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?

The world is currently facing several intimidating

issues

. Some people believe the governing bodies should invest in these critical

problems

, rather than spending on local environmental

issues

. I am in accord with the aforementioned notion to a large extent for which I am going to shed light on my views in subsequent paragraphs. At the outset, there are convincing factors that are in favour of the former view that the

government

should emphasize more alarming

issues

. The ruling parties spend exorbitant funds on pure water supply and incessant wastage cleaning,

however

, these allotments of money should be wisely distributed in frightening

problems

like Global warming or Ozone Layer Depletion.

For instance

, the

government

of New Delhi, India spends enormous money on the education sector, but New Delhi is rated among the worst polluted cities in the world.

Hence

, the

government

should run more awareness programs intimating the public about its ramifications. On the other side, fixing local

issues

will inevitably solve larger ones.

For example

, mitigating the city's air pollution issue will indirectly impact Global warming.

Moreover

, it is easier to alleviate a problem when the issue is broken into pieces.

Hence

, to solve environmental

problems

internally, the time for resolution is quicker.

In addition

to that, some developing nations do not have enough capital to alleviate big

issues

. To conclude, the world offers myriads of

problems

to be resolved. The

government

should prioritize critical

issues

as they are more intimidating and needs instant measures.

Nevertheless

, concerning bodies resolving

issues

internally will inexorably affect larger ones.