Underdeveloped remote areas option found degradation of natural environmental and developed area found adaptive mitigation measures for environmental protection. So which is the strong one towards protection of natural environment?
Lots of website talk about this vital subject such as this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature) and (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/ecological_balance/)
the development must be planned without affecting the natural environment. but, in most cases we are happy to show the growth rate of a country rather the management of natural resources. so, we cannot assure that development brings balance on natural environment.
Now our government has implemented lot of restriction to the new developments to avoid the damage to the nature. Everyone should follow the rules for their development may be industrial or domestic, the waste discharges should be treated before releasing in the river or canal. Really we are spoiling in high speed, many biological organisms are disappearing due to development in the hill or forest area. Even government treatment plants are not functioning properly. But we can not stop the growth, where it will end, very difficult to answer.
Dear friend
Development and natural environment are the different issues having different dimensions. When development take place definitely it is at the cost of environment. But the question is upto what extent threshold limit for going further development. Again it depend how much can put the glob on risk. However, there are means and ways to keep nature intact by putting extra efforts, We to create clear cut guidelines for every body on the globe follow strictly while taking developmental activities. There are lot of literature available addressing these issues in detail.
thanks
Thank you for your input. Lacking of development actions in remote areas; we can also examine the deteriorate environment. As you say it depends threshold limits and risk. However the development action oriented areas global practices are to implement lots of mitigation measures. Thus it can be assume that the development actions also balance the environmental degradation towards protection of natural environment.
The answer to your question requires valid comparable assessments of both environmental quality and developmental progress. Unfortunately selected indicators of sustainable development, measured in different units of measurement, do not meet this requirement. For now at least, it appears that environmentally modified national account aggregates can at least assess the (non)sustainability of economic growth. See, e.g. my books on Quantitative Eco–nomics and Sustainability Economics.
No because...
We have already wasted and destroyed vast amounts of natural resources, and in so doing have put earth at risk. We must preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. In any case, poverty and environmental damage are often linked. Destroying the rainforest gives native peoples nowhere to go except urban slums. Polluted water can lead to crop failures. Climate change will turn fertile fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live. Developing countries have to choose sustainable development if they want a future for their people.
http://debatewise.org/debates/2918-economic-development-vs-the-environment/
- Badges
- Science topic