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.