it is often argued that pollution and problems related to the ecosystem should be raised and resolved internationally, whilst others disagree and think it is a national issue to deal with the deterioration of nature. this essay will discuss both points of view.
it is obvious that fighting for the development of nature is necessary. If an international body were appointed for this, it would be beneficial to many third world countries that cannot afford to include the restoration of the environment in their budget. it is therefore agreed that problems like climate change are better handled and funded at a global level. For instance, the world Health Organisation is an international body, funded by many countries, helps people in poor nations to overcome diseases.
However, some disagree and feel that nations should be responsible and fight individually. They feel that the government of a nation knows better the country better than any global organization and thus can be more effective. Despite understanding, there is a risk of businessmen influencing the bureaucrats and get away with the regulations imposed. Whereas, an international body is not affiliated with any specific government and can perform efficiently. Numerous studies show that ruling parties in many countries are corrupted. there is also a fear that some countries might be neglected when handling many countries. But since there are representatives from each country there is less probability of sidelining any country.
In conclusion, the benefits of dealing with environment problems at the international level outweigh that of at the national level. Hence, this essay agrees that a separate body created with the help of all countries can be more productive at making this world a better place.
it
is
often
argued that pollution and problems related to the ecosystem should
be raised
and resolved
internationally
, whilst others disagree and
think
it is a national issue to deal with the deterioration of nature.
this
essay will discuss both points of view.
it
is obvious that fighting for the development of nature is necessary. If an
international
body
were appointed
for this, it would be beneficial to
many
third world
countries
that cannot afford to include the restoration of the environment in their budget.
it
is
therefore
agreed
that problems like climate
change
are
better
handled and funded at a global level.
For instance
, the world Health
Organisation
is an
international
body
, funded by
many
countries
,
helps
people
in poor nations to overcome diseases.
However
,
some
disagree and feel that nations should be responsible and fight
individually
. They feel that the
government
of a nation knows
better
the
country
better
than any global
organization
and
thus
can be more effective. Despite understanding, there is a
risk
of businessmen influencing the bureaucrats and
get
away with the regulations imposed. Whereas, an
international
body
is not affiliated with any specific
government
and can perform
efficiently
. Numerous studies
show
that ruling parties in
many
countries
are corrupted
.
there
is
also
a fear that
some
countries
might
be neglected
when handling
many
countries
.
But
since there are representatives from each
country
there is less probability of sidelining any country.
In conclusion
, the benefits of dealing with environment problems at the
international
level outweigh that of at the national level.
Hence
, this essay
agrees
that a separate
body
created with the
help
of all
countries
can be more productive at making this world a
better
place.