Nowadays environmental problems are too big to be managed by individual persons or individual countries. In other words, it is an international problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

For people, who are keen it is discover web pages containing articles discussing determining the world’s issues. The  first point of view claims that troubles with natural ought to deciding worldwide.   The opposing opinion disagrees and regards solving regionally as the noteworthy variant in that perspective. A number of scientists have shown that in recent years there have been significant changes in natural patterns. As a result,   discussing about it  seems to became more and more common. Opponents of  solving environmental problems globally proposed that this decision will be economical beneficial, due to the fact that wealthy country can help and speed up settling issues. For example, the USA lend assistance Philippines about flood in 2014.   In any way, an attitude to this issue always depends on a particular countries problem and question’s background. However, some opponents who state that  issues  ought to finding answer nationally deem the previous viewpoint questionable. Of crucial importance is how to define the matter in question. It is often said that naturally causes and problem are complex question to be solved generally, because some countries have specific issues, that other countries can not relate and fully understand that. For example, tsunamis and earthquakes in Japan are only exclusive. In conclusion, while the benefits of solving generally,   particularly with problems poor countries, this method is economical profitable, some still feel that  issues should be interpreted regionally. However, as long as we are careful to keep in mind the importance of specific questions, globally unfolding benefits are clearly positive.