Some people believe that the government spend too much money on wildlife protection projects and the money should be used for other things. Do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, one of the responsibilities of governments is to conserve wildlife from several dangers like animal extinction.

Nevertheless

, some believe that the budget spending on

this

issue is more than enough. In

this

essay, I will examine

this

phenomenon and delve into both opinions, for and against

this

idea; and at

last

, I will express my point of view on

this

topic.

To begin

with, people who advocate

this

idea think the money spent on the protection of wildlife can be devoted to higher priorities.

For example

,

this

money can be spent to save many people who suffer from poverty or even alleviate the public health facilities in poor countries. The other groups may suggest that the investment in long-term solutions would be more effective.

For instance

, granting funds for scientific research on the replacement of fossil fuels with cleaner, more sustainable kinds of energy, in the long run, may save more creatures including humans, animals and plants.

On the other hand

, the opponents of

this

belief consider what is accountable for the current circumstances as the human profound alternation to nature. In

this

respect, governments should dedicate a considerable part of their annual budgets to compensate for the detrimental actions that have been made by humans.

Furthermore

,

according to

recent studies, in some regions of the earth, the situation of wilderness is critical and demands a quick and adequate response. Unless proportionate actions, irreversible consequences are inevitable.

To conclude

from the aforementioned material, The crises that have been endangering wild nature should be addressed quickly and effectively.

Although

some governments assign a few budgets to address

this

issue, It seems that these efforts and investments are inadequate and disproportionate to the pace of devastating changes.