IELTS Writing Task 2: Environment vs. Economic Growth (Band 9 Samples)
Topic: Some people believe that protecting the environment should be a top priority for governments. Others think that economic growth is more important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
1. The “Discuss Both Views” Strategy
To achieve a Band 9 on this specific task type, you must:
- Analyze both sides equally: Do not simply dismiss the side you disagree with. You must explain why people hold that view (the rationale).
- State your position clearly throughout: Don’t wait until the conclusion. Your opinion should be evident in the introduction and effectively woven into the body paragraphs.
- Use “Contrast” transitions: Words like conversely, on the other hand, whereas, and while are essential here.
Advertisement
Sample Essay 1: The Environmental Imperative
This essay acknowledges economic needs but argues that environmental damage is irreversible and therefore takes precedence.
The Essay
The tension between environmental conservation and economic development is a defining debate of our era. While proponents of economic growth argue that financial prosperity is the foundation of a stable society, others contend that ecological preservation must be the supreme priority. In my view, while economic stability is vital, environmental protection must take precedence, as the long-term cost of ecological collapse far outweighs short-term fiscal gains.
Those who prioritize economic growth typically argue from a standpoint of immediate human necessity. A robust economy is essential for funding public infrastructure, healthcare, and education. In developing nations, for instance, rapid industrialization is often the only viable path out of poverty. Without a thriving economy, governments lack the tax revenue required to improve living standards or even invest in green technologies. Therefore, supporters suggest that pausing growth for the sake of the environment is a luxury that many nations cannot afford.
However, advocates for environmental protection argue that the economy is a subsystem of the global ecosystem; without the latter, the former cannot exist. Climate change, deforestation, and resource depletion pose existential threats that money cannot solve once tipping points are reached. For example, if agricultural lands are rendered barren by climate volatility, no amount of economic policy can prevent food insecurity. I agree with this perspective because environmental damage is often irreversible. Once a species is extinct or an aquifer depleted, they cannot be recovered, rendering economic discussions moot.
In conclusion, while economic growth facilitates social welfare, it must not be pursued at the expense of the planet. I firmly believe that governments must prioritize the environment, as a healthy biosphere is the fundamental prerequisite for any sustained economic activity.
Examiner’s Analysis
- Task Response: The writer discusses the “Economy” side fairly (poverty alleviation) but effectively counters it.
- Vocabulary: Ecological collapse, fiscal gains, immediate human necessity, viable path, tipping points, existential threats, biosphere.
- Cohesion: The transition “However, advocates…” signals the shift in perspective clearly.
Advertisement
Sample Essay 2: The Pragmatic Economic Approach
This essay argues that we need money to fix the planet. It views the economy as the engine that drives conservation.
The Essay
Governments today face the difficult task of balancing fiscal expansion with ecological stewardship. Some argue that the environment demands immediate, uncompromising attention, while others maintain that economic growth is the superior goal. My own perspective leans toward the latter, with the caveat that economic power should be harnessed to fund the transition to sustainability.
On the one hand, the argument for prioritization of the environment is rooted in the urgency of the climate crisis. Environmentalists rightly point out that unchecked industrial activity leads to pollution and habitat destruction, compromising human health. If governments focus solely on GDP, they risk creating a wealthy society that inhabits an unlivable world. This view emphasizes that clean air and water are basic human rights that should never be traded for profit.
On the other hand, prioritizing economic growth is arguably the more practical approach to solving environmental problems. Environmental protection is an expensive endeavor requiring massive investment in renewable energy grids, waste management systems, and research. Wealthy nations, such as Norway or Switzerland, are typically the cleanest precisely because their strong economies allow them to subsidize green initiatives. I support this view because stagnation often leads to dirtier, cheaper energy usage by a desperate population. A strong economy provides the capital necessary to innovate our way out of the climate crisis.
In conclusion, while the environment is critical, I believe that prioritizing economic growth is the most logical strategy. By securing financial robustness, governments acquire the agency and resources needed to implement meaningful, high-tech environmental solutions.
Examiner’s Analysis
- Task Response: Effectively argues the “unpopular” side by framing the economy as the solution rather than the enemy.
- Vocabulary: Ecological stewardship, uncompromising attention, habitat destruction, subside green initiatives, financial robustness.
- Grammar: Uses complex referencing (“This view emphasizes…”, “the latter”).
Advertisement
Sample Essay 3: The “False Dichotomy” (Synthesis)
A Band 9 essay can also reject the binary choice, arguing that “Green Growth” is the only path. This is a sophisticated approach.
The Essay
It is frequently asserted that governments must choose between two mutually exclusive paths: environmental protection or economic growth. While some prioritize the preservation of nature and others the expansion of wealth, I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. In the modern world, the two are inextricably linked; long-term economic success is impossible without environmental sustainability.
Admittedly, the traditional view holds that environmental regulations stifle economic productivity. Industries often claim that strict emissions targets or protected land statuses increase operational costs and reduce competitiveness. From this perspective, prioritizing the economy means deregulation to maximize output and employment. This logic was prevalent during the Industrial Revolution, where resource extraction was viewed as limitless and cost-free.
Conversely, environmentalists argue that the planet has finite limits. Prioritizing the environment involves limiting consumption and shifting towards conservation, even if it slows GDP growth. However, my opinion aligns with the concept of “sustainable development.” We need not choose one over the other. The “Green Economy” sector—encompassing solar power, electric vehicles, and sustainable agriculture—is currently one of the fastest-growing economic drivers globally. By investing in the environment, governments actually stimulate innovation and create high-quality jobs.
In summary, debating which should be the “top” priority is counterproductive. I believe that integrating environmental policy into economic policy is the only way forward. Governments should view the environment not as a barrier to growth, but as the resource base upon which all future prosperity depends.
Examiner’s Analysis
- Task Response: This essay scores highly by challenging the premise of the question (that we must choose one).
- Vocabulary: Mutually exclusive, false dichotomy, inextricably linked, stifle economic productivity, deregulation, finite limits.
- Grammar: Perfect use of modal verbs (“need not choose”) and participle clauses (“encompassing solar power…”).
Advertisement
Vocabulary Checklist for this Topic
To boost your score, try to swap common words for these topic-specific alternatives:
| Common Word | Band 9 Alternative |
| Important | Paramount, imperative, prerequisite |
| Damage | Degradation, depletion, deterioration |
| Rich countries | Affluent nations, developed economies |
| Fix the problem | Mitigate the damage, alleviate the crisis |
| Connected | Intertwined, interdependent, intrinsic |
| Use (resources) | Exploit, consume, deplete |
Pro Tips for Task 2 “Discussion”
- Don’t sit on the fence: You can have a balanced view, but you must clearly state what you think. Don’t just say “both are good.” Explain how they relate.
- Paragraph Structure:
- Introduction: Hook + Paraphrase Topic + Thesis Statement (Your Opinion).
- Body 1: The side you disagree with (or agree with less). Explain it well, but perhaps offer a slight rebuttal at the end.
- Body 2: The side you agree with. Explain it fully and show why it is stronger.
- Conclusion: Summary of main points + Restatement of Opinion.