ESSAY Flashcards
Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent decades, global warming has been receiving a great deal of media attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on human life. Although the idea of coexistence between climate change and humans appears reasonable, this cannot be viewed as the ultimate approach for humankind to combat climate change.
There are a number of reasons why the coexistence can do more harm than good. First, climate change is largely shaped by human-caused geoengineering rather than nature itself. For example, in order to produce the energy that drives the world’s economy, most nations rely on carbon-rich fuels like coal, oil and gas, which directly correlates with the intensification of global warming. Second, even if citizens agree to keep the environment the way it is, corporations, especially in the manufacturing and mining industries, would not as that would affect their profits. Therefore, it can be implied that if corporations were not held accountable for their contribution to global warming as in the case of coexistence, the issue of climate change would inevitably be exacerbated.
It is more economically sound to actively prevent climate change than to ignore it. In fact, the costs, either financial or non-financial, of dealing with future consequences of climate change can be overwhelming. For instance, the increase in intensity and frequency of storms can cause massive destructions and deaths in many coastal areas, which would take decades to recover. In addition, rising temperatures have also contributed to the extinction of species worldwide. It should be noted that the extinction is irreversible and comes at great cost to the ecosystem and apparently humans living within it.
In conclusion, actively combating global warming must be regarded as top priority given the high urgency. Governments and corporations worldwide should take steps to ensure that climate change remains at bay.
A few people believe that as opposed to anticipating environmental change, we have to figure out how to live with it. What exactly degree do you concur or oppose this idea?
In late decades, a dangerous atmospheric devation has been getting a lot of media consideration around the globe because of its generous effects on human life. Despite the fact that the possibility of conjunction between environmental change and people seems sensible, this can’t be seen as a definitive approach for mankind to battle environmental change.
There are various reasons why the concurrence can accomplish more damage than great. To begin with, environmental change is to a great extent formed by human-caused geoengineering as opposed to nature itself. For instance, keeping in mind the end goal to deliver the vitality that drives the world’s economy, most countries depend on carbon-rich powers like coal, oil and gas, which straightforwardly relates with the escalation of a worldwide temperature alteration. Second, regardless of whether subjects consent to keep the condition the way it is, partnerships, particularly in the assembling and mining businesses, would not as that would influence their benefits. Thusly, it can be inferred that if companies were not considered responsible for their commitment to a dangerous atmospheric devation as on account of conjunction, the issue of environmental change would unavoidably be exacerbated.
It is all the more financially solid to effectively avert environmental change than to overlook it. Truth be told, the expenses, either money related or non-budgetary, of managing future outcomes of environmental change can be overpowering. For example, the expansion in power and recurrence of tempests can cause enormous obliterations and passings in numerous beach front regions, which would take a long time to recoup. Furthermore, rising temperatures have additionally added to the annihilation of species around the world. It ought to be noticed that the eradication is irreversible and comes at incredible cost to the biological community and evidently people living inside it.
Taking everything into account, currently fighting an Earth-wide temperature boost must be viewed as best need given the high criticalness. Governments and partnerships worldwide should find a way to guarantee that environmental change stays under control.
It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do you agree or disagree with this development?
In recent decades, there have been a growing trend towards traveling to remote natural areas for a variety of purposes. Although this trend might be of great concern to some environmental activists, scientists and thrill-seekers should still be encouraged to study and explore there.
Scientists in different branches need to travel to remote natural environment like South Pole to study and protect it. This benefits not only those who do the research themselves but also the society as a whole as there will be solutions to many global problems such as climate change. Second, most scientists travel to remote natural areas in efforts to learn how to protect them from other humans. In fact, if no pertinent data about the interaction of humans and the environment is collected for research and made known to the public, even innocent people can inadvertently damage the areas.
There are also a number of benefits for tourists traveling to isolated natural environment. One of those benefits is that natural areas offer one-of-a-kind traveling experience to visitors. For example, those who decide to take a vacation to South Pole will be able to immerse in the wilderness and the atmosphere that are entirely different from the world they know. In addition, by staying inside a natural environment, tourists will be able to develop a higher appreciation for nature. In fact, a large number of tourists and students have chosen to become environmental advocates or even activists after a trip to the wilderness, which helps raise the public awareness on the issue.
In conclusion, traveling to remotes natural areas benefits students, scientists and the world at large in a variety of ways. As long as there is no disruption to the original state of nature, everyone should be welcomed.
It is presently feasible for researchers and sightseers to movement to remote regular habitat, for example, the South Pole. Do you concur or can’t help contradicting this improvement?
In late decades, there have been a developing pattern towards venturing out to remote characteristic territories for an assortment of purposes. In spite of the fact that this pattern may be of awesome worry to some ecological activists, researchers and daredevil should at present be urged to consider and investigate there.
Researchers in various branches need to movement to remote regular habitat like South Pole to contemplate and ensure it. This advantages the individuals who do the examination themselves as well as the general public all in all as there will be answers for some worldwide issues, for example, environmental change. Second, most researchers go to remote characteristic territories in endeavors to figure out how to shield them from different people. Actually, if no related information about the communication of people and nature is gathered for examine and influenced known to the general population, to even honest individuals can incidentally harm the territories.
There are additionally various advantages for voyagers venturing out to disconnected indigenous habitat. One of those advantages is that normal territories offer exceptional flying out understanding to guests. For instance, the individuals who choose to take an excursion to South Pole will have the capacity to drench in the wild and the environment that are totally unique in relation to the world they know. What’s more, by remaining inside a common habitat, voyagers will have the capacity to build up a higher gratefulness for nature. Truth be told, an extensive number of visitors and understudies have turned out to be ecological promoters or even activists after an outing to the wild, which helps raise general society mindfulness on the issue.
All in all, going to remotes common territories benefits understudies, researchers and the world everywhere in an assortment of ways. For whatever length of time that there is no interruption to the first condition of nature, everybody ought to be invited.
