Some people think that the government should use extra money to fund programs to improve the environment. Others think that it is better for the government to spend money to support artistic programs. Which option do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

There is a contentious disagreement over whether the establishment should fund programs to move the environment or art upward. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides of

this

controversial issue before stating why I tend to agree with the former notion. On the one hand, unquestionably, if the government invests in artistic programs, it will enhance the nation's

overall

culture. There would be made more leisure facilities specializing in art and cultural festivals for citizens.

Hence

, by attending

such

events, individuals will attain significant cultural recollections. As an illustration, In Kazakhstan, in 2015, officials constructed over 20 broadening appliances throughout the

country

's territory. After some considerable timeline, the civilians increased their cultural literacy. On the flip side, by targeting the surrounding as a main subject to be an expenditure, the authorities are likely to observe more notable, positive adjustments in the

country

's ecology and economic aspects. What it means is that investment in renewable types of energy as solar energy,

for example

, would reduce outlays of the government on fossil fuels, which in turn, would save some crucial money for the

country

.

Consequently

, if the utilization of greenhouse gases halts, the net-zero coalition will improve the ecology.

For example

, Kongo, which is sunny for almost nine months per year, implemented over two hundred thousand solar panels; thereby, the

country

cut carbon usage by 23%. To recapitulate, even though the prioritizement of art has some positive impacts on individuals' cultural knowledge, it would be wise for the establishment to put more resources into the environment.