Environment · 5 đề · 1000+ Phrases

Many people argue that an increase in fuel prices will solve the problem of the environment. While this idea could help reduce the amount of harmful fumes, I maintain that a global awareness campaign is the most feasible option.

On the one hand this policy might help cut down the emissions from private vehicles which pollute the air in big cities. Indeed, as the cost per kilometer increases, people would have to consider reducing the distance and frequency at which they travel on the roads. If there is a need to travel, commuters might also turn to more cost-effective and greener means of transportation such as buses or electric bikes. In both of these cases, the total amount of noxious fumes that cause air pollution is limited.

However, an increase in fuel prices can only solve a limited part of the complex environmental issues. In fact, causes of pollution are diverse, involving the use of plastic bags in shopping or chemicals in both agriculture and industry which contaminate both water and land. Therefore, the most effective solution would be running a world-wide campaign that raises the consumer awareness about the environmental cost of their shopping habits and presses companies to reduce the consumption of noxious chemicals and resolve to greener cultivating and manufacturing methods.

In conclusion, while increasing fuel costs can partly solve the environmental problems by discouraging private vehicle usage, the ideal solution would be making the public and enterprises aware of these issues. I am also convinced that once more resolute actions are taken, humans can reverse the effect of climate change and environmental problems.

It has been observed that a large amount of time and funding has been allocated towards wildlife protection. However, some argue that this funding could be put to better use towards helping humanity. In this essay, I will explain my thoughts as to why I partially agree that time and money could be better spent on helping humanity.

On the one hand, the protection of wild animals can maintain the delicate balance of the ecosystem. If one animal species becomes completely extinct, other species may suffer from a lack of food as these preys may be their sole food source and then consequently become extinct themselves, massively disrupting the food chain. Hence the protection of wild animals cannot be understated and requires adequate funding and time for it to continue in the long-term. This can be observed in the US, where the Conservation Reserve Program assisted in increasing the population of native bird species such as ducks, grouse and pheasants, owing to the abundant amount of money and time dedicated by the government to supporting this program.

On the other hand, there are more important sectors to allocate funding to in order to facilitate human development. While the protection of wild animals may not have a direct effect on supporting humanity, there are other facets of human society that do, such as infrastructure, healthcare and education. By devoting enough money and time to bolstering these sectors, there can be marked improvements in the quality of life for the human population. Venezuela for instance, is currently facing a financial crisis that started in 2013 which has led to the country struggling to improve the quality of life for its citizens. Thus, they have to prioritise meeting their citizens’ basic needs before devoting funding to protecting native wildlife.

In conclusion, I somewhat believe that though an investment in preserving animals may somehow maintain the balance of the ecosystem, our time and money should be more justifiably spent on important sectors of the economy to improve people’s living standards.

It is true that a great number of flora and fauna species are adversely affected by human activities. Although some believe that it is pointless to tackle this issue as no solution will ever be effective, I argue that people can still implement viable solutions to ameliorate it.

On the one hand, the notion that there is nothing for humans to do to lessen their detrimental impact on the existence of plants and animals is sound to some extent. The main reason is that some species have become extinct even before human intervention. This is evident with how the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid that struck the Earth 65 million years ago, long before human beings became their own species. As well as this, plenty of endangered creatures are predicted to vanish despite the measures taken by human beings. This is because many food chains are detrimentally affected by the disappearance of certain vegetation and animals in the ecosystem, leading to a shortage of food and then the unstoppable death of other organisms.

On the other hand, opponents believe that human beings can adopt measures to ameliorate environmental issues. First and foremost, the governments can enact laws to ban illegal acts that pose a threat to natural habitats. For example, the Vietnamese government introduced laws on industrial waste management in 2001, which deterred factories from discharging waste into rivers and oceans without proper treatment processes, and thus successfully improved the water quality in industrial areas to protect a significant number of aquaic creatures. Furthermore, individuals can compensate for environmental damage. To be more specific, they can construct reserves for hunted animals or plant trees to restore deforested areas to protect the numbers of animals dying out and recover the ecosystem. As a result, numerous species can be saved in time and avoid becoming extinct.

In conclusion, although both sides have some ground reasons, I personally think that human beings should be responsible for the protection of wildlife by abiding by environmental regulations and rehabilitating nature. To that end, it would be ideal if international bodies such as the UN would encourage all people to play their part in preserving the existence of animals and plants.