Some people believe that economic growth is the only way to end poverty and hunger in the world, while others say that economic growth is causing damage to the environment and should be stopped. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Economic growth has long been debated as either a universal solution to global deprivation or an environmental threat that must be halted.
Those who view economic growth as the sole weapon against poverty and hunger have valid grounds. Sustained economic expansion creates formal jobs, raises household incomes, and allows governments to allocate more funding to social welfare: for example, China’s rapid GDP growth over the past four decades lifted over 800 million rural residents out of extreme poverty, and enabled nationwide subsidised food programmes that eliminated widespread hunger. Growth also drives technological progress in agriculture, such as high-yield crop varieties, that boost food supply and reduce famine risk in low-income regions.
On the other side, critics correctly note that unregulated conventional growth often inflicts irreversible environmental harm. Industrial expansion driven by fossil fuels, for instance, has raised global carbon emissions, worsening climate change that destroys farmland, triggers droughts, and ultimately threatens food security for vulnerable populations. Deforestation for mining or factory construction also erodes biodiversity and disrupts local ecosystems, leaving poor communities more exposed to natural disasters.
In my opinion, neither abandoning growth nor treating it as the only solution is reasonable. Instead, inclusive, sustainable growth is the right path: targeted policies can ensure the proceeds of growth fund anti-poverty programmes, while green regulations (such as carbon pricing and investment in renewable energy) prevent environmental damage. For example, Costa Rica combined steady tourism-led economic growth with reforestation policies, cutting poverty rates by 20% since 1990 while restoring over 50% of its forest cover.