Uncategorized

Task 2 Essay Sample:Environment

To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.  What is your opinion on the above assumption?

Environmental or natural hazards are the result of physical processes that affect humans every day. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.

One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburetor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic, but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming.

Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Car-pooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too.

Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards.

Some people claim that not enough waste from home is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement. To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?

There has always been a controversial issue over whether recycling should be made as part of the legal system in order to increase the amount of recycled waste from households. In my opinion, this method is unnecessary as it may create negative consequences and there are other feasible options for governments to resolve this issue.

In the first place, imposing a law on recycling may not be a possible measure as it can be challenging in various ways. Firstly, it requires enormous manpower and financial resources from government bodies to develop regulations and instructions on this subject. With regard to law enforcement, legislatures also face significant obstacles in quantifying appropriate punishments and deciding retribution types for wrongdoers. Secondly, compelling residents to recycle things can cause undesirable consequences on their lives and behaviors. Being obligated to reuse and recycle waste without fully understanding its benefits, they may feel frustrated and resentful, resulting in the disapproval and hostility toward the authorities.

Instead of making recycling a legal requirement, governments can resort to a number of other viable alternatives. One of the possible methods to encourage people to recycle is to raise the public’s awareness about the negative impact of humans’ activities such as waste dumping on the environment. Once people are educated about this as well as how recycling helps to save energy and materials, they are more willing to take action at the grass root level to alleviate this environmental problem. In addition, governments can boost this positive practice by giving financial rewards to the individuals who actively engage in recycling activities. By provided with role models to follow in association with practical benefits, the inhabitants can have more inspiration and motivation to make recycling a part of their daily lives.

In conclusion, it seems to me that promoting recycling does not necessarily require the involvement of lawmakers, as there are more feasible solutions for governments to take into consideration.

Developments in technology have brought various environmental problems. Some believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve environmental problems. Others, however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is true that some technological advancement had a negative effect on the environment. While many stated that adopting a simple lifestyle is the way to tackle environmental issues, I would argue that technology could help us save the environment.

On the one hand, approaching a simpler way of living without the dependence on sophisticated technology could help lessen the stresses on the environment. Firstly, industrial wastes from factories would be reduced thanks to the restriction on mechanical manufacture. Secondly, instead of using smart devices, people could change their habits by living together with nature, spending more time with the environment surrounding them. This would unconsciously raise people’s awareness about protecting the environment, thus making them more willing to participate in environmental protection activities organized by the community.

On the other hand, many claims that using technology is the solution for various environmental problems. Technologies could help minimize the consumption of fossil fuel, such as oils and coals in production, which help reduce the effect of greenhouse gasses. In addition, scientists have been searching for newer, more eco-friendly sources of energy. A good example is a significant change in the energy consumption of certain vehicles. Cars, trains, and buses are now running on solar energy or electricity instead of tradition fuel. Moreover, the finding of recyclable plastic bags has made a big impact on the environment, which plays a hand in resolving one of many environmental problems.

In conclusion, I do believe that technology is beneficial for human beings if it is used wisely and proportionately. Therefore, research for new technology should be widely invested in as we tirelessly continue looking for improvements in life. However, this research has better be conducted under strict control and review of the government.

Some people think that the environmental problems are too big for individuals to solve. Others believe individuals can also do something to solve these problems. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is true that controversial the question of whether the task of handling the environmental problems is within individuals’ capacity remains a source of controversy. While a number of people believe that it is beyond their ability capacity, I would argue that there are still somethings one could do certain actions one could take for the environment.

On the one hand, it is an indisputable fact that a lot of environmental issues have spilled over the national borders and could not be tackled by one any single person or even any single one nation at large. Instead, these issues require effective intervention and strong commitments of governments from different countries. For example, national governments in countries like Vietnam can only alleviate the effects of global warming, but they cannot address the source of the problem itself without the cooperation of.

However, the earth’s temperature could be reduced by having nations with high carbon dioxide emission cut down on their amount of fossil fuel used for transportation and manufacturing. Clearly, this fact suggests that environmental problems are definitely not easy for individuals to address themselves.

On the other hand, I believe that there are many actions that each citizen can take to alleviate the situation. There is no doubt that one of the primary causes of environmental degradation is humans’ daily activities such as disposing residential garbage into the nature. Thus, by modifying their behaviors towards environment to be more environmental-friendly, individuals certainly could contribute to solving the problem. For example, they can choose to buy recycled paper and sustainable products instead of plastics ones to reduce the amount of toxic waste released into the environment. Moreover, instead of rather than driving a car, a person can take the public transport, ride his bicycle, or walk to help decrease carbon emissions from vehicles which lead to global warming.

To conclude, there are good reasons why major environmental problems should mainly rely on governmental and international efforts, but in my opinion, this task could also be shared with individuals.

Today, most people understand the importance of protecting the environment, while some people think individuals are too weak to take actions and make a difference. Discuss why such people hold this opinion and tell what should be done to solve the problem.

Nowadays, the majority of people believe that protecting the environment is extremely important whereas some people often wonder that environmental problems are too big for individuals to be solved.

There are some reasons for this point of view and several solutions should be taken. On the one hand, there are three primary reasons behind this of attitude. One reason is that some global issue such as global warming, air and water pollution, rising temperature require government intervention. These are enormous problems that there is simply no way to adequately address these problems without strong commitments from the governments of different countries. Another reason is that introducing laws to limit environmental matter needs actions from governments. The government of a country is the only organization that can enforce and control the laws and regulations that relate to gases, the emission from factories, vehicles or rubbish. Moreover, on more reason is that the budget for protecting the environment is too large for individuals to invest. Actually, a country requires a huge amount of money in renewal energy, campaigns, developing public transport.

On the other hand, there are a variety of tackles that an individual can take to help reduce environmental problems. However, it is impossible for only one individual in the society to implement them. Firstly, individuals should take actions to obey laws, campaigns, and regulations. It is illustrated that each person has their own contribution such as traveling by public transport, complying with traffic law. Secondly, citizens have responsibilities to build a fund to preserve the environment. For instance, every citizen should obey income tax law and other tax policy. Thirdly, individuals should also take responsibility for the impact they have on the environment. They can choose products with less packaging, and recycle as much as possible.

In conclusion, environmental issues are concerned by most people. Nevertheless, several individuals recognize that it is such a big drawback that individuals unable to tackle these problems. However, governments and individuals can take measures to address these problems.

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both of view and give your opinion.

The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in noise, especially in big cities. While some people argue that it is essential to control noise strictly, others think that they could make noise whenever they want. I believe that human life would be better if noise could be reduced.

On the one hand, some people believe that they have the freedom to make noise due to various reasons. Firstly, noise is an integral part of modern life. It is common that people nowadays are under a lot of pressure since they have to struggle with the commitments of work and studying. Therefore, they prefer dancing at some parties or just turning the music out loud at home to relieve their stress, although it may disturb their next-door neighbors. Secondly, people often consider noise as an unavoidable element of the industrialization and modernization process. In fact, the traffic noise and engine noise seems to be extremely familiar to urban dwellers. Thus, they think that there are no reasons for controlling noise.

On the other hand, noise has brought some drawbacks to the society. The first disadvantage is that unpleasant noise could cause harmful impacts on human health. It is true that people could suffer from cardiovascular problems, serious stress and sleep disturbance when they are exposed to loud noise in a long time. Another drawback is that productivity of work and study may be reduced as a result of noise. For example, there are many white collar workers and pupils who could not concentrate on their tasks and homework because of the constant noise from the street.

In conclusion, with what I have mentioned above, I believe that people’s lives would be better if noise could be limited although some people think that making noise freely is their own right.

Global environmental issues are the responsibility of rich nations not of poorer nations. Do you agree with this opinion?

Some people argue that the responsibility rests with wealthy nations rather than their less well-off counterparts when the world confronts with environmental problems. From my perspective, this opinion is true.

The first reason to justify my belief is that rich countries bear more blame on damaging the earth’s ecosystem than developing and underdeveloped ones. As their industries improve, these countries have polluted the nature by discharging toxic waste into it. An obvious example of this is carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuel which leads to ozone layer depletion. Consequently, regardless of income level, all countries are facing effects of global warming such as extreme weather and rising sea levels.

On the other hand, low-income nations have not had such sufficient finance to burn fossil fuel in large quantities so they cannot be held responsibilities for this. Moreover, wealthy nations have the capacity to pay for the damages they have caused to the earth. While poor countries are struggling with problematic issues in their society such as poverty and unemployment, these issues are no longer problems to wealthy ones. Instead of that, financial resources accompanied with advancements in science and technology would enable them to undertake largescale international projects for the protection of nature. An example of this is how developed countries have succeeded in lots of fund-raising projects to support third world countries which are suffering from the effects of global warming.

In conclusion, I totally agree that it is rich and developed countries, and not the poor ones, are accountable for the current condition of our ecosystem.

Some people argue that individuals can do nothing to improve the environment. Therefore, only governments and large companies can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is widely argued that environmental problems should be addressed by governments and independent organizations but not individuals can make no difference in this aspect. While it is true that governments and companies generally take the lead in environmental issues, I believe that each individual still plays a vital role in improving the environment.

On the one hand, our biosphere is facing a certain number of problems that cannot be solved by any separate person. Some of the concerned topics are ozone layer depletion, fighting climate change or protecting animals’ habitat, which requires the collaborative actions of governments and other involving enterprises all over the world. In addition, in comparison with each individual, the governments and large companies undoubtedly afford to provide better financial resources as well as necessary tools in tackling environmental challenges. For example, if a city’s authorities impose a policy to ban the usage of motorbike within its downtown, or an environmental organization develops and introduces a renewable source of energy to the public, it would create a tremendous effect to reduce air pollution.

On the other hand, I would argue that each individual can take a variety of actions at grass root level to help to alleviate environmental issues. Firstly, a person can deliberately reduce the use of plastic in their daily life, or opt for unleaded petrol or public transportation in lieu of private vehicles to reduce carbon dioxide emission. Secondly, they can actively engage in environmental projects to educate other people around them about various methods to protect the environment, for instance using biodegradable packaging products, or the appropriate classification and dumping of wastes. With raising the awareness and contribution of each person to solve environmental threats, the burden placing the governments and businesses can be significantly lightened and the environment will be more likely to be improved.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that governments, large companies, and each individual should take (equal) responsibilities for solving environmental problems as planet Earth is the common home of us all.

Some people think that in order to prevent illness and disease, governments should make efforts in reducing environmental pollution and housing problems. What extent do you agree or disagree with this statements?

It is true that governments should support citizens to diminish risks from ailments. From my perspective, I completely agree that the best solutions would be to reduce environmental contamination and housing issues.

On the one hand/To begin with, there are two primary reasons why governments ought to protect the environment to prevent illness and disease. Firstly, the clean atmosphere results in healthy conditions for residents to live in. The bacteria will find it hard to survive, if people live in a fresh environment. Secondly, liquid waste which is discharged into rivers may affect people’s health through eating and drinking. As a result, residents might have severe diseases, of which cancer is a typical example. Besides, governments should take housing issues into consideration to resist illness.

To be specific, subsidizing social houses for homeless people can prevent diseases from spreading in communities. This is because people who have their own houses may/will not have infectious diseases in public places such as parks and pavements. Furthermore, the possession of houses would raise citizens’ awareness about garbage. For instance, people could understand how to classify rubbish and put it in the right bins to protect the clean environment in their residential areas.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my advocate that governments have to implement urgent solutions to fight against illness by lessening environmental pollution and housing issues.

Nuclear energy is better than other energy resources in meeting everincreasing needs of the globe. To what extend to you agree or disagree?

People have different views about the role of nuclear power stations in supplying the energy for the growing demands of the whole world. While I am totally convinced about the importance of nuclear energy, I am against the viewpoint/advocate that this source of energy is far advantages than other energy resources.

On the one hand, I understand why many people prefer building more and more nuclear power stations to supply the human energy needs. It is clear that nuclear power is a sustainable energy resource. It can be used to produce electricity without wasting natural resources such as coal, oil or gas. Moreover, these natural resources are running out due to the higher demands of humans. As a result, many people consider nuclear power being a future energy for the advanced developments of humans. Another reason is that nuclear power stations are cleaner than fossil fuel power stations. By using the nuclear resource, we can reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming.

On the other hand, nuclear power has its disadvantages, which make it impossible to replace totally other energy resources. The most obvious concern is the safety of building nuclear power stations. Operating nuclear manufactories requires enormous advanced technologies and strict procedures to ensure no leaking radioactive material. If a small incident happened, it would cause a tremendous tragedy. For instance, several years ago, there was a problem occurring in a nuclear plant in Japan. This incident damaged the lives of thousand people and surrounding areas. This problem makes people concern of living nearby nuclear power stations and question about the safety of nuclear resource in comparison with solar, wind or water power.

In conclusion, although nuclear power plays a significant role, this resource should be used along with other forms of energy to provide sustainable developments for humans.

Many people say that we have developed into a “throw-away” culture because we are filling up our environment with so many plastic bags and rubbish that we cannot fully dispose of. To what extent do you agree with this opinion and what measures can you recommend reducing this problem?

It is believed that many people have the habit of disposing plastic bags and rubbish without considering environmental issues it may cause/result in/lead to. In my opinion, I do totally agree with this idea and intend to propose some possible solutions to deal with the problem.

There are a number of reasons why the environment has become increasingly polluted/contaminated with an excessive amount of waste. First of all, as the explosion of population, needs for daily life have demanded a huge amount of goods, therefore the enormous quantity of garbage has emerged subsequently. Furthermore, people tend to send “unwanted” things to second-hand shops or just simply throw them into trash cans whenever they purchase new products. This largely contributes a significant volume of rubbish to the environment. Last but not least, food processing companies have deliberately packaged goods by singleuse-only containers which could not be recycled; accordingly, these bags have remained intact in piles of waste.

However, I contend such problems can be solved by the effort of both individuals and the government. The primary measure would be maintaining people’s habit of segregating organic waste material and un-biodegradable ones. Simultaneously, manufacturers try to recycle reusable materials such as glass, waste metal, plastic and so forth to utilize them in other industries. Such procedures are likely to reduce the waste load to the environment significantly. The other tactics would be government’s implementation plans to encourage people in protecting the environment by considering the way to reuse and repair their old items instead of throwing them away and purchasing new ones.

Having taken the issue into account, I once again affirm that we have been producing waste materials more than ever before. However, the proposed integrated solutions could be offered to tackle the problem.

Fossil fuels such as coal or oil are main sources of energy in many countries. However, in some countries, the use of renewable source of energy such as solar and wind energy are encouraged. Is it positive or negative?

In recent years there has been a growing tendency for countries to use alternative sources of energy rather than fossil fuels. I believe that this should be given a top priority because of lots of its advantages brought to people’s lives.

On the one hand, societies would have to face some negative consequences of using fossil fuels as the main sources of energy. Firstly, an amount of fossil fuel is limited. If people do not take advantage of renewable sources of energy, they have to suffer a serious shortage of energy supplies in a foreseeable future. Secondly, using fossil fuels would not be environmentally friendly. The burning of fossil fuels contributes to the increase in the amount of CO2 emission, which is the leading cause of the global warming. As a result, this would have a detrimental effect on all life on the Earth.

On the other hand, there are many benefits for countries that use alternative sources of energy. Green power sources are eco-friendly and do not contribute to air pollution. As there are no carbon emissions, problems of climate change and poor air quality can be tackled by increasing the dependence on alternative energy. Additionally, wind and solar power are both renewable sources of energy. Instead of using exhausting fossil fuels which are becoming exhausted, the use of renewable energy will guarantee a boundless supply of energy for the future generation.

In conclusion, I would argue that governments should place a considerable importance on developing and using alternative sources of energy for the reasons mentioned above.

Model 2

In recent decades, some countries have been attempting to promote alternative energy sources in order to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. Although I accept that there are some dangers of this trend, I would argue that the utilization of these sources is an effective solution for dealing with the energy crisis.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why environmental scientists and activists believe that being more reliance on alternative energy resources could make some serious troubles. First, since many countries have been producing nuclear power, people now have to face the issues of safety and pollution. For example, the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan nuclear plant generated a lot of poisonous and radioactive emissions which not only killed many people but also left a legacy of cancers deaths for the future. Second, another energy resources, like wind power, have negative impacts on many different aspects of life. For instance, many local residents strongly disagree with the construction of wild farms as they come at the expense of the landscape and the level of noise.

On the other hand, I would argue that it is more beneficial for environmental protection to use renewable energy sources instead of the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil or gas. First, since green power sources are eco-friendly, there are no carbon dioxide emissions contaminating the atmosphere. These acts as incentives for controlling problems of climate change and poor air quality. Second, the fossil fuels are generally considered to be non-renewable resources which have limits on supply. As a result, the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power will guarantee a boundless supply of energy for a future generation.

In conclusion, although there are safety concerns and other impacts about alternating traditional energy sources, it seems to me that governments and the public should support the use of them.

Model 3

Although many parts of the world still consider fossil fuels to be their primary source of energy, there is an increasing number of countries resorting to alternative sources to serve their energy demands. While using solar or wind energy could create some drawbacks, I would argue that this is generally more beneficial in various ways.

On the one hand, recently – discovered sources of energy seem to be unappealing to some people for a number of reasons. One explanation is that it is remarkably expensive and time-consuming to utilize these types of energy. Wind or solar energy takes users a great amount of time, knowledge and various equipment to use. Furthermore, alternative sources of energy are unstable as they mainly depend on weather conditions, which make them inaccessible in a number of regions during several months of the year. Therefore, new sources of energy are currently not a viable solution for the majority of world population and unlikely to replace fossil fuels in the near future.

On the other hand, alternative energy sources offer a variety of benefits. Firstly, while the burning of fossil fuels generates greenhouse gases and emissions which cause numerous detrimental effects on the environment such as acid rain, air pollution, water contamination, or global warming, green types of energy from the nature could mitigate these exacerbated consequences. Secondly, fossil fuels are not unlimited and with the overexploitation and worrying waste of oil or gas, these sources of energy will soon be used up.

As a consequence, there is an urgent need for the research and development of environmentally friendly and longlasting sources like wind or solar energy. In conclusion, it seems evident that the benefits of relying on alternative energy sources outweigh its drawbacks, and this is not only a positive but also an inevitable development.

Human activities have negative effects on plants and animals species. Some people think that it is too late to do anything about this problem. Other people believe that effective measures can be taken to improve the situation. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is true that human development has been detrimental to other species on our planet. While some people think that there are very few measures that can be taken to save the life of plants and animals, I believe that there are still many opportunities for humans to correct what they have done and protected wildlife from devastation.

On the one hand, to meet the increase in population and other human demands, an increasing in the number of forest areas have been cut down to make land available for farming, or the lives of marine animals are being endangered due to industrial waste. These activities damage the natural habitats of animals and plants, and led to the extinction of some species. It is tough to admit that even with the most modern technologies, people cannot bring back the life of species that were killed.

However, I believe that humans are now aware of the advantages of the diversity of the ecosystem, and governments together with scientists are doing their best to save endangered plants and animals. For instance, non-governmental organizations launch various campaigns to raise the awareness of people on the importance of protecting wild-animals. Recently, many celebrities throughout the world have advocated for boycotting products made from threatened species. Moreover, in our daily life, we are educated to recycle and buy sustainable products from bamboo or wood to protect species lives in forests. Besides that, the simple action like placing decals on the windows in order to keep birds from colliding with them is the simple thing we can do to save our planet.

In conclusion, although it is too late to do anything for extinct species, I strongly believe that there are many things we can do to create safer habitats for existing.

Cycling is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport. Why is it not popular in many places? And how to increase its popularity?

In light of global warming and the rising level of pollution, using eco-friendly means of transport especially bicycle is greatly encouraged by authorities as well as conservationists. However, it is not favored by many people due to various reasons and there are some viable solutions that governments can adopt to support cycling.

The unpopularity of bicycles can be attributed to several underlying causes. The key rationale is that using bikes consumes a large amount of time to travel from a place to another on a daily basis, which can affect people’s work and other activities. In particularly, long-distance commuters whose offices are located in central areas may encounter difficulties with arriving at their own companies on time. Another reason is that nowadays people are less likely to pay attention to the harms which can be inflicted on their surroundings. In other words, they generally do not forego the privilege of driving their own car/motorbike and switch to cycling in order to partially purify the atmosphere. Therefore, it is understandable that in some places, bicycles are not preferred.

However, governments can take several steps to cultivate this green habit. First and foremost, environmental campaigns should be promoted to raise people’s awareness of the positive contribution that cycling can make to their residential areas. For example, environmentalists can indicate that deterioration of air quality caused by the emissions from personal cars can pose an imminent threat to people’s health. Moreover, states can impose/adopt stringent regulations accompanied with holding competitions to encourage people to cycle to work at least one day per week. Da Nang perfectly exemplifies this solution. Local authorities usually require citizens to use bikes at weekends, forming a good habit and making them more responsible for environmental protection.

In conclusion, despite the advantages cycling can bring to the environment, it is not highly appreciated. Therefore, governments should take proposed measures to urge their citizens to use bikes more frequently.

Model 2

Although riding a bicycle can bring numerous benefits to our environment instead of using other sorts of vehicles, it is true that there is a limited number of people are more likely to use it because of several reasons. To reduce this unpopularity, some solutions could be proposed at the level of individuals, as well as the society.

To begin with, there is a range of reasons why few people use bicycles to travel on a regular basis. Firstly, living in a fast-paced life, people seem to become much busier with a heavy workload than in the past, and individuals want to reduce the time spending on transport as much as possible. To be more precise, nowadays, not only do people work at their workplace, but also take time to finish their tasks at home, so the increase in hours of work required them to minimize the time for transport. As a result, they could not utilize bicycles – a low-speed vehicle but tend to prioritize the usage of motorbikes or cars which would take less time. Secondly, cycling requires a greater strength and stamina than riding a motorbike or driving a car. This partly discourages people from choosing this means of transport, especially in the uncomfortable weather or when they have to travel a long distance.

Regarding solutions, several steps can be taken to raise the popularity of bicycles. The first solution should come from the governmental actions to dissuade citizens from owning and utilizing private motorbikes or cars such as increasing the price of petrol or raising the tax on these vehicles. As a consequence, more people would opt bicycle as their primary means of transport. Additionally, at the same time, central authorities should also build more lanes serving only cyclists, which would make it much faster and safer to travel by bicycles. In the level of individuals, the final solution is to launch campaigns to raise citizens’ awareness of the environmental degradation which is partly caused by harmful effects of motorbikes and cars, and this could lead people to cycle more often.

In conclusion, there are some reasons why bicycles become less common in today’s world, and measures should be taken to promote this means of transport to achieve sustainable development early.

To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel. What is your opinion on the above assumption?

The growth in means of transports nowadays has recently been a heated issue because it leads to serious environmental problems. Some individuals state that the efficient way to approach the risks is to raise the fuel price. On my perspective, I suppose that there are other/alternative methods which also addresses the problem adequately/successfully.

To begin with, it is evident that the influence of fuel cost on the number of transports is unremarkable. This is because most people decide whether to buy a new car or not depending on their need as well as their budget, not particularly fuel price. One good example is in Vietnam, although the price of petrol is double compared with that 10 years ago, the figures of motorbikes and cars are significantly rising every year.

Therefore, what the government should do is to impose laws to restrict imported cars by tax in order to decline vehicles which play an integral factor in causing traffic congestion and pollution. In that case, the customers could take into consideration if the price of cars is too high to afford. As a consequence, traffic jam is reduced effectively. Furthermore, public transport should be improved to attract more passengers. This solution does not only cut down private vehicles but also reduce carbon dioxide emission that causes greenhouse effects and climate change these days. In conclusion, as far as I concerned, there are many effective ways to tackle traffic and pollution problems besides the rise of petrol price. Above all, we should combine above – mentioned solutions to cope with traffic and environment issues.

Model 2

It is commonly believed that an increase in fuel cost is the most optimal way to solve the world’s green issues. While this perspective may suit many people, my view is that there are other effective ways to tackle this issue.

To begin with, raising the price of fuel might alleviate environmental problems. The main reason for that is the reduction of fuel consumption, owing to a decline in the number of people willing to pay for fuel fees. Consequently, not only will the amount of released pollutants to the atmosphere decrease but the rate of industrial wastes will also decline. Even though this might have detrimental impacts on fuel companies, some environmental problems will be alleviated such as global warming due to a fall in the amount of carbon dioxide emission from vehicles.  

In spite of the aforementioned points, there are several effective ways to deal with green issues. The most ideal solution is that the government should put their priority on replacing fuel with other types of energy which are not harmful to the environment. For instance, scientists in developed countries have been using electricity to power a car instead of gas. Although this development might take a lot of time in developing nations, people can use other sources of energy, which is friendly to the environment, to operate their car, hence green issues such as global warming can be solved radically in long-term.

To conclude, it is true that raising fuel cost is a good approach to solve the world’s environmental problem, but this is by no means the most ideal solution to tackle this issue.

Model 3

In recent years, the rise of petrol price has been a controversial topic in some parts of the world. While I agree it is a reasonable/ feasible solution to control increasing traffic jam/ congestion and to reduce the greenhouse gas emission, I believe there are other ways to deal with these problems effectively without causing negative objection of citizens.

On the one hand, when the price of petrol is inflated, people will minimize using their private transportation/ vehicles and choose public transportation instead in order to save their budget. Therefore, the number of cars and motorbikes circulating on the street will decrease and not only will traffic jams be solved but also less gas pollution will be released to harming the environment. On the other hand, it is just a temporary/ short – term solution and can only impact on the poor because the petrol price is not a big charge for those who can afford much greater things and as it is one of their daily need to travel, they will ready to pay it anyway. Eventually, people will find their way to cope with the rise in petrol price and nothing is changed.

In my opinion, there are better measures that the government can have/ take to handle the traffic and pollution problems instead of increasing the price of petrol. First, in order to reduce the growing traffic, public transport should be upgraded with more stops and priority on the road to travel faster and people should be encouraged to use them more frequently by lowering the price and showing the benefits of public transport to communities and to the environment. Moreover, the government can decrease the gas emission in a more effective way by creating and encouraging people to use renewable and clean energy such as solar power or organic petrol from plants, which not only can be used for transportation but also for factories and the result will be much more optimistic and permanent.

In conclusion, increasing the petrol price is just a temporary and controversy way to manage with the traffic and pollution problems of several countries and I believe the measures mentioned above can be better ones to use.

Freshwater has always been a limited resource in some parts of the world. Today, however, growing worldwide demand has made this a global problem. What are the causes of the increased demand and what measure could governments and individuals take to respond to this problem?

Many countries and regions around the world frequently experience a shortage of water resource, and this has become an alarming issue as the global water demand rises. While there are several causes of the increasing water consumption, nations and citizens should take certain steps to tackle this issue.

The surge of worldwide water consumption can be explained in a number of reasons. Firstly, population explosion is the major contributor to the growing water use. This, in particular, is severe in countries which could not manage the birth rate such as Africa. Secondly, as the global population rises, industries and factories have expanded their business to meet the consumption demand, discharging more sewage to natural resources, and eventually endangering water reverses. For example, in many developing countries, small farms still pump unprocessed wastewater directly into lakes, rivers, or oceans, which contaminate water reservoirs used for water production.

National authorities must take actions to conserve water resource. Governments would raise public awareness about the importance of water resources, and further give courses to citizens on how to optimize their water usage. In addition, nations would do their best on protecting water reverses by both introducing strict laws on raw discharges to the environment and raising the higher standard of industrial sewage disposal. Finally, governments could enact infrastructures which purify seawater into saline free water. Holland, which is a leading country in the desalination, has managed to generate a third source of national water consumption from sea water. Citizens also have the responsibility for reducing their water consumption. People should minimize their water use in daily living activities by re-routing runoff from washing machines and using that water for flushing the toilet, or simply turning off the tap while brushing teeth or washing hand.

In conclusion, governments and individuals should do more tackle the growing water use; otherwise, water scarcity will become severe in the global.

In the future, it seems it will be more difficult to live on the earth. Some people think more money should be spent on researching other planets to live, such as Mars. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Alongside the development of industries, climate change makes the earth become less ideal to live on. Some people, therefore, suggest investing more in the field of astronomy to find alternative planets. This may be true, but I believe this is not the only way to save our future.

On the one hand, finding other planets to live is a good idea. Firstly, there are many limited natural resources that are over-exploited nowadays. Once these resources are no longer available, we will have been lacking in fossil fuel, such as charcoal or petroleum. Industrial and daily activities are considerably dependent on them, so it is necessary to start to find new planets that have these resources to exploit or even live in. Secondly, setting a goal of settling down on a new planet can force the astronomy to grow faster. Becoming learned in the field, the scientists will figure out new places to live and other innovations, exploit the energy of the stars and communicate with the aliens to exchange the universal knowledge, for example.

On the other hand, the discovery of new planets should not be the only solution for our future. The first reason is that although we are facing the environmental problems, degradation is a long-term process. Therefore, we still have enough time if we take actions now to reduce the pollution on the earth. Moreover, the cost for researching new planets is much higher than protecting and regenerating the old one. Space shifts, researching projects, astronauts training fee will consume a great deal of revenue from the government.

In conclusion, it is necessary to research for new planets. However, the regeneration of the earth environment is also a promising answer to the future living places question.

Model 2

It is projected by scientists that human life on the Earth has become increasingly unsustainable. While prioritizing more expenditure on seeking a new life in the cosmos is believed to be urgent by some citizens, I agree that money should be invested accordingly to alleviate some imminent problems on the Earth.

On the one hand, there have been more pressing issues whose impacts are threatening human life. Firstly, environmental degradation could be detrimental to the socio-economic development of a country. Overconsumption of fossil fuels such as coal or oil is known as non-renewable sources of energy will be causing catastrophic consequences of natural resources depletion in the foreseeable future. In addition, an abundance of pollution types is more prone to trigger serious physical and mental health problems. Secondly, living conditions of people invested with less money mean that their basic standard of living could not fulfill, generate more enormous gaps between the impoverished and wealthy. As a result, the risk of insecurity will be increased by crime for the criminal purposes of finding a steady life.

On the other hand, more expenditure on invading space could lead to a variety of potential risks. First of all, the conquest of space is a challenge that costs us a great deal of money, meanwhile, the success could not be guaranteed. The space race in North Korea, though, marks an important milestone in the development of space exploration, leaves the fact that economy is becoming increasingly backward itself. Another risk is that when astronauts are in weightless conditions, health safety cannot be assured completely. They will have to endure discomforts and hardships in the universe and do more training courses to float through space if they do not want to die suddenly.

In sum, I would argue that mankind is destroying the basis of life on the Earth and governments should take making use of budgets deliberately into account in order not to produce devastating effects on people’s life.

The consumption of the world’s resources (oil, and water etc.) is increasing at a dangerous rate. What are causes and solutions?

Over the past decades, the world has seen an alarming increase in terms of consumption of natural resources such as coal, oil, and water. There are a variety of forces that drive this trend and several solutions should be adopted to solve the thorny issues which have arisen.

Excessive consumption of natural resources may be caused by various reasons. Firstly, there is a clear connection between a number of global resources consumed and the great boom of industry all around the world. In fact, in order to ensure the operation of millions of machine playing a vital role in most of the industrial sections, industrial sites, and huge resources such as water, electricity, and oil are required which leads to overexploitation in these sources. Secondly, since we have been living in the age of technology, we tend to be reliant on many technology gadgets related to energy in almost every aspect of life, including working, learning and entertaining. Besides, human beings have been wasting natural resources when we use them over our demands or for inadequate ones which lead to out of the resource in the future.

To tackle this taxing issue, there are various effective solutions that should be taken into account. First, by carrying out selective industrial development plants, the governments can limit the number of factories and industrial sites at a reasonable level. This means that we can save not only energy but also money and human resources to research and use other resources such as electricity from the wind, solar power and renewable energy more widely. Second, in order to raise the public awareness on using these resources, the authorities should conduct a variety of massive campaigns to offer valuable information about this issue. For example, using the bicycle as a means of transportation allows citizens not only to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels but also to strengthen their physical health and mental state.

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various reasons for this trend, however, steps need to be taken to tackle this issue.

Model 2

It is true that resources such as water and oil are decreasing rapidly as the result of overexploitation. There is a number of reasons behind this phenomenon and solutions must be applied to resolve the problem. There are several main reasons why the consumption of the world’s resources is rising at a dangerous rate.

Firstly, world’s population is ballooning significantly, especially in developing countries. As a result of this trend, more and more resources are needed to serve a great demand of over 7 billion people on Earth. Secondly, the rising in the standard of living also contributes an important factor to this trend. For example, millions of oil’s barrels are being exploited to fill up a large number of vehicles such as cars and motorbikes. Finally, the development of petroleum and coal industries also plays a significant role in the trend of overexploitation. With the undoubted economic profits which often contribute the main revenues to some countries, it is really difficult to encourage governments to reduce those exploited activities.

Measures must be taken by governments, scientists, and energy investors to resolve the problem. Governments should encourage people to save water and energy through social events such as “Earth Hour”. Those events are the efficient way to make people more aware about the overconsumption of resources which has a negative impact on the environment. Another measure is that scientists should collaborate with energy investors to research and expand the use of renewable energy. For example, solar and wind energy are expected to replace fossil fuels such as coal and oil in the future. By adopting those new renewable resources, people will soon no longer damage the environment.

In conclusion, some reasons why the consumption of world’s resources is creasing significantly can be identified, and some solutions should be adopted to handle that problem.

Model 3

It is true that natural resources depletion is severely detrimental to the socioeconomic development of a nation due to uncontrolled overconsumption proportion of non-renewable sources of energy. There are a number of justifications behind this point of view and several solutions should be proposed accordingly to alleviate the harmful effects of this phenomenon.

On the one hand, there are two primary reasons why these resources are being utilized excessively. The first one is that the world resources are greatly beneficial to the socio-economic development of a country. For example, policies related to the inventions of electric cars and unmanned airplanes using environmentally-friendly energy are adopted, though, there is no sound substitute for gasoline and diesel as a major supply of fuels for modes of transportation. In addition, oil and coal are still irreplaceable materials in order to fulfill the requirements of complicated procedures in factories. Another reason is that seeking for replaceable substances requires more expenses from national and local authorities. Alternative sources of energy such as solar and wind power are strongly taken into consideration as the potential replacement for fossil fuels, however, due to their proper characteristics, it is giving more funds that serve for producing useful equipment to convert solar and wind power into energy.

On the other hand, measures should be taken by not only governments and but also international bodies to decelerate consumption of the world’s resources. Firstly, restrictions should be introduced at a larger scale so as not to waste resources. For instance, citizens will not be allowed to leave water running in their own houses if they go outside. Besides, people’s awareness of utilizing electricity effectively should be raised, especially during rush hours. Secondly, multinational corporations should cooperate with each other for the purpose of mitigating natural resources depletion. It is imperative that they set up international bodies and fundraise for these organizations to prioritize expenditure on some certain projects related to alternative energy sources. This contributes a reduction in the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources.

In conclusion, it is clear that there are various justifications for people’s increased proportion of using the world’s resources and steps should be taken to tackle this problem.

Model 5

It is true that the natural resources of the world are being depleted severely at an alarming rate. There are numerous reasons behind this phenomenon and several solutions should be adopted to solve the problem.

There are two primary reasons why the world’s resources are being overexploited. Firstly, the world’s population is growing rapidly, putting the pressure on the natural resources/putting the natural resources under pressure. The demand for energy consumption is getting higher as people need petrol for transportation such as cars and planes, and electricity for homes and offices. Secondly, a majority of individuals and organizations still consume vital resources irresponsibly. An obvious example of this is that timber companies have cut down trees on a large scale without planting new ones to replace them. Even simple things such as leaving taps running and leaving lights switched on unnecessarily can all contribute to exacerbating/ to the exacerbation of the current energy crisis.

Measures should be taken to tackle the problem of resources overconsumption. One step is that governments must impose a higher tax on the use of natural resources to restrict the demand. By raising the tax, people’s pockets would bear directly affected; thus, they would use these resources more responsibly. For example, water meters should be installed in homes and workplaces. Another essential measure is to develop and introduce renewable sources such as wind and solar energy as alternatives. These sustainable energies not only reduce the reliance on the Earth’s natural resources, but also help protect the environment.

To conclude, the depletion of world’s resources stems from various reasons and the issue requires solutions such as fiscal policies and renewable alternatives to be implemented urgently

Some people argue that individuals can do nothing to improve the environment. Therefore, only governments and large companies can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Humans are confronting environmental problems that are more taxing than before. However, the debate over whether individuals or government play the key role in the improvement of the environment has been heated constantly. In my opinion, that the government and large companies can make a big deal in protecting the environment does not mean that the individuals cannot do anything to make it better.

It is undeniable that significant difference has been made by government’s action. Almost all top-down policies imposed/introduced by the government about environment protection has prevented many factories from over-exploiting and destroying the ecosystem. These regulations are/include those on higher standard requirements of the emission of manufactures such as heavy metals and toxic, higher tax on products using disposable materials, or strong punishment on deforestation. These policies have not only prevented/deterred companies from devastating the natural surroundings more but also push pressure on them to create the innovative way to make the environment better. Obviously, many kinds of renewable energy using natural power, a variety of reusable materials and advanced waste treatment system has been researched, developed gradually and applied into real life in recent years. Therefore, it is quite clear to see what difference the government and large groups can make to the whole world.

However, Individuals are also the main determinant to improve the environment. The more awareness people have, the more advantageous it is for the environment. With limited use of private vehicles / by using fewer private vehicles, each person can help/helps to reduce a lot of fumes, leading to less Air pollution. By selecting the eco-friendly products, the consumers enable the suppliers to reduce fossil materials used in manufacturing, resulting in less exploitation of the earth’s natural resources. Although individuals only make small changes, millions of people uniting can definitely create significant movement in the improvement of the global environment.

In conclusion, while I accept that the government and big groups play key roles in dealing with environmental problems, my belief is that it needs concerted efforts 45 of both the government, large corporations, and individuals to enable improvement to our surroundings.

More

Log In

Or with username:

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.