IELTS Writing Task 2 Topic: Economic Growth

some folk contend that economic prosperity can result in the elimination of poverty; whereas, others refute this belief on the ground that economic growth can be environmentally disastrous. this essay agrees with the second point, as environmental disasters are heavily rooted in economic growth. on the one hand, some people maintain that the world poverty can not be cured without recourse to the economic prosperity. as long as the economy is booming small businesses will begin to flourish, and ultimately a horde of people can be capable of making a living; accordingly, authority can get assured no one would not be deprived of adequate job in result of the lack of productive economy. moreover, by having even a living wage, people can fulfill their basic needs such as decent housing and food. for instance, in developing nations individuals can afford to meet their basic necessities, owing to the lack of earning a sufficient salary, which is commensurate with their expenses. on the other hand, the opponents of economic growth, including me, insist that this burgeon can be counterproductive by causing imminent environmental disaster. had it not been for the business expanding, numerous forest would have not been cleared to make a way for agricultural practices, and eventually this money making business can be detrimental by expansion of arid lands ; additionally, the fossil fuel based industry has produced the most proportion of carbon dioxide and other green house gases which in turn leads to the global warming. This phenomena account for enormous imminent disaster particularly in tropical districts, which are under threat of flooding with massive loss of life and financial resources. in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight, unsustainable economic growth is debilitative to addressing the problem of poverty in the long term, as it causes irreversible damages.

It is true that some people contend that economic growth is the only solution to the global problems of hunger and poverty. Others, however, argue for an end to economic growth to conserve our environment. I agree completely with this second view. To begin with, the proponent of the economic growth claim that poverty directly associate with the economy, and poverty can be eradicated by this progress. According to advocates of this view lack of job vacancies leads to prolonged unemployment and face people with poverty and lack of life facilities; therefore, economic growth means that enhancing job opportunities for all people from all walks of life. When provide people with adequate job they can afford decent housing and food. It's worth noticing that economic development enriches general budget; so, the government can allocate more money for public services. For example, the administration by extra budget could launch new industries which supply new job opportunities. On top of that, the government could raise income level for all people equally and finance for increasing public welfare. As a result, progress of economy eliminate poverty and survey poor individuals. My idea aligns with the advocates who prefer to preserve environment rather than economic growth. Majority of environmental damages are rooted in huge businesses and companies. Factories without any restrictions generate carbon emissions and greenhouse gases which in turn leads to detrimental impacts on our planet. The Earth’s crises are chronic and inexorably linked. Pollution is an obvious example which can easily affect our air, water, and soil. Air is polluted by emission produced by cars and industry faced the world with climate change which is a hotly debated issue in this day and age. Thus, it’s not fallible to say Earth has undergone devastating effects because of the economic progress; therefore, government should take preventative measures to rescue our planet from this disaster which is getting worse and worse. For instance, using chemical materials by industries has destroyed animals habitat; additionally, chemical enter our food chain moving from animals to us. All in all, although a number of individuals maintain that development of the economy leads to omitting the poverty, other people claim that our planet is confronting myriads of critical issues which is wrought by industries.

During the last decades, industrialization has sparked heated debates whether it benefits society. This essay agrees that the more job opportunities, the more welfare in the community, and firstly will discuss the consequences of economic expansion, and secondly will talk about practical actions to reduce the harms of industry on the environment. On the one hand, growing the industries in a country leads to lessen the poverty by making work chances thereby dwindling the psychological disorders caused by economic issues. Having been noted for three decades, for instance, Turkey has increased the level of its citizen’s welfare by expanding its textile industry which has made it a labor destination for the third world people. According to a recent study which was conducted by a Swedish institute, not only does unemployment cause several economic hassles such as rampant inflation, but it also could launch citizens on a path of antisocial behavior. On the other hand, some manufactures impact the environment negatively by polluting the air or water. Consequently, the lack of monitoring by the government could let them feel free to damage the ecosystem. For instance, contaminated water which was produced by an iron industry in Malaysia, caused devastating effects on the water quality of the country. Accordingly, there has been a growing concern toward increasing eco-friendly industries in order to keep the ecosystem unaltered, while the industry is developing. To recap, it is highly advised to consider industrialization as the most effective way to reduce poverty in society. However, owning to the fact that manufacturers could damage nature, governmental monitoring plays an important role to curb on businesses’ harmful activities.

There has long been a controversy among people weather the best was for decreasing the poverty is economic growth or not. This essay agrees that the upsides of development of economic circumstance outweigh its downsides. On the one hand, some people believed that the progression of economic situation is financially advantages to poor people, because it culminates in a great source of income for the government . not only can authorities help poverty-stricken inhabitants but they also can increase job opportunity. Moreover, government can provide safety net for workers who lost their job. For instance, based upon a research, which was conducted at the university of Cambridge the number of miserable in London decline, due to advancement of economic situation. Consequently, it is clear as to why some people gravitate towards economic. On the other hand, despite economic growth benefit for Tightness, although can lead to environmental problems. In addition, industrialization of country can lead to global warming, due to exhaust fumes and gas emission of factory. For example, the continued use of fossil fuels, which provide the energy for growing This leads to a rise in sea levels, which will eventually make tens of millions of poor people in Bangladesh homeless. As a result, government and people should take some measures cooperatively to reduce the amount of greenhouse house gasses, and only by strict laws, could government decrease the consequence of emission. All things considered, I am of the belief that the pros of this issue outweigh the cons. Government should take some measures to broaden people’s awareness about economic growth.

There has long been a controversy among people weather the best was for decreasing the poverty is economic growth or not. This essay agrees that the upsides of development of economic circumstance outweigh its downsides. On the one hand, some people believed that the progression of economic situation is financially advantages to poor people, because it culminates in a great source of income for the government . not only can authorities help poverty-stricken inhabitants but they also can increase job opportunity. Moreover, government can provide safety net for workers who lost their job. For instance, based upon a research, which was conducted at the university of Cambridge the number of miserable in London decline, due to advancement of economic situation. Consequently, it is clear as to why some people gravitate towards economic. On the other hand, despite economic growth benefit for Tightness, although can lead to environmental problems. In addition, industrialization of country can lead to global warming, due to exhaust fumes and gas emission of factory. For example, the continued use of fossil fuels, which provide the energy for growing This leads to a rise in sea levels, which will eventually make tens of millions of poor people in Bangladesh homeless. As a result, government and people should take some measures cooperatively to reduce the amount of greenhouse house gasses, and only by strict laws, could government decrease the consequence of emission. All things considered, I am of the belief that the pros of this issue outweigh the cons. Government should take some measures to broaden people’s awareness about economic growth.

It is argued that economic growth is sole cure for elimination of starving and needy, meanwhile others rest on opposing view and they contend it should be stopped for conservation of environment. I completely agree with second view due to global warming and deforestation. On the one hand, some individualities believe that economic growth had disadvantages. Firstly, overconsumption of fossil fuels for industrialization, causes global warming, after that the level of sea water has been escalating, so that it brings about plenty of people all around the globe become homeless. Secondly, for rise of economy, comprehensiveness is forced to plant many crops, which leads to deforestation. In addition, over-planting, causing soil erosion. On the other hand, there are countless example to support economic growth. A lot of people opine that if we increase financial benefit, people will provide basic necessities of their life. Researches conduct, surge of cash money helps people to afford requirements. Furthermore, livelihood of underdeveloped countries heavily depends on construction of corporations, factories and other careers for going up economic because the profits were made by this parts are responsible for economic growth for reduction of poverty. In conclusion, economic growth is not sustainable way to remove poverty and starving due to the fact that, this proposal brings destruction of environment. I think, government should take action to control the use of natural resources, while they pay attention to raise of financial affair.

Whilest a number of people assert that increasing in economic is the only solution to eliminate starving and poverty, others believe it will be demise the environment. There are rational arguments on both side of this continues topic which will be discussed in detail. On the one hand, there are reasoning that economy is the cornerstone of a flourishing nation and any development in this respect. That is to say, economy is believed the central of importance in aspect of our life. This is amply illustrated by the fact that it provides the poor with the wealth and economic growth in vital to rise employment. Moreover, another justification is that economic is the most important sole way for raising job opportunities, for example each individual in progress nation can affordable their needs. On the other hand, the opposing view say that making headway in economy cause damage to environment. The more compelling reason for their assertion is that when it comes to economic most specifically export we have to deteriorate forest’s trees and over exploitation. This in turn exclude various ecosystem and habitat. Take pollution is affected on the air , water and soil. Air is polluted by the emission co2 by car. For instance, using chemical by industries cause harmful to animal habitat. In other words, the economic growth has a bad effect on the nature life and consequently the earth. Finally, In my opinion, in Canada , it is impossible to see highly rate of poverty or hungry person without the required economic background. In contrast, economic would be important for environment. To conclude, there are valid arguments on the both side of the controversy, economic growth requires the inferred of the government to adress these issues

Many people believe that apply economic development is the most effective way to solve some problems about starvation and poverty. Other people suppose that because of economic development, the environment is radically destroyed and they must stop. This essay will illustrate obviously both views given above and give the recommendation which aspect is more beneficial from my perspective. On the one hand, the economic development which not only leads to an extreme increase in employment rate but also makes life better for people. For the most part, this is an absolutely strong connection between development’s economy and tackling starvation and poverty. The modernization and innovation in many aspects which is attributed to the fact that there is a radically drop in unemployment percentage. In addition, it also makes social standards for people's lives much higher. For example, in Vietnam, the alternation from hand-making to applying technology will create more careers for people, therefore they will receive better salaries. On the other hand, apply the rapid development of the economy, which will pose a serious threat to the quality of human life. If the government wants to invest to lift up the economic growth, they need to increase the number of productions in many aspects which actively lead to low quality of the environment. For instance, many huge factories in Vietnam also climb the productivity, they will discharge tons of smoke which is the main reason for air pollution and a greenhouse effect. In conclusion, there is no doubt about the necessity of developing an economy that solves starvation and poverty, but a fresh environment is definitely crucial for health. Therefore the combination of both of them will create a fulfilling life for people.

Many people believe that apply economic development is the most effective way to solve some problems about starvation and poverty. Other people suppose that because of economic development, the environment is radically destroyed and they must stop. This essay will illustrate obviously both views given above and give the recommendation which aspect is more beneficial from my perspective. On the one hand, the economic development which not only leads to an extreme increase in employment rate but also makes life better for people. For the most part, this is an absolutely strong connection between development’s economy and tackling starvation and poverty. The modernization and innovation in many aspects which is attributed to the fact that there is a radically drop in unemployment percentage. In addition, it also makes social standards for people's lives much higher. For example, in Vietnam, the alternation from hand-making to applying technology will create more careers for people, therefore they will receive better salaries. On the other hand, apply the rapid development of the economy, which will pose a serious threat to the quality of human life. If the government wants to invest to lift up the economic growth, they need to increase the number of productions in many aspects which actively lead to low quality of the environment. For instance, many huge factories in Vietnam also climb the productivity, they will discharge tons of smoke which is the main reason for air pollution and a greenhouse effect. In conclusion, there is no doubt about the necessity of developing an economy that solves starvation and poverty, but a fresh environment is definitely crucial for health. Therefore the combination of both of them will create a fulfilling life for people.

Improvement of the economy is considered the first issue for many countries. However, it is associated with two viewpoints; some people assume that economic development is the only way to end hunger and poverty. Other people believe that economic growth means the destruction of the environment that should be eased. However, I believe that the growth of the economy leads to environmental problems which will be debated in the following essay. On the one hand, stopping hunger and poverty not only is reliant on the growing economy but also political policy has a significant role in this issue. It means that, in many developing countries affording will provide the poor with the wealth for the necessities of life. In addition, the growth of the economy has a direct connection to trickling down the benefits equally from rich to poor. As an illustration, many developing countries that have many natural resources in comparison to modern communities that lack them, are facing inflation, class conflict, and preparation basic requirements. Then, economic growth cannot have any considerable role in stopping poverty and hunger and it needs more processing and condition to work as the best in this way. On the other hand, improving the economy has a direct connection with environmental destruction. It is obvious that agriculture and industrialization are two basic ways to prepare human needs and improve communities. Farming and crop production depend on chemical materials from pesticides to fertilizers that are undeniable contamination sources of soil, air, and groundwater. Besides, the constant use of fossil fuels which provide the energy for growing industrialization is considered the main reason for global warming and greenhouse effects. What I mean is that improvement in the economy is associated with a rise in sea levels and the extinction of many creatures on Earth. To sum up, if economic growth is not programmed based on meeting human needs and then generating profits, its disadvantages will be a priority rather than advantages including environmental pollution.