It is a fact that global warming poses a serious threat to our planet, and urgent action is required to mitigate its effects. From my personal point of view, I totally disagree that reducing funding for local environmental problems is the solution.
Besides
, I give some concrete answers to prove why the government should allocate funds for both global and local environmental issues.
Linking Words
To begin
with, local environmental quality has a direct impact on people’s health and well-being. Indeed, if numerous natural Linking Words
consuming
daily is extremely poisonous, people are the direct victims of Replace the word
consumption
this
consequence. Linking Words
For instance
, air pollution, contaminated water, and hazardous waste can cause respiratory diseases, cancer, and other health harms. Linking Words
Therefore
, eliminating the budget for local environmental complications will jeopardize the health of the public and may lead to severe results.
Linking Words
Secondly
, regional ecological issues can have a ripple effect on the environment globally. Particularly, logging forests by private businesses in some developing countries depletes natural resources day by day, directly impacting the ozone layer. Linking Words
For instance
, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest can contribute to global warming, as trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Linking Words
Accordingly
, it is essential for governments and private companies to take a more proactive approach to addressing regional ecological issues, Linking Words
such
as implementing sustainable forest management practices and promoting conservation efforts.
In conclusion, Linking Words
while
climate change around the world is a critical issue that requires urgent attention, reducing funding for local environmental outcomes is not an alternative. Linking Words
Hence
, the government should allocate funds for both global and local environmental problems to ensure the well-being of the public and the planet.Linking Words
joseph.bachle