I am not a native speaker of English, but, hopefully, my correction will help you a little:
Should rich countries pay more for environmental damage than poor countries?
According to scientific research and more practically what in our own experience for more than a decade, our Earth has been is extremely damaged due to unconscious activities of, ironically, ours. The increasing number of calamities caused by man's harmful activity on the Earth, casualties, and and of those whose health is agonizingly affected by harmful pollution substantiates the claim makes us realize that it is we who have to be responsible for the currently current environmental crisis. However, who should take more responsibility, the developed countries or the poor ones, is still under question. In my opinion, though both have to pay for environmental damage, it should be is the developing developed nations such as USA, China and Russia who should take the larger burden.
First of all, - here you should give the first reason to support your idea expressed in the last sentence of the previous paragraph - there are two primary sources of waste: daily activities and industrial zones. Trash and exhaust released from cars and motorcycles contaminate our air and make it more dangerous for us to breathe. The number of patients suffering respiratory and lung diseases which stem from poisonous atmosphere shoots up and shows no sign of abating. In addition, carbon dioxide and CFC, the substance used in refrigerators, are responsible for the Green House and our poisoned atmosphere. In view of the effect of industrialization, every year, firms release hundreds of tons of waste and noxious chemicals into air, rivers and seas, killing marine creatures, putting others in danger and harming humans’ health. When it is obviously the duty of both developed and developing countries to deal with the consequences of daily activities, the rich such as Russia, China and USA have to take on the burden of resolving problems that industrialized factories pose because industrial activities executed by such countries are on the bigger scale than those by developing ones.
Secondly, - here you should give another reason to support your idea expressed in the end of the first paragraph- has our technology and industrialization keep moving forward, environment, particularly natural resources, has to suffer more damages at the hands of people. Trees are being cut down ruthlessly to meet the demand of fur industry, while coal and oil are excessively extracted to satisfy human’s needs and industry’s thirst of materials. They harshly keep making use of such resources, but hardly grasp the consequences. Coal and oil seem almost non-renewable minerals since it takes them thousands of years to come into being. Therefore, if we just service this destruction, we probably will not afford the permanent loss of the two invaluable substances. In terms of deforestation, the situation looks more acute. Because we essentially live on oxygen, which can only be produced by the photosynthesis-the patent process run by trees, when trees are cut down and jungles gradually disappear, the dearth of oxygen will be soon in sight and other disasters like animals extinction, erosion, and flood will soon be experienced. Hence, developed countries, which feed their gigantic industries at the expense of our nature, should pay more for the natural losses than developing countries.
To sum up, my point is not that poor nations can evade the responsibility for environmental damages; however, since it is developed countries which benefit more from our natural resources, they should reasonably take the leading flag and contribute more to the process of reviving our Earth.
I highlighted the part of the essay where a detailed description of the poor environmental situation on Earth is given. Though this is also important, the emphasis should be on the reasons for the richer countries to contribute more to the environmental protection. The essay has more conclusions than proofs.