0% Complete
0/21 Steps

Nature and Environment

Some people say that the main environmental problem of our time is the loss of particular species of plants and animals. Others say that there are more important environmental problems. Discuss both these views and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Some people consider that the loss of individual species of plants and animals is the main environmental problem of our time. Attempts to preserve rare or dying species are carried out in zoos or other specialist plant and animal facilities, through breeding programmes, preservation orders and other forms of protection and there was genuine sadness among many when the last surviving white rhino died earlier this year.

Survival of the fittest is nature’s way of ruthlessly allowing weaker specimens to die out, although mankind has also contributed to falling animal numbers through hunting and poaching. However, whether saving individual species should be the main focus of environmental protection is debatable. Climate change and excessive use of plastic are just two other major problems that deserve our attention.

The evidence of climate change is there for us all to see: rising sea levels and associated flooding with the loss of homes at low land levels are becoming more frequent. Many countries and island communities are now calling for urgent action to delay, halt or even reverse the process, although if we believe the experts, reversal is impossible. Habitable areas are gradually shrinking, often for some of the poorest groups of people, but there seems to be little obvious action taking place. If the major contributors to climate change will not support the reduction of greenhouse gases, there is little hope for the future.

Naturalists have also begun to expose the serious problems arising from discarded plastic waste. Birds and animals can die gruesome deaths through being trapped or caught up in plastic bags or ropes, while the long process required for these plastics to decay means that they remain a threat for many years to come. Worse, there is now beginning to be evidence of sea creatures ingesting smaller globules of disintegrating plastic, which harms them and all the other creatures in their particular food chain.

The loss of particular species, both flora and fauna, is cause for regret, but I do not agree that they are the most important environmental problems these days. If climate change and damage from plastic continue, there will be less land and less food for everyone, including plants and animals.

Nowadays environmental problems are too big to be managed by individual persons or countries. In other words, it is an international problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

An essential problem of the 21st century is world pollution. Currently the environment is so much contaminated that urgent measures should be taken. The single individual cannot be blamed for the world pollution, however every person should take care of his or her habitat. In addition, it is vital that environmental issues should be treated internationally.

Lately, many presentations, conferences and international summits are held regarding waste treatment, recycling, soil and water contamination. For sure joint efforts and consolidation can only help in the mutual war towards the environmental disaster, which is going on. For instance, governments should offer support to companies and organizations, involved in manufacturing, industry or agriculture in order to find environment friendly approaches. These could be special law regulations, recycling programs, helping courses in order to implement ISO certificates and many more.

However, the influence of individuals over environment should not be ignored. If we do not confess that our planet is our home, we will never be able to take adequately care of it. We have to contribute every day to the preservation of nature and environment. For example, always remember to save energy by switching off lamps, computers and everything that we do not use. Our next obligation is to separate waste and throw bulk only in the designated areas. Driving vehicles can also be environment friendly. For example, we have to avoid accelerating the engines too rapidly or using the air condition in the country, where it will be better to save energy and simply open the windows.

To sum up, environmental problems should be handled by local and international authorities also. Every single person should take care of environment and moreover we have to bring up our children to be conscious citizens of a clean and preserved planet.

Scientists and the news media are presenting ever more evidence of climate change. Governments cannot be expected to solve this problem. It is the responsibility of individuals to change their lifestyle to prevent further damage. What are your views? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Recently scientists worried about climate change have urged governments to introduce measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are seen as its main cause. Simultaneously, politicians and environmentalists have urged individuals to make changes to their lifestyle. I shall argue that governments and individuals should take join responsibility for this problem.

Firstly, industry accounts for a large proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions, and this can only be controlled by government action. Measures could be taken to discourage pollution, such as limiting or taxing the use of fossil fuels. Alternatively, subsidies could be offered to industries to clean up their production processes. If these ideas were adopted, I believe that businesses would regard pollution as a financial issue.

Secondly, only discussion between governments can ensure that solutions are successful. The Kyoto agreement, for example, tried to reach global agreement on how to address the problem. Without such co-operating, it seems to me that efforts to reduce fuel consumption are unlikely to be effective.

However, national and international policies will only succeed if individuals also change their lifestyle. For example, people could think more carefully about how they use energy in their homes. By using less electricity, installing energy-efficient light bulbs and electrical appliances, or investing in solar panels, individuals can make a real difference.

In addition, I think individual attitudes to transport need to change. Instead of making short tips by car, people could choose to walk, cycle, or take a bus. Since cars are a major source of the problem, changing our behaviour in this area would have a major impact.

In conclusion, I would maintain that only a combination of international agreement, national policies, and changes in individual behaviour will succeed in preventing further damage to the environment.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, are the main source for many countries. However, some nations are using alternative energy such as solar power and wind power. Do you think this is a positive or negative development? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

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 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.

Some people feel that manufacturers and supermarkets have the responsibility to reduce the amount of packaging of goods. Others argue that customers should avoid buying goods with a lot of packaging. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

While some people think that it is the responsibility of producers and suppliers to reduce product packaging, others feel that the responsibility lies with consumers. This essay will analyse both sides of the argument.

On one hand, I believe that companies do have a significant responsibility to limit the amount of packaging that they package their products in. One reason for this is that many consumers have very little awareness about the negative impacts that the excessive amounts of product packaging are having on the environment; therefore, manufacturers and supermarkets need to minimise the amount of plastic packaging that is used to store and sell their products, or preferably use only biodegradable, recyclable, or environmentally friendly materials. In addition, many people cannot afford to be
selective about which products they buy, which is a further reason why all companies need to be more responsible.

On the other hand, individuals also have a responsibility to protect the environment from further destruction and pollution by limiting their consumption of products that are packaged in non-biodegradable materials. By boycotting certain products from companies who are not being environmentally responsible, consumers can put pressure on these companies to change their attitude towards the materials that they use to package their products. As a result, companies will be forced to act more environmentally responsible by changing and reducing product packaging. Consumers have the power to bring about change, but must act together in order for it to happen.

In conclusion, companies and individuals both need to take responsibility for the amount of packaging that is used to package goods. The government also needs to play a significant role in this issue by creating and enforcing laws that companies must adhere to with regards to plastic packaging, and by educating individuals about the environmental destruction and pollution caused by packaging waste.

Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

There is some debates over whether money that is spent on wildlife protection could be better spent on helping people. Personally, I believe that the protection of wild animals is extremely important and that countries need to invest more money in preserving their native animal species.

Firstly, I do not believe that much time or money is actually spent on protecting wild animals. In addition, I believe that a large majority of time that people spend on such issues is voluntary work that people do because they are passionate about saving and helping animals. Additionally, a large amount of money that is spent on these causes is from charity organisations which rely mostly on donations. Therefore, we cannot tell people what charities that they should or should not donate their time and money towards.

Secondly, while many people believe that humans are the superior race on planet Earth, others, including myself, feel that all living beings, human and animal, have equal rights to live in peace, and therefore the protection of all animals and their habitats is extremely important. Human activity is no doubt the main cause of most problems wild animals face. The human race has continued to destroy the planet and the natural habitats of wild animals and therefore should be responsible for protecting them so that they can live wild and free, as is their natural state.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that it is essential for the health of the planet to maintain a diverse range of animals and wildlife within all eco-systems. I also believe that due to the widespread devastation humans have caused to the natural environment, it is our responsibility to do whatever necessary, regardless of time and money, in order to restore a healthy balance to the planet’s natural environments.

It is a natural process for animal species to become extinct (e.g. Dinosaur, dodos…) There is no reason why people should try to prevent this from happening. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Some people believe that there are no compelling reasons for us to protect animal species from extinction as it occurs naturally. I personally disagree with this conviction and will support my argument in the essay below.

It is true that millions of years ago, many ancient species of animals, such as dinosaurs, were wiped out due to a gradual shift in climate and changing sea levels, according to some hypotheses. However, these environmental factors are not the primary contributor to the disappearance of certain species nowadays. Industrial activities have been devastating the natural habitats of wildlife and disturbing the food chain, causing the mass extinction of countless species. The increased demand for goods made from animals’ products, such as skins and horns, also leads to the rampant poaching of wildendangered animals, rhinos for instance. In this regard, humans are held accountable and should do what is needed to rectify the situation.

Other justifications for saving wild animals involve the significant roles that they play in not only the balance of the ecosystem but also our lives. Everything in nature is connected, and if one species becomes extinct, many other animals and even plants will suffer as the food chain is disrupted. Wild animals also have great aesthetic and socio-cultural values. They contribute to our rich bio-diversity that makes this planet a beautiful place. In numerous places around the world, many types of animals play an important role in different cultures. For example, in some religions, cows are revered and worshiped as gods.

The disappearance of many animal species does not always occur as a natural process but as a consequence of our doings. It is our obligation to help preserve wild animals because their extinction will have a severe influence on many important aspects of our lives.

The best way to solve world’s environmental problem is increase the cost of fuel. Do you agree or disagree and give your own opinion? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

It is believed that traffic and pollution issues would be best tackled by inflating the price of petroleum. In my opinion, this idea is completely flawed and there are several reasonable alternatives.

Clearly the price of fuel has little to do with pressing problems of traffic and pollution. The inevitable demand for time efficience and safe commuting in the modern world makes the change of fuel prices become rather insignificant, which proves the ineffectiveness of the suggested policy. In other words, even if the price were increased, people would still travel by their preferred form of transport on a daily basis and the problems of traffic and pollution would remain. Additionally, this solution could easily trigger social disagreement and resentment. This, coupled with the reluctance of using expensive fuel to travel every day, could be counter-productive and this proposed idea would become irrelevant.

On the other hand, alternatives to increasing the price of petrol show greater effectiveness. Firstly, governments could implement certain regulations restricting the use of private vehicles such as cars and turn people to using public transportation. This would relieve many roads from heavy traffic congestion by reducing the number of vehicles on the road, which in turn alleviates the problem of pollution caused by exhaust emissions. Secondly, in many cities around the world, cycling has proved to be an effective, environmentally friendly form of alternative transport and should be encouraged more in other major cities. Certain infrastructure, such as separate zones for cyclists, should be created to help avoid the overload of traffic during rush hour when the number of vehicles can exceed the road’s capacity.

In conclusion, I believe that heightening the price of fuel used for travelling to address traffic and pollution problems is somewhat absurd; and that there is a number of other more suitable and effective solutions.

Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words.

Climate change represents a major threat to life on Earth, but some people argue that we need to accept it rather than try to stop it. I completely disagree with this opinion, because I believe that we still have time to tackle this issue and reduce the human impact on the Earth’s climate. 

There are various measures that governments and individuals could take to prevent, or at least mitigate, climate change. Governments could introduce laws to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming. They could impose “green taxes” on drivers, airline companies and other polluters, and they could invest in renewable energy production from solar, wind or water power. As individuals, we should also try to limit our contribution to climate change, by becoming more energy efficient, by flying less, and by using bicycles and public transport. Furthermore, the public can affect the actions of governments by voting for politicians who propose to tackle climate change, rather than for those who would prefer to ignore it. 

If instead of taking the above measures we simply try to live with climate change, I believe that the consequences will be disastrous. To give just one example, I am not optimistic that we would be able to cope with even a small rise in sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced by flooding, particularly in countries that do not have the means to safeguard low-lying areas. These people would lose their homes and their jobs, and they would be forced to migrate to nearby cities or perhaps to other countries. The potential for human suffering would be huge, and it is likely that we would see outbreaks of disease and famine, as well as increased homelessness and poverty.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that we must address the problem of climate change, and I disagree with those who argue that we can find ways to live with it.

error: Content is protected !!