It is not hard to find natural degradation nowadays. Damages such as deforestation, plastic, and air pollution are all caused by mankind. However, when it comes to the question of who is the appropriate body that should take action against these issues, people point fingers at either the government or themselves. While there are plausible views from the contrary view, I will argue that it is better for the authority to take default responsibility in this case.
Firstly, devastation to the environment is not an easy problem to solve, and most individuals do not have the knowledge or the willingness to take action. For example, in the case of global warming- we did believe we had the chance to stop it but as time went by with only a few activists trying to warn the others, we are now too late to completely end global warming. In Europe and North America, environmental activists started to warn the public of there being only “12 more years remaining to save the future”. The idea of “time running out” is now gaining increasing salience.
Contrasting this view, responsibility for solving the problem of environmental damage should come mainly from the government due to the fact the authority to create, pass and implement laws to be followed by the public are all controlled by them. For instance, Japan has a modal shift in national policy to invest more in pollution control technology and educating both the public and business communities. If the government will not strictly impose these kinds of laws, individuals will not feel responsible to take action in reducing activities that lead to environmental pollution.
To conclude, I believe that the role of the government is vital to reduce environmental harm by implementing nature-friendly laws and educating their residents. As much as being aware of the damages we are causing is an appreciable factor for us individuals, it is not enough, and we are not taking action collectively. However, It is hoped that we can save our future before it is too late.
It is not
hard
to find natural degradation nowadays. Damages such as deforestation, plastic, and air pollution are all caused by mankind.
However
, when it
comes
to the question of who is the appropriate body that should take
action
against these issues,
people
point fingers at either the
government
or themselves. While there are plausible views from the contrary view, I will argue that it is better for the authority to take default responsibility
in this case
.
Firstly
, devastation to the environment is not an easy problem to solve, and most individuals do not have the knowledge or the willingness to take
action
.
For example
, in the case of global warming- we did believe we had the chance to
stop
it
but
as time went by with
only
a few activists trying to warn the others, we are
now
too late to completely
end
global warming. In Europe and North America,
environmental
activists
started
to warn the public of there being
only
“12 more years remaining to save the future”. The
idea
of “time running out” is
now
gaining increasing salience.
Contrasting this view, responsibility for solving the problem of
environmental
damage should
come
mainly
from the
government
due to the fact the authority to create, pass and implement laws to
be followed
by the public are all controlled by them.
For instance
, Japan has a modal shift in national policy to invest more in pollution control technology and educating both the public and business communities. If the
government
will not
strictly
impose these kinds of laws, individuals will not feel responsible to take
action
in reducing activities that lead to
environmental
pollution.
To conclude
, I believe that the role of the
government
is vital to
reduce
environmental
harm by implementing nature-friendly laws and educating their residents. As much as being aware of the damages we are causing is an appreciable factor for us individuals, it is not
enough
, and we are not taking
action
collectively
.
However
, It
is hoped
that we can save our future
before
it is too late.