Some people think that environmental problems should be solved on a global scale while others believe it is better to deal with them nationally. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Environmental issues are day by day more and more intrusive problems,

Correct word choice

and

show examples

trouble for all human beings. The south of the world is living

Change preposition

in

show examples

desertification which is the principal cause of the migrant moving to Europe and to the United States of America,

that

Correct pronoun usage

which

show examples

are

consequently

causing several social issues. No country can solve the problem as a sole nation,

this

is a global problem that could be approached only as a unified international system.

Thus

it’s true that the big international players could individually try to phase down the emissions, as the European Union has done since the Paris treaty of 2015. But the egoism of China, the USA and India do not permit us to try

this

way. They should be coercively and obligated to phase to zero the pollution with a stringent treaty.

Moreover

, there is no way to do

this

extraordinary effort without the consensus of the people, the government should be very strong in order to do unpopular policies. Even if they could be worried about the election, even if the polls could picture a drop in the consensus, the governments will have the duty to go on with whatever it takes. In conclusion, for drastic times are necessary drastic decisions: the international community or the sole States will have the duty to do whatever is mandatory in order to preserve the human race and the Earth.

This

is a time of responsibilities, and we cannot be scared by these responsibilities. We must have the capability to stand these decisions, we must have the capability to save our world.