Introduction
The escalating severity of climate change and environmental degradation has made it clear that the planet cannot sustain the carbon-intensive development pathways that industrialised nations followed in previous centuries. Developing countries, which are home to the majority of the world's population and often the most vulnerable to environmental catastrophe, have a compelling interest in pursuing sustainable growth models that protect their own ecosystems and people. This essay argues that developing countries should indeed be expected to prioritise environmental protection, though with substantial support from wealthier nations, because the cost of environmental destruction ultimately dwarfs the short-term gains of unchecked economic growth.
Environmental degradation disproportionately harms developing countries themselves, making environmental protection an essential component of sustainable economic growth.
Explain
Developing countries are often the most vulnerable to the consequences of environmental destruction, including extreme weather events, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. Pursuing economic growth at the expense of environmental protection creates a self-defeating cycle in which short-term gains are wiped out by long-term ecological damage. For developing nations, environmental sustainability is not a luxury but a precondition for the stable economic foundations on which lasting prosperity must be built.
Example
Bangladesh, one of the world's most climate-vulnerable nations, suffers annual flood damage costing approximately $2.2 billion, equivalent to roughly 2% of its GDP, with the World Bank projecting that climate change could push an additional 13.3 million Bangladeshis into poverty by 2050. In sub-Saharan Africa, land degradation affects 65% of arable land, costing the region an estimated $68 billion annually in lost agricultural productivity, according to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. These losses vastly exceed the short-term economic benefits of environmentally destructive practices, demonstrating that growth without environmental protection is ultimately no growth at all.
Link
This confirms that developing countries should prioritise environmental protection, as the economic costs of environmental degradation to their own populations are far greater than the costs of sustainable development, making environmental stewardship a matter of economic survival rather than sacrifice.
Advances in green technology now make it possible for developing countries to pursue economic growth through sustainable pathways without replicating the polluting industrialisation of the past.
Explain
The false dichotomy between economic growth and environmental protection has been rendered obsolete by dramatic advances in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green infrastructure. Developing countries today have access to technologies that simply did not exist when industrialised nations were building their economies, enabling them to leapfrog carbon-intensive stages of development entirely. The declining cost of solar, wind, and battery storage makes clean energy competitive with, and often cheaper than, fossil fuels in most developing regions.
Example
India's National Solar Mission has made the country the world's third-largest solar energy producer, with installed capacity reaching over 73 gigawatts by 2023 and solar tariffs falling to as low as $0.02 per kilowatt-hour, making solar power cheaper than coal-fired electricity. Kenya generates over 90% of its electricity from renewable sources, primarily geothermal and hydroelectric, demonstrating that developing nations can power economic growth without fossil fuel dependency. Singapore, though a small and resource-scarce city-state, has pursued green technology innovation through its Green Plan 2030, deploying one of the world's largest floating solar farms at Tengeh Reservoir with a capacity of 60 megawatt-peak, sufficient to power the island's five water treatment plants.
Link
This demonstrates that developing countries can and should embrace environmental protection, as the availability of affordable green technology means that sustainable growth is no longer a sacrifice but an opportunity to build more resilient and competitive economies.
International climate finance mechanisms and technology transfer agreements exist specifically to ensure that environmental protection does not require developing countries to bear disproportionate economic costs.
Explain
The global climate framework explicitly recognises the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, providing financial and technological support to help developing nations pursue green growth. Institutions such as the Green Climate Fund, multilateral development banks, and bilateral aid programmes channel billions of dollars annually toward sustainable development in the Global South. These mechanisms mean that the expectation of environmental protection need not entail a sacrifice of growth, as the international community has committed to shouldering a significant share of the costs.
Example
The Green Climate Fund, established under the UNFCCC in 2010, has approved over $12.8 billion in funding for 228 projects across developing countries as of 2024, supporting initiatives ranging from renewable energy deployment in Pacific Island states to climate-resilient agriculture in Ethiopia. At COP29 in Baku in 2024, developed nations pledged to triple climate finance to developing countries to $300 billion annually by 2035. Singapore itself, despite being a developed nation, has established the Singapore Cooperation Programme, which shares its expertise in water management, including NEWater technology and desalination, with developing countries across Southeast Asia and Africa.
Link
This supports the expectation that developing countries should pursue environmental protection, as the existence of substantial international financial and technological support mechanisms ensures that the economic burden of green development is shared rather than imposed unilaterally on the developing world.
Counter-Argument
Opponents argue that developing countries bear the least historical responsibility for climate change, with the entire African continent contributing less than 4% of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 despite housing over 1.4 billion people, and that over 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa still lack access to electricity. They contend that expecting environmental sacrifices from nations where 685 million people live in extreme poverty amounts to climate colonialism.
Rebuttal
However, this argument fails to recognise that developing countries are themselves the primary victims of environmental degradation and therefore have the most to gain from sustainable development. Bangladesh suffers annual flood damage costing approximately $2.2 billion, equivalent to 2% of GDP, while land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa costs $68 billion annually in lost agricultural productivity. The false dichotomy between growth and environmental protection has been rendered obsolete by technological advances: India's solar tariffs have fallen to $0.02 per kilowatt-hour, making solar power cheaper than coal, and Kenya generates over 90% of its electricity from renewables. International climate finance mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund, which has approved over $12.8 billion for developing country projects, ensure that the costs of sustainable development are shared rather than imposed unilaterally.
Conclusion
In conclusion, developing countries should be expected to integrate robust environmental protection into their growth strategies, not as a sacrifice but as a necessary condition for durable prosperity. The devastating consequences of environmental degradation, from flooding to crop failure to public health crises, fall disproportionately on the developing world, making green growth an act of enlightened self-interest. With adequate international support, technology transfer, and climate finance, sustainable development is not only achievable but imperative for the survival and flourishing of the world's most vulnerable populations.
Introduction
Expecting developing countries to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection is a deeply inequitable proposition that ignores both historical responsibility and present-day realities of poverty. The industrialised nations of the West built their wealth through centuries of unrestrained carbon emissions and resource extraction, and now asking developing nations to bear the cost of a crisis they did not create is a form of climate colonialism. This essay argues that developing countries should not be expected to sacrifice growth for environmental protection, as doing so would perpetuate global inequality and deny billions of people the prosperity that developed nations take for granted.
Developed nations bear the overwhelming historical responsibility for climate change and should not impose environmental constraints on countries that contributed least to the crisis.
Explain
The current climate crisis is the cumulative result of over two centuries of industrialisation driven primarily by Europe, North America, and other developed regions. Developing countries have contributed a fraction of the total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, yet they are being asked to constrain their growth to solve a problem they did not create. This expectation violates basic principles of equity and justice, as it effectively punishes the world's poorest nations for the excesses of the world's richest.
Example
The United States and the European Union are collectively responsible for approximately 45% of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850, while the entire African continent has contributed less than 4%, despite being home to over 1.4 billion people. India, with a population of 1.4 billion, has a per-capita annual emission of approximately 2.0 tonnes of CO2, compared to the United States' 14.4 tonnes and Australia's 15.0 tonnes. At the COP27 summit in Sharm El-Sheikh in 2022, developing nations successfully pushed for a Loss and Damage Fund precisely to address this inequity, arguing that those most responsible for the crisis should compensate those who have suffered most from its consequences.
Link
This powerfully illustrates why developing countries should not be expected to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection, as the moral burden of addressing a crisis caused predominantly by wealthy nations should not fall on those who have benefited least from the industrial activities that created it.
Hundreds of millions of people in developing countries still lack access to basic necessities, and economic growth is the most effective pathway to alleviating this suffering.
Explain
Environmental protection, while important, cannot take precedence over the immediate survival needs of populations living in extreme poverty. Access to reliable energy, clean water, healthcare, and education requires economic growth, and imposing environmental constraints that slow development condemns millions to continued deprivation. The moral urgency of lifting people out of poverty is at least as great as the imperative to reduce emissions, and developing nations have a sovereign right to prioritise the welfare of their citizens.
Example
As of 2023, approximately 685 million people globally lived in extreme poverty on less than $2.15 per day, with the vast majority concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, according to the World Bank. In sub-Saharan Africa, over 600 million people still lack access to electricity, relying on kerosene lamps and biomass fuels that are both unhealthy and inefficient. When the Indian government expanded coal power capacity to bring electricity to 100 million previously unelectrified households between 2017 and 2019 under the Saubhagya scheme, it faced international criticism for increasing emissions, yet the transformation in quality of life for those households, including access to lighting, refrigeration, and digital connectivity, represented a profound humanitarian achievement.
Link
This demonstrates that developing countries should not be expected to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection, as the imperative to meet the basic needs of hundreds of millions of people living in deprivation must take moral priority over emissions targets set predominantly by nations whose own populations already enjoy prosperity.
Developed nations have consistently failed to honour their own climate finance and emissions reduction commitments, making it hypocritical to demand environmental sacrifices from developing countries.
Explain
The credibility of expecting developing countries to sacrifice growth for environmental protection depends on developed nations fulfilling their own obligations. Yet wealthy nations have repeatedly broken climate finance pledges and failed to meet their own emissions targets, undermining the trust and reciprocity on which international climate cooperation depends. Demanding sacrifice from the developing world while failing to lead by example is not a principled stance but an exercise in double standards.
Example
At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, developed nations pledged to mobilise $100 billion per year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, a target that was not met until 2023, three years late, according to the OECD. Meanwhile, many developed nations have failed to meet their own Paris Agreement commitments: Australia's emissions rose in multiple years following its ratification, and Canada's emissions in 2022 remained 7% above its 2005 baseline despite its commitment to a 40% reduction by 2030. Singapore, though a relatively small emitter, has consistently met its climate commitments, implementing a carbon tax of $5 per tonne in 2019 and progressively raising it to $25 per tonne in 2024, with plans to reach $50-80 per tonne by 2030, setting an example of reliability that many larger developed nations have failed to match.
Link
This confirms that it is unjust to expect developing countries to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection when developed nations have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to bear their own fair share of the burden, revealing the expectation to be less about environmental principle than about preserving an inequitable global economic order.
Counter-Argument
Proponents argue that developing countries suffer most from environmental degradation, with the World Bank projecting that climate change could push 13.3 million Bangladeshis into poverty by 2050, and that green technology now makes sustainable development economically viable. They point to the Green Climate Fund's $12.8 billion in approved projects and India's solar revolution as evidence that environmental protection need not require sacrificing growth.
Rebuttal
Yet this optimistic framing obscures the reality that international climate finance commitments have been consistently broken by developed nations, undermining the trust on which such cooperation depends. The $100 billion annual pledge made at Copenhagen in 2009 was not met until 2023, three years late, while many developed nations have failed to meet their own Paris Agreement targets, with Canada's 2022 emissions remaining 7% above its 2005 baseline. India's expansion of coal power to electrify 100 million previously unconnected households between 2017 and 2019 was an extraordinary humanitarian achievement that the developing world cannot be expected to forgo while wealthy nations with per-capita emissions of 14.4 tonnes (United States) and 15.0 tonnes (Australia) continue to far exceed developing nations' 2.0 tonnes. The moral burden of addressing a crisis caused predominantly by wealthy nations must be distributed according to historical culpability and present capacity, not imposed on those least able to bear it.
Conclusion
Ultimately, it is unjust and impractical to expect developing countries to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection without first addressing the structural inequalities of the global economic order. Developed nations must lead by example through aggressive domestic emissions reductions and honour their financial commitments to the developing world before demanding equivalent sacrifices. Environmental protection is a shared global responsibility, and its costs must be distributed according to historical culpability and present capacity, not imposed uniformly on those least able to bear them.