1. The government should stop spending money on local environmental problems and simply increase investment in to the more threatening issue of global warming. To what extent do you agree?

Environmental issues either be locally or globally are increasing at an alarming rate. There always has been a debate that government should spend less on local environmental issues and an extra budget on life threating issues like global warming. To my thinking, I completely disagree to this argument. To being with, the major environmental issues have emerged from exponentially increasing pollution. Global warming results from an increase in greenhouse gases in atmosphere which are emitted by automobiles. Burning of fossil fuels affects not only earth’s core but also results in increase in earth temperature thereby resulting in global warming. For instance, according to climate scientists, increase in automobile emission is directly proportional to hike in global warming. Hence to tackle major issues like global warming actions like reducing automobile’s emission rate and pollution locally have to be taken first in order to have a larger effect globally. Deforestation is also one of the main reasons of increase in earth temperature. Forests are lung of the earth, by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen in atmosphere they are essential for life sustainability. Use of forest land for industrialization and human accommodation has led to an enormous increase in deforested areas. It has also been stated by Grant Joint Commission of Environmentalist, that by year 2030 only 40% area will be covered by forests globally. Measures like Reforestation and Afforestation taken locally will have a huge impact in reducing global warming. To summarize, budget planning should look after local environmental problems first and then act on global issues as taking one step locally will have an impact globally.