Some industrialized countries have serious environmental problems. The damage to the environment is an inevitable result when a country tends to improve the standard of living. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Currently, a great number of countries have pushed forward their economies by developing national industries. However, some people are worried that the economic targets in industrialized countries may be attained at the expense of the ecosystems. From my perspective, I think flourishing economies can go hand in hand with environmental preservation.
Admittedly, some countries may place economic developments ahead of environmental protection, thus ruining the local environments. As these needy countries lack adequate financial and human resources, advanced technologies and experience, they have to rely on natural resources to maintain their living standards. Besides, people in the poverty-stricken areas are not likely to be equipped with knowledge to preserve the ecosystems. As a result, unchecked and reckless uses of the local raw materials may happen, which can put a strain on the natural resources. In this view, the economic development and environmental protection can be conflicting.
However, I believe the booming economy can be closely linked to the preservation of the environment. With people raising their awareness of the green economy, the products free of pollutants are increasingly prevalent among clients, which means eco-friendly businesses can make a favourable impression on customers today, triggering sales. For example, electronic bicycles powered by clean energy resources have been well received among people in recent years.
Furthermore, taking environmental consequences seriously can enhance working efficiencies. If a firm is environmentally conscious, it may have to make optimal use of its resources to improve its production lines and equipment, which can boost productivity. Therefore, it may spur its economic development. On the other hand, without the requirement of environmental preservation, the firm would still consume a vast amount of energy which constitutes a large part of its operational costs, being a hurdle to the economic develpment.
Therefore, I would conclude that thriving economies and the preservation of ecosystems can be promoted simultaneously. On the other hand, I suppose the developed countries should support the underdeveloped areas by providing financial resources, technologies and experience so that the environmental problems can be effectively alleviated in these areas.
You write well Jennifer, your writing frame is correctly structured and your work has a good flow of arguments.
Roger Bishop
Thanks you! Nice to see you again:)
I read "writing acadamic English" and it said that the concluding paragraph could include suggesting a solution or making a recommendation. [I suppose the developed countries should support the underdeveloped areas by providing financial resources, technologies and experience so that the environmental problems can be effectively alleviated in these areas.] here, I wanted to sugget a solution.
I feel a little confused now... Could you tell me if it's ok to suggest a solution in the concluding paragraph?
Hi Jennifer.
You are correct; you can make a recommendation as a component of your conclusion in addition to the summary off the main arguments and leaving your readers with a question to think about. When I reviewed your writing your " I suppose that " may be interpreted as providing a new argument. Keeping in mind that your argument is that there can be a balance achieved between development and environment may I recommend a slightly different wording within the framework of your conclusion such as "to achieve this balance between economic development and environmental protection it appears that second world developing economies may require assistance from first world countries in the forms of financial technical assistance in resolving this issue."
This takes the "I"out of it and puts it at arm's length. In academic writing we attempt to stay away for "I" through the use of the third person "the writer". There is a bit of a debate about the use of first or third person and it's your teachers call, but I ask my classes to write in the third person. Sorry, I did not mean to confuse you. As an observation and comment I congratulate you on your second language writing skills.
Roger Bishop
Hi, Roger! I understand now..Thanks so much:)
Currently, a great number of countries have pushed forward their economies by
I try to avoid using this form, because technically the "number" is singular, so it should be:
Currently, a great number of countries has...----But this way, it looks stupid!
So I like to do this:
Currently, many countries have pushed forward their economies by...
:-)
EF_Kevin
Thanks,Kevin:) I want to ask you a grammar question here. The two sentences are as follows.
1、Thus, a great number of people firmly believe that we will keep up this upward trend, achievingand achieve higher goals in the next 90 years
2、Without a guideline on protecting the environment,the firm would still consume a vast amount of energy which constitutes a large part of its operational costs, beingwhich would become a hurdle to the economic development.
In both sentences,I want to use"ing"to express the results of the former sentence. For example, I mean higher goals are the result of keeping the upward trend.Could you tell me why it's not proper to use "ing"in the two sentences.
Thank you!
Jennifer
Great question!!
1、Thus, a great number of people firmly believe we will keep up this upward trend and achieve higher goals in the next 90 years.---I even took out the word "that" to improve the sentence.
2、Without a guideline on protecting the environment, the firm would still consume a vast amount of energy, which constitutes a large part of its operational costs and become a hurdle to economic development.
Both of the above are correct.
To use ing, do this:
1、Thus, a great number of people firmly believe that we will keep up this upward trend, achieving higher goals in the next 90 years.
2、Without a guideline on protecting the environment, the firm would still consume a vast amount of energy, becoming a hurdle to the economic development.
In both sentences, I want to use"ing"to express the results of the former sentence, demonstrating an eloquent way to add meaning to a sentence.
