Scientists say that in the future humanity will speak the same language. Do you think this is a positive or negative social development?

Sample 1:

Although fossil fuels still remain the most important energy sources in many places, some countries are now already using alternative sources like solar or wind power. In my opinion, it can be difficult for a country to move towards using alternative energy at first, but this development brings about several benefits in the long run.

On the one hand, the change towards using alternative types of energy would probably put a heavy financial burden on the government and companies as they will have to invest millions of dollars in purchasing and developing new equipment and facilities for harnessing solar, wind or hydro-electric power. For example, the average cost of installing a wind turbine for generating electricity is about $3 million, and an average country would require a wind farm with hundreds of turbines to supply power to all companies and households. In addition, the production cost of large solar panels is still very high, which is why many countries, especially those with a poor economy, are still unable to use this power source.

However, I still believe that shifting towards using alternative energy is a worthwhile investment due to the great benefits it brings. Firstly, fossil fuels are the main cause of air pollution nowadays since petroleum-powered vehicles and factories are releasing tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Therefore, replacing coal and petroleum with wind or solar power will help to reduce the level of emissions in the atmosphere and improve air quality. Secondly, fossil fuels, like natural gas or oil, are finite resources and will soon be depleted, which will potentially threaten the economy if there are no alternative sources. This fact emphasizes the need to develop renewable energy to gradually replace traditional sources when fossil fuels inevitably run out.

In conclusion, I hold the view that despite the high initial cost of new equipment and facilities, the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is still necessary for the long-term development of the planet.

Sample 2:

The debate around our primary sources of energy has been intensifying in recent decades, with some pushing for more sustainable energy while others arguing that fossil fuels should remain the main source of power globally. I personally think renewable energy production should be encouraged, since it’s important that nations should seek to reduce their own carbon emissions to divert the dangers of climate change as well as build a more sustainable economy.

Firstly, fossil fuel should be discouraged because it could bring about the existential threat of climate change. As a result, biodiversity is at an all-time low, with shifting climates and rising sea levels slowly eroding the delicate tapestry of food webs across the globe. As scientists are convinced this is directly the cause of human activity, such as in agriculture and fossil fuel consumption, renewable energies would help slow this threat immediately and might be our only solution to salvaging the planet.

Secondly, one could argue that renewable energies are more sustainable and would therefore be better for the economy in the long run. While oil and coal are a finite resource and take millions of years to replenish, energy from wind and solar can in theory never run out. Therefore, making a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy can be a solution that thinks of the longer term, since it could avert an economic crash when oil fully depletes. Many analysts have warned that with the current trajectory, oil could run out by 2050; when this happens, it could sharply affect the biggest economies in the world that are still heavily dependent on oil.

Overall, I argue that the climate effects as a result of fossil fuels consumption combined with the economic benefits of renewable energies mean that we should encourage the development of these forms of energy.

Sample 3:

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have long been the dominant sources of energy in many countries. However, their extensive use has resulted in significant environmental harm, prompting the need for alternative sources of energy. In response to this, many countries are encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. This essay will discuss the reasons behind the promotion of alternative energy sources and argue that it is a positive development.

One of the key reasons for the promotion of alternative energy sources is their potential to mitigate the negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, thereby reducing the contribution to climate change. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented strong incentives and subsidies to support the development of solar power, leading to a significant increase in the share of renewable energy in their energy mix. This shift towards cleaner sources of energy is driven by the recognition of the urgent need to combat climate change and reduce dependence on finite fossil fuel reserves.

The encouragement of alternative energy sources has numerous positive implications and is a positive trend. It promotes energy diversification, reducing reliance on a single energy source and increasing energy security. By harnessing the power of wind, solar, and other renewable sources, countries can decrease their vulnerability to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices and geopolitical tensions related to energy resources. Additionally, the transition to renewable energy stimulates innovation and job creation. As governments invest in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies, new industries and employment opportunities emerge.

In conclusion, the encouragement of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, is driven by the need to address environmental concerns and promote sustainable development. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying energy sources, and fostering economic growth, the adoption of renewable energy brings numerous benefits. Therefore, it is crucial for countries to continue investing in research, technology, and policy frameworks that support the widespread adoption of renewable energy, ensuring a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.

Sample 4:

Fossil fuel, though extensively used, is not eco-friendly, and its usage comes with huge environmental costs. Considering global warming and climate change, and the detrimental effects fossil fuels have on the environment, green fuel, such as solar, hydro and wind power, is increasingly being used in many countries. It is a good thing that many countries have already started using these green power sources.

The promotion of alternative sources of energy has gained significant momentum in numerous countries because of a growing concern about the adverse effects of fossil fuels on the environment such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Governments and environmental organizations recognize the urgent need to transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy options. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented ambitious renewable energy targets, investing heavily in wind and solar power to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and combat climate change.

The stock of fossil fuels is limited and would get exhausted at a certain point. So, alternative and green sources, which are renewable, would be the main source of our energy in the future. Despite the shift from fossil fuel to green energy being expensive and labour-intensive, green energy like wind and solar energy is renewable, their use should be as much encouraged as possible from right now, and it is a good thing that the trend has already started. Alternative sources of power, such as solar and wind power, do not pollute the environment, have lower carbon emissions and are eco-friendly. So, their use could save the planet from the disaster of global warming which is already visible around us. Wind power and solar power are in use in countries like Denmark, Germany and France, and more and more countries are joining the list. We already have extremely efficient technology to produce solar and wind power, and the trend is quite encouraging.

To conclude, the energy demand is increasing at a fast pace, and the stock of fossil fuels is diminishing. So, we should turn to alternative green energy sources and share the technology and expertise with all nations so that the transition happens all around the world to save our otherwise dying planet due to climate change and greenhouse effects.

Sample 5:

Every year the energy demand is increasing globally. So, the strains on the current and already limited resources are high. Since these energy resources, like fossil fuels, are mostly imported by countries, some countries have opted for alternative sources of energy to enjoy greater energy security. I wholeheartedly believe that it is a positive trend.

Alternative sources of energy offer greater energy security and independence and that is why their production and use is increasing. Relying on traditional energy sources, often imported from other countries, can leave nations vulnerable to price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions. Embracing renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, or biomass, allows countries to tap into their own natural resources and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. This is why it has already gained popularity.

Fossil fuels, like coal and oil, are not unlimited. A few countries like Germany and Japan, for example, are completely dependent on the import of such resources. For all these countries, alternative energy, also known as green energy, is the answer for the future, and it is a welcoming trend that many countries have already started producing green energy. By embracing renewable energy options, countries can address climate change, enhance energy independence, create employment opportunities, and drive technological progress. Countries like France and Norway, among others, have invested in the technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun or produce wind power. The positive impacts of this development are innumerable, and many countries are following in their footsteps.

In conclusion, the use of green energy sources is gaining traction because many countries want to become energy self-sufficient. This is definitely a positive trend as it reduces reliance on energy imports, helps countries fight climate change, advances technology and creates more employment.

Sample 6:

These days, the environment is being severely affected by the excessive use of nonrenewable energy resources, such as petrol, diesel, coal and natural gas. However, eco-friendly and renewable power sources like wind and solar power are being adopted in many countries mainly because they do not harm the environment, and I wholeheartedly think that it is a positive trend.

The shift towards renewable energy sources in many countries is primarily to fight global warming and climate change. Fossil fuels are often the reason climate change is so severe and threatens the existence of humans on the mother planet. Many countries, including Germany, Norway and France, have adopted the use of green energy like solar and wind power to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to save the environment.

It is a positive trend as it greatly reduces the carbon content of the environment and makes the planet more sustainable. Without extensive use of green energy, we will soon transform our planet into an uninhabitable one. To save our planet from destruction, we need to produce and use more green and renewable energy. Moreover, it is cheaper to produce such clean energy than to extract coal or natural gas which makes these eco-friendly energies affordable to mass people. A recent study by Oxford University reveals that the production of solar power is 30% cheaper than that of fossil fuel. This finding again emphasizes how important it is for all nations to opt for renewable energy sources, and how beneficial it is that many countries have already invested in generating clean power.

In conclusion, even though we have harmed our mother planet to a great extent by indiscriminately using fossil fuels, some countries have already shown us a better way to produce and use power. It is expected that more countries will invest in alternative sources of energy to make the planet green again and make energy affordable for all.

Sample 7:

While fossil fuels have been the backbone of our energy supply for centuries, they have severe harmful impacts on our environment. Therefore, some countries have started relying on green energy to reverse the situation. And it is a positive trend that we have started researching and using alternative sources of energy, also known as green energy, that are sustainable and do not cause long-term damage to our environment.

One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are being used to produce green energy in many countries is their ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are a major contributor to climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, the use of renewable energy sources can help reduce global CO2 emissions by up to 70% by 2050. This is a significant step towards protecting our planet from the devastating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.

The use of renewable sources to generate energy is a positive development for a variety of reasons. For instance, investing in renewable energy can also create jobs and boost the economy. According to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review 2020, the renewable energy sector employed around 11.5 million people worldwide in 2019, a 6% increase from the previous year. This growth in employment opportunities can help to stimulate local economies and provide new job opportunities for people in both developed and developing countries. For example, in Germany, the government's decision to phase out nuclear power plants and invest in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has created over 300,000 jobs and contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, the shift towards green energy sources is a positive development that can help to protect our environment and create new job opportunities. While it may take time and investment to transition away from fossil fuels, it is a necessary step to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

Sample 8:

Many nations are now supporting the adoption of various energy alternatives in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. In my opinion, though there may be short-term economic downsides, this is a decidedly positive development due to the implications on the environment generally.

Those who feel the sudden adoption of alternative energies is a negative point out the financial repercussions. There are economies around the world that are currently dependent on exporting fossil fuels, in particular in The Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. Many of these countries are still developing and have few other natural resources or industries that could replace a decline in the energy sector. The economic effects will extend far beyond exporters though. Both developed and developing nations ranging from the United States and Vietnam to China and Russia exploit oil for private vehicles and various industries. Substituting cheap oil for a more expensive alternative might result in economic catastrophe with wide-ranging repercussions.

However, the environmental effect is overwhelmingly more important for the long-term health of the planet. The economic results of less dependence on fossil fuels will cause short-term problems but the issues caused by climate change are also becoming a present reality. For instance, there has been a rise in the number of cataclysmic natural disasters related to rising ocean temperatures and deforestation. Even more troubling are the less noticed problems such as habitats being destroyed in remote areas like Antarctica and the Amazon Rainforest. Beyond the animals becoming endangered and extinct, it is only a number of years before human life is affected. This existential threat is the reason alternative energies are a pressing need.

In conclusion, despite the economic drawbacks of a sudden shift to alternative power sources, this reorientation will have a markedly positive long-term impact on the environment. Governments should therefore implement and bolster alternative energy initiatives.

Sample 9:

The development of renewable energies like wind power, wave power, or solar energy to replace the electricity generated from burning fossil fuels has become an increasingly popular trend in the world. I believe this is a green movement in the energy sector with countless benefits that people should welcome.

The most palpable advantage one can recognize at once when mentioning renewable energies is that they reduce the burden on the environment. The use of solar power creates no emission at all, and thus provides for the need of power at almost no environmental cost. It is similarly clean and sustainable when wind, wave, and water moving around the Earth eternally can be used in energy production. Also, the independence from fossil fuels in electricity generation saves the world from a rapid depletion of coal, oil and natural gases, and slow down the imminent energy crisis which may even cause wars over energy sources among countries.

Moreover, the production of green energy also benefits individuals and the country as a whole. Thanks to less burning of fossil fuels in thermal energy plants, workers in energy companies face less risks of occupational health problems especially those related to respiratory diseases and may lead to early death. On the large scale of a country, the utilization of wind, wave, sunlight, and even geothermal heat to produce electricity will diversify the energy portfolio of different nations, making them free from reliance on limited natural resources to generate electricity due to their unfavourable geographical locations.

In conclusion, the movement of the world towards more use of renewable energy is completely positive when it solves multiple problems of environmental pollution, dependence on natural resources for energy, and poor health of workers in thermal power plants.

Sample 10:

Governments across continents have turned their attention to more sustainable sources of energy as alternatives to fossil fuels. In my opinion, this could be seen as a progress for the following reasons.

First, there is no arguing that producing energy from buried dead organisms lacks sustainability, which means such production could not guarantee the survival of humans in the long term. In fact, the consumption of energy generated from fossil fuels tends to accelerate in direct correlation with the growth of the world population. With the current rate of exploitation, this valuable resource would dwindle away in no time, leaving no other choice than seeking additional reserves such as nuclear power or hydroelectricity. This is a safe solution to the fear of energy scarcity and ensures the future development of the human race.

Second, dependence on fossil fuel for worldwide energy supply would cause environmental degradation while using solar power, for example, is considered an ultimate choice of energy conservation. The combustion of fossil fuels is the culprit of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, leading to tremendous damage to the environment. Such suffering of the Earth could not be justified by the growing need of humans. By contrast, this would never be the case when it comes to other alternatives as mentioned above. If governments continue to invest in exploiting those new sources, there will be an unlimited amount of inexpensive energy in the long run.

In conclusion, I believe that the use of other potential energy sources to replace fossil fuels is obviously an important step forward.

Sample 11:

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are extensively used in many countries and cause harm to the environment. The use of alternative sources of energy, including wind and solar power, however, is being encouraged in many countries. Is this a positive or negative development?

In several nations, non-renewable sources of energy, namely coal, petroleum, and gasoline, are used inordinately, which is severely damaging the ecosystem. However, other countries are promoting the usage of non-conventional sources of power, such as wind and solar energy. I personally consider that this has been a positive development because the non-traditional approach will aid in efficient energy output and protect the ecosystem from feasible hazards.

Primarily, the remarkable advantage of the aforementioned alternative sources is that they are renewable. These energy sources have a constant supply of power and there is no requirement for significant raw materials. Although it could be argued that the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is extremely high, I would assert that once the installation cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible. Apart from this, it is widely accepted that fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and once consumed, they cannot be re-used. To illustrate, if modern individuals burn immense petroleum and coal, these resources are likely to vanish, and future generations would not be capable of using these precious energy sources.

Another major benefit of eco-friendly energy sources is their non-polluting nature. The intensive usage of natural resources forms carbon emissions and emits noxious gases that are nurturing global warming and depleting the ozone layer. Even worse, by inhaling such poisonous gases and carbon fumes, human beings are susceptible to various health ailments such as asthma and lung cancer. However, when energy is harnessed from wind turbines and solar panels there are no such deleterious by-products. Unlike other automobiles, for instance, commuting through a solar car would not emit carbon dioxide.

In conclusion, not only do alternative sources provide an inordinate amount of energy supply constantly, but they also preserve the environment in a very effective way. Therefore, I completely believe that this trend is a wholly positive development and one that authorities ought to promote.

Sample 12:

In this day and age, the consumption of non-renewable resources is burgeoning day by day. Owing to this it reached an alarming rate. It takes millions of years to form. However, some nations are taking a step forward and using non-conventional sources of power. This essay will highlight that this is certainly an optimistic approach that needs to be opted.

At the outset, non-conventional sources can be recycled and utilized again. Although, the use of alternative sources has some hurdles like the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these also rely on geographical locations. When masses use this energy source for a long period of time, the energy can be renewed and produced, no extra cost will have more economic benefit than the others. Besides this, the use of renewable energy could help to conserve foreign exchange and generate local employment if conservation technologies are designed, manufactured, assembled, and installed locally.

Moving further, alternative sources- wind power, tidal power, solar power – sources are totally safe for the environment, have lower carbon emission, and are eco-friendly. The research concluded that there are some countries that have utilized alternative sources namely German, France, and Denmark as these nations save the planet from a disaster of global warming. Some countries use automobile cars that work on solar power. Consequently, it has reduced the carbon footprint of such countries and made its greenery.

Based on this study it can be reiterated that the use of alternative sources of energy is an optimistic evolvement, which can save the whole globe from the catastrophic impact of greenhouse emissions as well as global warming. Furthermore, more and more folks should adopt renewable sources to ameliorate the conditions of the environment. In this way, by taking joint efforts individuals can preserve the world.

Sample 13:

Due to the shortage of fossil fuels, whether other natural power resources should be encouraged to harness or not, becomes a paramount concern for many countries. I believe, while this advancement may decrease awareness among people about protecting the fuels, it also solves the problem of the lack of energy sources.

First of all, fossil fuels which are the major energy resources in many nations are facing the threats of becoming obsolete due to the overuse by the human race in daily life. As a result, people should be encouraged to raise awareness of fuel conservation. However, the utilization of alternative natural energy sources could prevent people from doing this by reducing the fears of coal or oil that might be running out. Because there are other sources to use, they would use more energy generated from gas or oil without hesitation. In my personal opinion, the negative sides of using different resources of power could deteriorate the shortage of fuels.

Harnessing alternative power sources (such as solar or wind power), in contrast, could reduce the usage of fossil fuels in generating energy for a range of demanding activities such as heating and driving. While coal and oil mines are limited, natural resources such as wind and solar power are considered unlimited. This wind power or solar energy is consequently able to produce enough energy for human demand without the help of fossil fuels. As a result, it should be encouraged to be utilized in more countries in the world to gradually cut down the usage of fossil fuels.

To sum up, the encouragement of using natural resources (such as solar or wind) for producing energy has both negative and positive sides. However, I deem that humankind should consider using more power from solar or wind and less from coal and gas to protect the remaining parts of fossil fuels.

Sample 14:

Coals, oil, and gas are some fossil fuels that are the most common sources of energy for the majority of countries. On the other hand, some countries encourage the use of renewable resources like wind and solar energy. I believe this is a strongly positive development as we will be in grave danger if the world runs out of these natural non-renewable resources like fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are used in almost all industries and for running motor vehicles. We can minimize this by using alternatives wherever possible. If it goes on like this, we will soon have such a shortage of these fuels that can pose a threat to running things efficiently. For example, some industries can only run on coal or oil, though this is not the case for cars. Automobiles can easily run on electricity, and so we should limit the use of such fuels. Burning too much of these fossil fuels also contributes to air pollution. Thus, it is important to minimize usage wherever possible.

On the other hand, wind energy and solar energy take comparatively longer time to generate, and they are largely dependent on the sun and the wind. We do not have any control over them, so the production of goods might slow down if there is less generation of energy as we cannot, in fact, control the weather. Perhaps tropical countries, where there is an abundant amount of sunshine and wind, can be encouraged to use these natural sources and not waste fossil fuels. However, for temperate climates, this might not be an option. Dependency on nature can have slower production rates and lead to not meeting the deadline or having scarcity in the market.

On the whole, I believe all the countries should be aware of the hazards of wasting too much of our natural reserves of energy and use them consciously and responsibly. Initiatives such as building consciousness about the issue should be taken to build a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.

Sample 15:

Fossil fuels harm the environment and to save our planet we need to encourage the use of green energy. The use of alternative sources of energy, or ‘green’ energy, is a positive trend of development, and indeed their use should be encouraged further.

As the demand for energy worldwide is increasing the strains on the existing and already limited resources also increase. To solve this problem, we must consider two issues: how to better use the existing, limited fossil fuel resources and how we can encourage the use of alternative energy sources.

It is universally acknowledged that there is a limitation on the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Some countries are rich in oil deposits like OPEC, whereas China is rich in coal deposits and Russia in natural gas. Others, such as Japan and Germany, are completely dependent on the import of resources. For all countries- resource-rich versus resource-poor, alternative energy should be encouraged and utilised to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as well as to keep the global environment in balance and ‘healthy’.

The only way is to turn to other sources to get energy supply. Wind power and solar power are at present feasible alternatives. France is one country that has the advanced technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun. Both kinds of power can reduce a country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, they do not pollute the environment and in turn, help keep the ecosystem stable.

To conclude, while fossil fuel resources are diminishing, the energy demand continues to increase year after year. It is a positive trend to develop other alternative sources of power and experiences should be shared and promoted. If this switch to alternative energy is encouraged early enough, then we may yet avoid the pending energy crisis and environmental disaster.

Sample 1:

The issue of environmental crisis has been a major concern in recent decades, both globally and nationally. With the increasing urgency of the problem, many organizations have been working tirelessly to find solutions to these issues. However, there is a debate about who should be responsible for addressing these problems. Some believe that tackling an environmental crisis should be the job of a single global governing body, while others argue that the government should be in charge.

Advocates for a global governing body argue that world organizations can do a better job of solving environmental challenges because they have a global perspective and can collaborate with all nations to promote the best potential global development. Furthermore, international organizations have access to funding from many wealthy countries, which can help them quickly solve issues that may be beyond the reach of underdeveloped countries. Moreover, international organizations are not affected by political conditions in the same way that national governments are, allowing them to think and act objectively.

On the other hand, proponents of the government being responsible for environmental issues argue that they are better equipped to understand and address their own country's environmental problems. The government also has a better understanding of how these problems arise, as well as how to involve their people in problem-solving. Furthermore, the government is in charge of the country's education and can ensure that the people have easy access to information. Additionally, foreign organizations may not always be familiar with local difficulties, which can lead to changes in future plans.

In conclusion, both arguments have their merits, and the solution may lie in a combination of the two. If the host country supports and communicates their problems to international organizations and collaborates with them, it could lead to a more comprehensive and effective solution to environmental issues. Global organizations have always been objective in their functioning and have the support of many nations, which can contribute to positive outcomes. However, it is important to recognize the strengths of the government in addressing environmental problems and to utilize their knowledge and expertise to achieve the best possible results.

Sample 2:

The 21st century witnessed the dawn of industrialization, due to which numerous factories were set up. To generate higher revenues these factories increased their production manifold, which has put stress on the environment. Some factions of society contemplate that national authorities should take steps to resolve these, while I agree that international organisations can control this situation, and the following essay will cite the reasons for the same.

Firstly, international organisations can sign an understanding among various geographies to use green energy fuels, consequently the emissions from the set-ups will be cleaner. The G20 nations, for instance, have decided to use water to generate 50% of the nation’s electricity, as opposed to coal, and they will share the surplus power with the deprived nations. Furthermore, the developed nations have more exposure to technology for controlling poisonous emissions, therefore, the learnings can be shared with developing geographies, which can be implemented to lower the contaminations.

Secondly, the global bodies can implement a treaty to do some financial support, which will bolster the weaker nations to swap the setup in their factories with some advanced technologies, which will enable production units to utilize cleaner fuels, hence lower pollution levels. For example, Germany is helping Jordan to set up various dams to generate electricity, as opposed to coal being used. Moreover, because these latest technologies require less space as compared to traditional ones, as a result, the extra land can be used to plant vegetation, and they act as natural air purifiers. 

In conclusion, due to the above explanations, I am inclined to say that international bodies have a more crucial role to play to combat the pollution of the atmosphere, as compared to national lawmakers.

Sample 3:

The statement that solving environmental problems is the responsibility of international organisations rather than the national government is a topic of debate. I firmly disagree with this, as even though international organisations have some role to play, the primary responsibility is of the national government only as they are directly accountable to their citizens and can mobilize local resources and increase public participation. 

Although Environmental problems are global, they often have local causes and effects that can only be addressed by national governments. They are the closest to the issue, so they have the best potential to understand and address it. They can form policies that reflect their unique environmental challenges and socio-economic context. For example, a country that has abundant forests might prevent deforestation, while a country that has high industrial output might prioritise the reduction of air pollution. Moreover, national governments are directly answerable to their citizens and have a direct right to hold them responsible for the increase in environmental problems.  This accountability helps governments to take these issues seriously and make big decisions.

While international governments play a crucial role in facilitating cooperation and setting global standards, they often lack the power to ensure that all of the policies they are forming are implemented or not. They may also not be able to fully grasp the specific circumstances and complexities of each country, leading to the formation of one-size-fits-all solutions that will not be effective. Furthermore, international organizations are often hampered by political considerations and disagreements among various countries’ members, which can slow down decision-making and implementation of environmental initiatives. On the other hand, national governments are sovereign entities, having a greater freedom to act decisively and swiftly in response to environmental crises.

To conclude, while international organisations have a role to play in solving environmental problems, the primary responsibility lies with the national governments. They have the authority, accountability and the capacity to effectively address environmental issues within their borders.

Sample 4:

There is no doubt that environment-related issues ought to be held responsible for by an international organization instead of individual countries. I disagree with this statement for some reasons.

There are numerous environmental issues such as climate change, melting glaciers and intensifying greenhouse effect happening on a global scale. As the argument goes, an international organization would act as a leader, issuing principles for all member countries to conform to or it will have sufficient financial capabilities to support the improvement of the environment. Cited cases are the Kyoto protocol has contributed to the slowing down of climate change on the earth, or the United Nations’ support for Third World countries have helped improve the air quality there. This argument, however, fails to take into consideration the fact that compulsion often backfires if an individual nation has no intention to cooperate, or the incentives provided can make recipient countries over reliant and avoid coming up with innovative ideas to resolve their country’s environmental situation. This in the long term exerts a negative overall global effect.

I side with those who think that each governmental body should take responsibility for addressing domestic environmental problems. Firstly, this practice would have a chain effect, benefiting not only the host country but also neighboring nations. For instance, if China diminishes its emissions by downsizing its industrial activities to a certain acceptable level, the air contamination in Hanoi would be reduced as a consequence. Secondly, the root of a complete resolution of environmental issues comes at grassroots level, only achieved by the efforts of a country’s government. If walking or cycling are promoted amongst those with an inclination to use private vehicles, this can help diminish the colossal volumes of exhaust gas and ameliorate the communal air quality. Or, if people are encouraged to participate in the international Earth Hour when everyone is asked to turn their lights off in sixty minutes, huge amounts of power can be minimized. Enacting such events which are aimed at creating a mindset shift in the public regarding environmental protection and promoting a simple lifestyle can only be conducted by a country’s government.

In conclusion, uprooting environment problems should be the responsibility of each national government rather than an international organization.

Sample 5:

People hold different views about how to cope with environmental problems. While some people argue that it is the duty of international organization, rather than a single country, to solve environment-related issues, I believe that both parties/ sides should join hands in solving this problem.
On the one hand, many countries may share the same environmental concerns; however, they would stem from various causes. Therefore, each nation should implement different policies and measures to address the problem. For example, over-exploitation of natural resources and deforestation are identified as the biggest culprit for desertification in the USA, whereas the growing rate of desertified land in China has been mainly caused by rapid urbanization. In addition, the priority environmental issue is also varied in each country, calling for different approaches and strategies to tackle the problem. To illustrate, in emerging economies such as Vietnam, reducing the worrying level of air pollution from industrial activities is of highest priority.
On the other hand, the problems that each government is experiencing are indeed interconnected, hence, concerted efforts by all nations are necessary. Thus, international organizations such as the United Nations play a vital role in promoting and coordinating global action to reduce carbon footprint and curb the global warming threat. Furthermore, wealthy countries should provide financial and technological support for poor nations in the fight against green issues, since the detrimental effects of environmental problems could spread beyond national borders. In other words, an international effort is needed to yield an efficient environment protection scheme.
In conclusion, while international organizations could exert huge impact on a global scale, the combination of international and governmental efforts would have even more profound influences on the environment.

Sample 6:

It is often argued that sorting out ecological issues should be the responsibility of an international administration, while others believe that individual countries’ governments should solve environmental problems. In my opinion, solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of an international organization rather than each national government because environmental issues are global concerns that affect the entire planet. Therefore, their solutions require global cooperation.

To begin with, the environment is a global problem that requires a global response. To be more precise, a lot of ecological issues are available worldwide, such as climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution. Moreover, individual national governments can try their best to solve issues, but their efforts may not have a noticeable impact on the environment without the support of other nations. Therefore, an international organization is trying to make rules which are followed by all nations and can help to reduce the rate of environmental issues worldwide. Furthermore, if an international organization passes away an agreement, then every individual nation must follow the acts and take them seriously without arguing anything. For instance, recently, new rules were made by the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] for reducing greenhouse gases, which are followed by all nations in the world because it is an international action.

In contrast, each individual nation better knows about their nation’s own climate conditions. More specifically, every country faces unique environmental challenges that are best understood by its government, and there are specific solutions tailored to these issues. While international organizations address common global concerns, they do not focus on the unique environmental problems of individual nations due to the diversity of issues across countries. For example, in India, a wide range of mountains contain in northern areas, so there are various issues such as melting and snow falling, while in southern India has a lot of forests, so there are various problems like over rainfall and storm. Hence, every nation has different environmental problems, and they know better solutions than an international organization.

In conclusion, although every individual nation is well introduced to various types of problems, and they know solutions in a better way. In my opinion, international organizations are likely more responsible for solving some common global issues, such as global warming and air pollution, because cooperation must be required to solve environmental issues.

Sample 7:

Environmental problems are a major concern for the whole world, and addressing these problems requires a concerted effort from all nations. In my opinion, solving environmental problems should be the responsibility of both international organizations and national governments, as both have a role to play in creating a sustainable future for all.

International organizations, such as the United Nations and its specialized agencies, are important players in addressing global environmental issues. These organizations can provide a platform for international cooperation and coordination on environmental issues, such as climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. They can also facilitate sharing of knowledge, resources, and best practices among countries to achieve common environmental goals.

At the same time, national governments also have a crucial role to play in addressing environmental problems. National governments are responsible for implementing policies and regulations that can protect the environment within their own countries. They can also allocate funding for environmental protection measures, enforce environmental laws, and work with their citizens to promote sustainable practices.

In addition, national governments have more direct responsibility for the well-being of their citizens and the environment within their own borders. They are better positioned to understand the unique environmental challenges facing their own countries and communities and tailor their responses accordingly.

Therefore, while international organizations can provide important support and coordination in addressing global environmental problems, it is ultimately up to national governments to take action within their own countries. This does not mean that international cooperation is not important. In fact, international cooperation is essential in addressing environmental problems that cross national borders, such as air and water pollution and climate change.

In conclusion, solving environmental problems requires a joint effort from both international organizations and national governments. It is essential that both work together to create a sustainable future for all. While international cooperation is important, national governments have a direct responsibility to protect their citizens and their environment and must take action accordingly.