The question of whether politicians are responsible for reducing the world's environmental damage has sparked heated debate. Proponents claim that the government has the power to resolve
such
issues, Linking Words
while
opponents argue that change in consumer behaviour can better tackle Linking Words
this
problem. In my viewpoint, I believe the latter offers a more comprehensive solution. In the essay, I will elucidate in more detail and provide my personal opinions.
First of all, it is irrefutable that the federal body has the legitimate ground to enforce relative laws or even legislate one to protect the environment. Linking Words
However
, Linking Words
such
a method is far from enough since regulation cannot apply everywhere and anytime, there is always an escape from law enforcement. From another perspective, it is hard to forbid a person from over-consumption, Linking Words
hence
detrimental material is consistently manufactured and ultimately pollutes the planet.
Linking Words
On the other hand
, consumer behaviour is the key to handling Linking Words
this
issue. Because when consumers are aware that plastic is difficult to recycle and eventually contaminates the land, they will tend to consume less or bring their own handbags for shopping. Another great example is that the fast-fashion has significantly altered the clothes market, making millions of clothes discarded and resulting in a staggering number of waste. If we can raise awareness of these environmental disasters and change citizens’ behaviour, it would be much more beneficial and more effective.
In conclusion, Linking Words
although
the authority can apply laws to environmental preservation, it is not enough. If customer actions can be changed, the consumption of harmful substances can be cut down, and eventually do less damage to the motherland. Obviously, personal conduct can be more useful than government officials, Linking Words
thus
, individuals shall be obligated to protect the environment at large.Linking Words
aaron.ten.tw