The ways to solve the environmental issues is debatable. A segment of the society opines that it's better to take measures and control problems that are being faced due to the environmental pollution globally, where few thinks controlling issues nationally is the best way. This essay will discuss both sides on the argument and argue why solving issues nationally is effective.
In some people opinion, environmental problems has to be solved globally. This may be due to be fact that taking measures and following few strict rules to save the environment in large scale will improve the living span and benefit all living creatures in the world. For instance, recently karnataka government have taken one step forward to control air pollution by introducing a rule that is only limited number of cars were allowed to run on a daily basis which implies results in control of air pollution. Thus by implementing similar type of rules globally can save the environment.
On the other hand, few people believe that environmental problems has to be solved nationally. This is because there are so many countries in the world running with their own specific rules. So it will not be possible to co-ordinate and track weather each and every country is taking measures for solving environmental issues. For example, if we consider any two states which are ruled by different chief ministers, they will have their own rules and regulations for governing their responsible state which is easy for tracking and controlling if there are any deviations. Therefore, in a similar way it will be efficient and will be successful for managing the environmental issues nationally.
To conclude, in my opinion, although solving environmental issues globally is a considerable way, where it is not be efficient and solve the problem completely. Hence, it's better to implement rules, regulations and monitor each on country basis which in turn results in global change. 
The ways to solve the  
environmental
  issues
 is debatable. A segment of the society opines that it's better to take measures and control  
problems
 that are  
being faced
 due to the  
environmental
 pollution  
globally
, where few  
thinks
 controlling  
issues
  nationally
 is the best way. This essay will discuss both sides on the argument and argue why solving  
issues
  nationally
 is effective.
In  
some
  people
 opinion,  
environmental
  problems
  has to
  be solved
  globally
. This may be due to be fact that taking measures and following few strict  
rules
 to save the environment in large scale will  
improve
 the living span and benefit all living creatures in the world.  
For instance
, recently  
karnataka
  government
 have taken one step forward to control air pollution by introducing a  
rule
  that is
  only
 limited number of cars were  
allowed
 to run on a daily basis which implies results in control of air pollution.  
Thus
 by implementing similar type of  
rules
  globally
 can save the environment. 
On the other hand
, few  
people
 believe that  
environmental
  problems
  has to
  be solved
  nationally
. This is  
because
 there are  
so
  many
 countries in the world running with their  
own
 specific  
rules
.  
So
 it will not be possible to co-ordinate and  
track
 weather each and every country is taking measures for solving  
environmental
  issues
.  
For example
, if we consider any two states which  
are ruled
 by  
different
 chief ministers, they will have their  
own
  rules
 and regulations for governing their responsible state which is easy for tracking and controlling if there are any deviations.  
Therefore
,  
in a similar way
 it will be efficient and will be successful for managing the  
environmental
  issues
  nationally
. 
To conclude
, in my opinion, although solving  
environmental
  issues
  globally
 is a considerable way, where it is not  
be
 efficient and solve the  
problem
 completely.  
Hence
, it's better to implement  
rules
, regulations and monitor each on country basis which in turn results in global  
change
.