the world’s carbon output. It is not fair to these nations, which did not benefit from the economic development of the country producing pollution, to suffer from the ill effects of environmental devastation which they are powerless to stop. This is poignant in today’s increasingly interlinked world, where larger countries fail to be held to account for their actions even by international organisations like the United Nations. For instance, the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord despite its significant carbon footprint, making it unaccountable for the economic devastation its pollution causes. This responsibility allows more powerful nations to create pollution through economic growth without consequences. An example of pollution affecting other nations is the annual transboundary haze caused by Indonesia when it burns forests to create land for cash crops. The haze spreads to neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and Singapore, affecting the economies of these countries. Hence, economic growth should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk.
In addition, economic growth should not take precedence over environmental efforts as urgent action needs to be taken to curb the effects of environmental degradation. Economic development is a slow process which happens over years, even decades. However, environmental disasters plaguing the world currently pose an immediate threat, which will only be exacerbated in the future. Hence, there is a greater incentive to take steps to solve environmental issues now, than to wait decades for environmental progress before attempting to solve these snowballing problems. Nations cannot wait for their economies to grow and for their GDPs to increase when their citizens fall victim to natural disasters and environmental pollution. In today’s world, saving the environment is an action that needs to be taken immediately by countries, as waiting for economic growth before trying to solve these issues could lead to irreversible consequences. The extinction of endangered species and loss of entire nations to rising sea levels are devastating outcomes of environmental degradation which cannot be reversed, even with modern technology. One example of a country at risk of vanishing is Kiribati. With islands raised a few metres above sea level, the nation is predicted to become uninhabitable by 2050, when the ocean rises enough to completely submerge the tiny country. The president of Kiribati even made an appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to call for efforts to curb global warming, before island nations such as his vanish for good. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts, as environmental degradation results in issues that must be solved as soon as possible.
In conclusion, although proponents argue that economic growth is essential to solve the immediate problem of poverty and that it places developing nations in a better position to conserve the environment, they have ultimately failed to recognise that environmental degradation is an issue that must be addressed now and that reckless economic growth unfairly harms vulnerable nations which do not benefit from it. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts due to the excessive harms that arise from solely focusing on economic growth and neglecting environmental conservation. As Martin Luther King once said, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Economic development may benefit our own nation, but it is environmental conservation that truly protects the world that we all live in.
