Computer technologies are more accessible and cheaper, as a result, more adults work at home and children learn at home. Is this a positive or negative development? v.1

There is no scepticism that environment which has been deteriorating at each successive day. So, experts throughout the developing and developed nations assert that authority should have onus to preserve the nature, not masses as they do nothing. I think in reverse manner and disagree with given notion which I will discuss in subsequent paragraphs. Elucidating the aspect, there are ample, powerful and daily evidences that government would be responsible for protect nature from devastation. Primary reason, the laws would be imposed by bureaucrats. For instance, one of the major factors of deforestation is plastic products like plastic bags and bottles and it can be halted if governors issue an official ban on all companies from utilizing plastic packaging. What is more, since administration officers agree to impose high penalties on wood cutting, deforestation can be reduced. To illustrate, long-term imprisonment and heavy fines, on those who cut down the trees illegally. A recent research by UK showed that 80% of deforestation declined due to strict punishment rules towards plants cutting. Ergo, it is not only protecting the wildlife, but reduce the pollution in the environment. Illuminating the opponent's opinion, counter claim that an individual can save the nature by decrease the demand for products. Nevertheless, I believe that since people have some fundamental requirements which are essential to habitat on the earth. Consequently, to fulfil those basic entails, people had better demand for goods. In conclusion, it can be reiterated that, albeit punishments modified the individual's lifestyle, but it is important to save the ecosystem. Unless government could take action, no one protects the environment from damage.