It is considered by some that environmental issues should be addressed internationally, while others think that it would be advisable if handled within the country. In my view, it would be beneficial if fixed at the national level. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument and provide reasons for my own position.
Firstly, there are people who argue that environmental concerns should be fixed globally because it will be more effective. If all the countries come together, there will more ideas, plans and resources to fix these issues. It would be easier to implement the best plan on a large scale. For example, to fix the issue of ozone depletion, all countries come up with laws to have 30% forest area in each country. If each and every country, abide by this law, then there will be drastic decrease in global warming making it much easier to fix the holes in ozone layer. Due to these reasons, it is argued that fixing these issues at the global level will be more fruitful.
Secondly, there are others who are of the belief that coping with these problems within the country is much better as every country will be able to prioritize their own environmental problems first. Every country will have its own specific environmental issues. For instance, India has water-pollution as its biggest challenge, so it would be better to concentrate on this issue rather than on ozone depletion. They can utilize all their resources to eradicate this problem at the ground level. Because of the ease of addressing such target-specific issues, some think it good to address them on a nation-wide scale.
In my perspective, I believe that facing these issues internationally is more beneficial than on a national level. If the solutions to these global issues are executed synchronously, then the results will be much better than the national level. To illustrate, Singapore works on air pollution and has stricter laws on factories emitting toxic fumes, whereas Malaysia which is the neighbouring country has lineat laws on such factories which leads to air pollution globally and thus the efforts which Singapore takes gets wasted. This example clearly shows that if such initiatives are implemented globally, then the results will be significantly helpful for the world.
In conclusion, both sides of the argument have their own compelling reasons. However, as far as I am concerned, it would be more fruitful if environment concerns are taken care of at the global level, as working together on the same cause will lead to a cleaner world to live in.
It
is considered
by
some
that
environmental
issues
should
be addressed
internationally
, while others
think
that it would be advisable if handled within the
country
. In my view, it would be beneficial if
fixed
at the national
level
. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument and provide reasons for my
own
position.
Firstly
, there are
people
who argue that
environmental
concerns should be
fixed
globally
because
it will be more effective. If all the
countries
come
together, there will more
ideas
, plans and resources to
fix
these
issues
. It would be easier to implement the best plan on a large scale.
For example
, to
fix
the
issue
of ozone depletion, all
countries
come
up with
laws
to have 30% forest area in each
country
. If each and every
country
, abide by this
law
, then there will be drastic decrease in
global
warming making it much easier to
fix
the holes in ozone layer. Due to these reasons, it
is argued
that fixing these
issues
at the
global
level
will be more fruitful.
Secondly
, there are others who are of the belief that coping with these problems within the
country
is much better as every
country
will be able to prioritize their
own
environmental
problems
first
. Every
country
will have its
own
specific
environmental
issues
.
For instance
, India has water-pollution as its biggest challenge,
so
it would be better to concentrate on this
issue
rather
than on ozone depletion. They can utilize all their resources to eradicate this problem at the ground
level
.
Because
of the
ease
of addressing such target-specific
issues
,
some
think
it
good
to address them on a nation-wide scale.
In my perspective, I believe that facing these
issues
internationally
is more beneficial than on a national
level
. If the solutions to these
global
issues
are executed
synchronously
, then the results will be much better than the national
level
. To illustrate, Singapore works on air pollution and has stricter
laws
on factories emitting toxic fumes, whereas Malaysia which is the
neighbouring
country
has
lineat
laws
on such factories which leads to air pollution globally and
thus
the efforts which Singapore takes
gets
wasted. This example
clearly
shows
that if such initiatives
are implemented
globally, then the results will be
significantly
helpful for the world.
In conclusion
, both sides of the argument have their
own
compelling reasons.
However
, as far as I
am concerned
, it would be more fruitful if environment concerns
are taken
care of at the
global
level
, as working together on the same cause will lead to a cleaner world to
live
in.