Individuals can do nothing to improve the environment; only governments and large company can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a debate that people are incapacitated to sufficiently care for nature compared to the state and big companies. I totally agree with

this

statement for different reasons.

This

position is discussed

further

in the essay below.

First

and foremost, while citizens are able to demonstrate or protest and engage in clean-up campaigns among other actions targeted at caring for the environment, their efforts are usually small-scale and isolated.

For instance

, despite so many efforts from the grassroots of India, the country's levels of pollution have tripled over the

last

two decades.

This

is because the main polluters, the state and private firms, which have big financial and political muscles, have yet to change their detrimental ways.

Secondly

, entrepreneurial organisations and the government can use their financial and political clout to advance environmental protection and improvement. Respectively, they can do so by financing conservation and other projects and participating in the formulation of policies and laws that regulate environmental usage.

For example

, Bill Gates' company is heavily involved in funding anti-poaching campaigns in Africa and many governments of the world are regulating pollution through the 'polluter pays principle', a law unanimously accepted in several United Nations meetings that these countries attend. Their efforts are really significant. In conclusion,

therefore

, I completely concur with the view that says states and big companies are in a better place to improve nature than individuals.

This

is because of the monetary and political power they possess compared to the latter. These and other issues were articulated in the essay above.