1) Some people say that protecting the environment is the government’s responsibility.
Others believe that every individual should be responsible for it. Discuss both views
and give your own opinion.
There has been a contentious argument over the main party that must bear responsibility for
environmental preservation. A school of thought holds that the government should be
responsible while others believe it is every human being’s work. This essay examines the
question from both points of view and then states my perspective, being that it is a colossal
responsibility being borne by both sides.
On the one hand, reversing the damage done to the plant is a massive undertaking that seems
impossible without the government’s intervention. Most of the ongoing problems are the direct
result of energy production and consumption, which can only be regulated with legislation.
Additionally, the government has the ability to mobilize resources when tackling environmental
issues. For instance, official states can plough a proportion of money from taxpayers’ back into
researching to make green energy more commonplace and affordable. Henceforth, the
participation of the government in alleviating the environmental issues is wholly warranted.
On the other hand, it would be imprudent to downplay the contribution of ordinary citizens.
They can make a huge impact on tackling the issue by changing their lifestyle. Simply opting for
public transportation rather than personal vehicles can greatly reduce the volume of toxic
exhaust fume. Furthermore, consumers can patronize companies that champion sustainable
business practices and boycott those that are reluctant to have environmentally friendly
products. Those are just a small number among a host of measures which that individuals can
take to push for a greener future.
In conclusion, both parties play an integral role in environmental protection. Therefore, this
responsibility rests with both the government and individuals.
265 words
2) Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on protection of
wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To
what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There has been a contentious argument that instead of allocating an enormous amount
of budget to animal preservation, it should be used to directly tackle human’s issues. I
totally disagree with this assertion due to the explanations provided below.
The first justification is that while humankind has endeavored to protect the
endangered animals with enormous resources, they are still on the brink of extinction.
Specifically, catastrophes including flooding and ever-lasting drought occurring in many
places around the world has resulted in habitat loss, and finally animal extinction.
Furthermore, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spend on providing shelters for
endangered animals, yet recent centuries have witnessed the demise of numerous
species, and the extinction rates are on the increase. This is a testament to the
insufficient effort, let alone excessive.
Another compelling reason is that it is imprudent to downplay the importance of wildlife
preservation given the inextricable relationship between the human race and animals.
In other words, should one kind of animal no longer survive, it will greatly affect the
food chain, which has dire consequences regarding the human life. Pollinating insect is a
prime example in this situation. Bumble bees play an integral role in the growth of
crops. Therefore, the decline of this animal has engendered valid concerns in terms of
agricultural productivity.
In conclusion, I am in complete disagreement that it is wasteful to continue to invest in
wildlife protection. It is because our current effort is inadequate, and the preservation
of animal species is synonymous with safeguarding the existence of humans.
257 words.
3) Fossil fuel is the main source of energy. In some countries, the use of alternative sources
of energy is encouraged. Is this a positive or negative development?
The environmental impact caused by fuel combustion is unequivocal. In light of this, many
nations have switched to energy generated by renewable alternatives. However, this trend still
raises certain concerns. I am totally inclined to the view that, this trend is positive.
The first compelling reason is that alternative energy sources will have considerably lower
impact on the environment. Renewable sources hardly create carbon footprint, and given how
the carbon emission affects our existence, the change regarding energy resources is necessary.
Those including solar or wind power