The statement reflects a powerful argument often heard in debates about development: wealthy nations polluted freely while industrialising, so it seems unfair to demand that poorer countries sacrifice growth for environmental goals. I sympathise with the concern for fairness, but I disagree with the conclusion. Treating growth and environmental protection as sequential priorities misunderstands how environmental damage affects the poor, and it ignores the opportunities that cleaner development now offers.

The case for prioritising growth deserves serious consideration. Millions of people still lack reliable electricity, clean water and adequate healthcare, and economic growth has historically been the most effective way to reduce extreme poverty. China's rapid industrialisation, despite severe pollution, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty within a few decades. For a family without electricity, a coal-fired power station may seem a far more urgent priority than distant global emissions targets.

Yet the assumption that environmental harm can be repaired later is dangerous. The poor are usually the first and most severely affected by environmental damage, because they live closest to polluted rivers, depend directly on farming and fishing, and have the fewest resources to adapt. In Bangladesh, river pollution from industrial zones has damaged fisheries that rural households rely on for food and income, and air pollution in large cities is linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. Damage of this kind undermines the very standard of living that growth is supposed to deliver.

Moreover, some forms of environmental damage are effectively irreversible. Destroyed mangrove forests, depleted groundwater and lost species cannot simply be restored once a country becomes wealthier. The Sundarbans, for instance, protect millions of people from cyclones; sacrificing them for short-term industrial gain would be a costly mistake for any level of development.

Finally, the choice is less stark than it once was. Solar power has become one of the cheapest sources of new electricity in many countries, and Bangladesh has installed millions of household solar systems that bring power to villages beyond the grid. Developing countries can therefore pursue growth through cleaner technologies, ideally supported by finance from wealthier nations that bear greater historical responsibility for pollution.

In conclusion, developing countries are right to insist on growth, but they should pursue it alongside environmental protection, not before it. Postponing protection would place the heaviest costs on the very citizens the policy aims to help. Growth that destroys the environment is not genuine progress.

I disagree that developing countries should focus only on economic growth before protecting the environment, although I understand why some people think this.

It is true that economic growth is very important for poor countries. People need jobs, electricity and hospitals, and factories can provide many of these things. Rich countries also polluted a lot when they were developing, so it seems unfair to stop poor countries now.

However, pollution often harms poor people the most. For example, polluted rivers can destroy fishing, and dirty air can cause diseases, which makes people poorer. Some damage, like cutting down forests, is also very hard to fix later.

In addition, clean energy like solar power is becoming cheaper, so countries can grow without causing as much pollution.

In conclusion, developing countries should try to achieve economic growth and environmental protection at the same time. Rich countries should also help by sharing technology and money, because they caused most of the pollution in the past.

I agree that developing countries should first make the economy strong.

Poor people need money and food more than clean environment. When the country is rich then it can clean the environment.

Rich countries also did pollution before so it is fair.

So economic growth is more important first. Environment is important but money is first. People cannot eat clean air.