These days, Global warming and air pollution are now frequent headlines on TV and in the newspapers all over the world, which keep us reminding of obligation to protect the environment. Some say this is an important topic for each nation, also it should be in international organization’s hands. I disagree with this statement for some reasons.
Having said that, environmental responsibility of governments around the world have a chain effect, benefitting not only the host country but also neighborly nations. Some say authorities in each area can understand causes and tackle them correctly. However, people feel that environmental problems are too complex for individual people to cope with. Thus, the government can take proactive measures to make people more environmentally responsible. Therefore, local states can impose campaigns which reach people realize and distinguish currently issues.
On the other hand, an international organization would act as a leader, issuing principles for all member countries to conform in the same way or it will have sufficient financial capabilities to support the improvement of the environment. Cited cases are the Kyoto protocol has contributed to the slowing down of climate change on the earth, or the United Nations’ support for Third World countries have helped improve the air quality there. This argument,  however, fails to take into consideration the fact that compulsion often backfires if an individual nation has no intention to cooperate, or the incentives provided can make recipient countries over reliant and avoid coming up with innovative ideas to resolve their country’s environmental situation. This in the long term exerts a negative overall global effect.
In conclusion, uprooting environment problems should be the responsibility of each national government rather than an international organization. 
These days, Global warming and air pollution are  
now
 frequent headlines on TV and in the newspapers all over the world, which  
keep
 us reminding of obligation to protect the environment.  
Some
 say this is an  
important
 topic for each  
nation
,  
also
 it should be in international organization’s hands. I disagree with this statement for  
some
 reasons.
Having said that, environmental responsibility of  
governments
 around the world have a chain effect,  
benefitting
 not  
only
 the host  
country
  but
  also
  neighborly
  nations
.  
Some
 say authorities in each area can understand causes and tackle them  
correctly
.  
However
,  
people
 feel that environmental problems are too complex for individual  
people
 to cope with.  
Thus
, the  
government
 can take proactive measures to  
make
  people
 more  
environmentally
 responsible.  
Therefore
, local states can impose campaigns which reach  
people
 realize and distinguish  
currently
 issues. 
On the other hand
, an international organization would act as a leader, issuing principles for all member countries to conform  
in the same way
 or it will have sufficient financial capabilities to support the improvement of the environment. Cited cases are the Kyoto protocol has contributed to the slowing down of climate  
change
 on the earth, or the United  
Nations’
 support for Third World  
countries
 have  
helped
  improve
 the air quality there. This argument, 
  
 however
, fails to take into consideration the fact that compulsion  
often
 backfires if an individual  
nation
 has no intention to cooperate, or the incentives provided can  
make
 recipient  
countries
 over reliant and avoid coming up with innovative  
ideas
 to resolve their  
country’s
 environmental situation. This in the long term exerts a  
negative
  overall
 global effect. 
In conclusion
, uprooting environment problems should be the responsibility of each national  
government
  rather
 than an international organization.