Such an awful debate topic. It's too skewed to one side. Just mention environment is like long term investment. It produce so many item for use at low price (benefit). Broken environment = increase in cost = decrease in profit. High economy with destroyed environment= bad investation with low return.
what a boring topic feel like lazybum who made it oh wait it just one aspect and really good on developing country which most politician not care about long term thing for your strong point you can just emphasis low output is based on comparison with totally heavy industry country tbh it already destroy reason highoutput thing with bad environment also low economy is just on beginning, as long as infrastructure education public policy On good state and enforcement economy output will grow you can also search rich country become poor There country which one time quite high economy output but after environmet destroyed become por mainly country based on mining on past
All the people from the high economy/ bad environment countries will run away seasonally to your low economy/ good environment country and inject some sweet cash on overpriced local bio food and handmade trinkets for souvenirs. The rich will buy villas and retire there, chefs will open luxury restaurants there... You'll get investments for infrastructure and hotels and villas for the tourists and employ locals. You've got clean air, clean water, clean food - basically all the things people living in bad environment would gladly pay for. I mean, take a look at this - > https://thehustle.co/the-dystopian-business-of-bottled-air/ You only need to keep the country at peace and promote it well. In the end, where do you put your priority? Your longterm health, or being able to buy Dior at your local Mall.
These topics are so general though. IS there a specific thesis for either side of the debates. Like define what the standard for measure is for a low or high economy. Once you have your scale, then we can proceed with preserving or destroying the environment. Because you can debate why having a low economy is good at preserving certain places or destroying it as well. The same can be said with a high economy. ---------------------------------------------------> I can hypothesize that High economic countries don't destroy their local environment because they outsource their production in other countries. I can also lead with Low economic countries don't save the environment, they actually destroy the environment because they do not have the technology to preserve it like their counterparts. To effectively debate, isolate and break down possible topics. But you will make people cry in the process
I think you should argue that one must not relate economy and environment. If one country is too dependent on environment to fuel their economy, they would have peaks but every mountain have slopes. What each country should thrive for is balance, resilience, and alternative to maintain citizens' health and fulfill higher quality of life.