Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position

Rural area with good vegetation are becoming point of attraction for people of city. People from industrially developed regions are spending hundreds of dollars to have the tranquil environment and fresh natural breeze. Why not? Developed cities are getting richer by chopping the wilderness areas in their provinces for economic development. Hence, nations should employ the law to save any remaining wilderness area in states.

Pollution is one of the most critical issues world is fighting with and Urban areas are most affected by it. By implementing the wilderness areas preservation law in cities help reduce the pollution. As well as, having trees can help in observing pollution and producing filtered air to the population of the provinces. Industries are also responsible of numbers of disease such as allergies due to smoke, dermatologist issue. These disease can be controlled by increasing wilderness area. Residue and smoke from industries contaminate water, air and environment and residues of trees and plants become fertilizer and make soil more productive. The benefit of saving greenery would save millions. Which otherwise have to be spend to combat the problem due to lack of green areas.

These wilderness are home for myriad creatures such as birds, reptile, raccoon etc. Which in return help maintain the life cycle and our environment. Birds and reptiles feed on mosquitoes and poisonous flies, which are the reason of unprecedented diseases sometimes. Recently world has fought with Ebola epidemic and lost infinite numbers of lives due to lack of treatment for the problem. Industrialization would influx the monetary gain simultaneously increase intractable problems. Seemingly, Growth cannot be pronounced development, when one expansion produce costly issues and Income of growth eventually be used to tackle self – generated problem. Therefore, I concur saving green belts is less costly than finding a medication of any life threatening disease.

Global warming is effecting glaciers, season cycle and aesthetic beauty of earth. The cause of these issues is less green area then required. Season imbalance has effected California farming drastically in year 2015. Dearth of rain in the region has inflated the prices of vegetable and fruits (basic need). This situation effectively create inflation. One cannot survive on multivitamins (invented by conventional scientist) as supplement for food. Thirst of economic development and its gain has eaten up the natural area to the level wherein water bodies are used for development. Singapore has proposed to construct commercial area under sea by drawing water back due to the lack of available land. Globe is encountering environmental problem due to their misuse of natural resource most specifically trees. Therefore, it seems more plausible to take the steps toward sowing one tree every day to save the world.

Undoubtedly, consequences of choosing to save wilderness over economic development cannot be ignored. Provinces would lose business, which will effect employment rate and income of the people. Government will lose big chunk of taxes and it might affect the other developing zone in the state. However, if business tycoons, citizen and government are not getting financial benefit; they are saving from not inviting disease and epidemic, in absence of these problem no medication or treatment is required. Farming will not be worsening than today in return world won’t face inflation. Despite this non-monetary benefits, Government can maintain the wilderness area in a way which could generate some income for government.

In summation, I concur that “Cost of nurturing a tree is less than effacing a tree”. Hence government should preserve the wilderness area in area over economic development to avoid the unmanageable problems.