However, the main argument against prioritizing the environment is that it increases the quality of life for members of society. However, this fails to take into account the negative effects of environmental degradation and climate change on the poor. According to UNICEF, air and water pollution causes disease for people who cannot afford to move to less polluted areas, and resource depletion destroys livelihoods. UNICEF also suggests that climate change will be a major cause of rising food prices due to reduced yields, which will have a greater adverse impact on the poor, widening the gap between rich and poor. However, prioritizing the economy will not improve people's health by increasing air, soil, and ocean pollution. It will also reduce biodiversity, making the planet less self-reliant.
Not prioritizing the economy doesn't mean the economy will regress, it just means we'll have to put more effort into preserving the environment. According to CEO Magazine, investing in energy transition technologies creates three times as many jobs as nuclear power, so current jobs will be maintained. In addition, jobs will grow as we preserve the environment.
The main argument for putting the economy first is the growing number of unemployed people.
답글삭제(But your refutation is about the disadvantages for the poor. Please state the correct counterargument. "However, the main argument against prioritizing the environment is that it is unaffordable for the poor. " Then you can add a brief explanation of their counterargument.)
But they fail to consider the weight of environmental degradation and climate change on poor people. Air and water pollution causes disease in people who can't afford to move to less polluted neighborhoods, and resource depletion destroys livelihoods. Furthermore, climate change will be a major contributor to rising food prices due to reduced yields, which will have a greater adverse impact on the poor, widening the gap between rich and poor
(You need evidence to support your refutation!)
Not prioritizing the economy will not cause unemployment.
(Is this the counterargument to your thesis? Then you must present it as such. "However, critics of environmental protection over economical development say..." However, is this a legitimate counterargument? Why would critics of environmental protection over economic development say this? Can you explain this?)
Not prioritizing the economy will not cause the economy to degenerate, but will put more effort into preserving the environment. Therefore, current jobs will remain. It is also possible that jobs will increase in the process of preserving the environment.
(There is no evidence to support your refutation.)