The government should reduce the amount of money spent on local environmental problems and instead increase funding into urgent and more threatening issues such as global warming. To what extent do you agree?

Sample 1:

The current generation suffers an ever-increasing number of environmental problems. Some feel that the number of financial resources spent on local environmental issues should be minimized and rather invested in the prevention of acute widespread hazards like global warming. In my view, governments should allocate sufficient funds for both global and local environmental concerns.

Primarily, a variety of ecological problems should be addressed on an international level. First, global warming, which has resulted from the emissions of greenhouse gases, is contributing to rising sea levels, flash floods, and desertification, leading to severe consequences for those who live nearby water bodies. This phenomenon is to be dealt with through the use of renewable resources and technological advancements like electrical cars. Global air contamination is also a serious consideration causing ozone layer depletion and acid rain. It also needs to be handled through the governments cooperating and funding sufficiently. The longer these huge problems exist, the more difficult it will be for humanity to survive.

Similarly, an equal proportion of budgets should be distributed to the prevention of local problems concerning the environment. In recent times, the production of hazardous waste, which contains carcinogenic and teratogenic compounds, has increased and led to poorer air quality, thereby reducing public health. To deal with this, local authorities should definitely allot great funds to build more recycling machines and incentivize hazardous-waste disposal experts to find new solutions. Furthermore, the development of tourism has exacerbated the issues of water pollution and deforestation in many societies, as a result of which local inhabitants are harboring various health problems, such as cardiovascular and diarrheal diseases. Therefore, governments are to invest in reforestation projects and the preservation of aquatic organisms. The more money is spent on these local problems, the healthier individuals and local ecosystems will get.

In summary, I believe that governments ought to provide equally sufficient funds to combat both global and local problems relating to the environment. Not only do global threats like global warming and air pollution have great importance, but local problems such as waste disposal, water pollution, and deforestation also deserve significant spendings.

Sample 2:

As the global community grapples with numerous environmental challenges, the allocation of government funding for environmental issues becomes a critical topic of discussion. Some argue that the government should reduce spending on local environmental problems and instead prioritize urgent and threatening issues like global warming. While both local and global environmental problems require attention, I believe that allocating more funding to address global warming is crucial due to its far- reaching and long-term consequences.

Global warming, as a pressing environmental issue, demands immediate action. The rise in greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent climate change pose significant risks to our planet. The impacts of global warming extend beyond temperature increases; they include more frequent and intense natural disasters, rising sea levels, and the disruption of ecosystems. For instance, melting polar ice caps threaten coastal regions, jeopardizing the livelihoods and homes of millions. Moreover, the depletion of biodiversity and the loss of vital ecosystems can have devastating effects on our planet's delicate balance.

While local environmental problems cannot be ignored, their scope and scale are often limited in comparison to global warming. Local issues such as water pollution, air pollution, and habitat degradation undoubtedly impact local communities and ecosystems. However, they tend to have more localized consequences and can be addressed through targeted measures. On the other hand, global warming requires concerted efforts on a global scale, as its effects are not confined to specific regions but affect the entire planet.

Prioritizing funding for global warming initiatives also promotes international cooperation. Since climate change knows no borders, addressing this issue necessitates collaboration between nations. By investing in initiatives aimed at mitigating global warming, governments can foster partnerships and facilitate knowledge sharing to combat this global threat effectively.

While some may argue that diverting funds from local issues could neglect immediate concerns, it is important to recognize that the consequences of global warming are pervasive and affect all aspects of life. By allocating more resources to combat global warming, governments can make significant progress towards securing a sustainable future for all.

In conclusion, while local environmental problems should not be overlooked, the urgency and long-term impact of global warming necessitate prioritizing funding for this pressing issue. The consequences of global warming are far-reaching and demand global collaboration and immediate action. By directing resources towards initiatives that address global warming, governments can contribute to a sustainable and resilient future for our planet.

Sample 3:

In today's world, many individuals have different opinions on whether the government should spend less on local environmental issues and put more emphasis on bigger problems, namely global warming. From my point of view, this idea is inappropriate because it could be hazardous to residents' health and make environmental pollution worse.

To begin with, cutting the government's money for local environmental problems is not a favorable idea as these issues also contribute considerably to global warming. For example, cities with numerous private vehicles and industrial zones, like Hanoi, are releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases that add to global pollution. Therefore, instead of reducing funds, I suggest that the government should optimize the financial resources to upgrade public transportation to mitigate the number of private means of transport and regulate the exhaust fumes from those industrial areas. By adopting this measure, the level of pollution in major cities can be decreased, which is a beneficial strategy to combat against global warming.

In addition, I strongly believe that the government needs to allocate funds for addressing national environmental issues to offer residents a more advanced living standard. This is because a degraded environment may rapidly have detrimental consequences for humans’ well-being. As a matter of fact, metropolitan residents are exposed to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other harmful chemicals in the air, deteriorating their immune systems and potentially leading to serious diseases such as asthma or even lung cancer. As a result, cutting the budget for local environmental issues could endanger public health, creating a significant burden on the national healthcare systems.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the government should not reduce spending on local environmental issues because tackling these problems also helps prevent the disadvantageous effects of global warming.

Sample 4:

In this day and age, more and more contemporary attention has been placed on whether or not the government should decrease cost for local environment problems and instead rise funding into urgent and threatening issues like global warming. From my perspective, I totally disagree with that opinion for the following reasons.

Firstly, it is clear that local environment problems directly affect resident's life while global issues are just observed in a long period. In fact, many environment troubles such as air pollution or water pollution still exist in almost country, which damage human health day by day. That is main reason for the rising of diseases and a decline in people's lifespan. For instance, air pollution which is caused by the emissions of transporting vehicles and industrial activities is a vital part that leads to a lot of lung diseases, especially lung cancer. On the other hand, global issues like global warming even need a couple of centuries to truly create a negative effect on human. Therefore, funding into regional environment is definitely necessary and pressing to protect residents who has paid a variety of environment taxes for a better life.

Secondly, local environment trouble is the source of global problem such as global warming or climate change, so improving local environment is also a solution for global issues. To be more specific, local activities like deforestation certainly is the main cause leading to greenhouse gas which will finally contribute to the rising of global warming. In these cases, investing the amounts of money to afforestation is not only improves the quality of regional environment but also protects the ultimate consequence which is global warming.

In conclusion, by the reasons mentioned above, the government should remain funding for local environment problems, instead of increasing cost into other global issues such as global warming.