Scientists believe that the world is in danger due to environmental changes. Some people say that personal lifestyle changes should be made to reduce the damage to the environment, while others think that the government should do something to help. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Whether altering an individual’s way of life or expecting it all to be done by Government, in curbing the environmental damages, is a subject which provokes great enthusiasms, as well as stark opposition. There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate, which we will discuss here. On one hand, those who support changing the person’s everyday activity say that it renders a plethora of benefits ranging from consuming household electricity generated by renewable energy sources to utilising biogas for any applicable pieces of machinery rather than using conventional gases, and banning of plastics to using bio-degradable products in every possible way. What

this

means, in essence, is that all above-mentioned changes can help to put mother earth to its natural state.

Besides

, they claim that only if one uses biodegradable products

instead

of plastics, we can expect to see a visible reduction in land and water pollution, while saving other animals as well.

For example

, a recent race in the field of making electric and hybrid vehicles

instead

of producing more conventional ones, seem to bear testimony to

this

view.

Conversely

, those who support the government’s role in controlling the environmental damages point to providing and following strict guidelines and policies, which can protect and restore key ecosystems.

For example

, promoting green energy and combating short-lived climate pollutants

such

as carbon footprints through various rules and regulations provided by the government can be attributed to fighting against climate changes in the short term.

Moreover

, they think that it is by healing the natural system that one can enjoy clean air to breath, clean spring water to drink, soothe one’s eyes by watching the beautiful blue sky free from air pollution, and live life peacefully by not worrying about destroying the Earth. To recapitulate, it appears to me that the stronger argument is in favour of changing the individual’s living perception, with all the advantages of reducing the risk of various diseases to consuming clean air, water, and food. After all, by any means protecting nature should be our absolute priority both individually and by the government, which can ensure a healthy life for all on the planet Earth.