雅思写作——环境问题

Environmental problems are so big that they cannot be solved by any person or country alone. Instead, it should be solved at international level. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

Environmental degradation has been recognized as one of the main challenges that we have to overcome in the 21st century. The rapid deterioration of environmental problems is believed to have posed a serious threat to our survival. To address this concern, countries worldwide should join forces, instead of working individually for their own target.

People support international cooperation for two reasons. The first point is the impact of environmental problem is normally on a global scale. It is common knowledge that we share the same biosphere, its components are interrelated. For example, a stream in one country can be polluted by the sewage dumped by its neighboring country. In other words, one country’s effort to reduce pollution can be futile if other countries are not involved. It should also noted that some countries do not have adequate resources to reduce pollution, even though these countries realize the importance of environmental protection. These countries can cooperate with developed countries, introduce technologies and draw on experiences so as to implement environmentally friendly policies continuously.

Despite the importance of international cooperation, countries should take the initiative to implement some changes. It is fair to say that countries are confronted with different environmental problem. For example, greenhouse gas emissions in China are mainly created by the electricity generation industries while in the United States are primarily attributed to the increase in car use. The technologies and methods that are globally applicable may not be effective in some countries.In addition, countries should enforce some environmental laws and raise citizens’ awareness so as to restore the environment.

To summaries, countries should make a join effort not only because the ecosystem is a unified mechanism but also because it can make optimal use of financial and human resources. Country’s resource commitment is also important at regional or national level.

In some countries, it is possible for people to buy products made in other countries. To what extent do the benefits of this development outweigh the problems?

As the world is increasingly globalised, the exchange of commodities across the border is proceeding at an astounding rate. It has sparked controversy over whether the increase in imports has adverse impacts. From my point of view, this practice’s advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Importing goods can yield a number of benefits. The first benefit is that despite the high cost of transportation, imports are competitively priced. The main reason is that the countries that export these goods normally have technology and professional knowledge to ensure the goods’ quality and affordability. For example, China specialises in the production of textile products so China-made textile products are cheaper than local counterparts in many parts of the world. Besides, imported goods have challenged domestic manufacturers’ dominance and intensified competition, thereby prompting these manufacturers to lower product prices. It is beneficial to domestic customers, because products are more affordable and the cost of living will decline.

On the other hand, the downside of importing goods is that the excessive reliance on imports is likely to lead to the underdevelopment of some domestic industries. For instance, many countries import computers, resulting in domestic manufactures’ bankruptcy. This is harmful to the development of a self-contained economy, and also likely to trigger massive job cuts. Another problem is that transportation may create considerable pollution, especially when it involves air freight. It will degrade air quality and also lead to other environment issues, such as global warming.

It is therefore reasonable to think that the advantages of importing of commodities should be accepted with caution. Although customers are able to acquire commodities at lower cost, countries also need to pay attention to the development of their respective industries.

Some people believe that charities should give aid to those who need the aid most, wherever they live. Some people believe that charity organisations would better concentrate on people in their own countries instead. Discuss both views and give your own pinion.

Concern about humanitarian has been heightened in recent years. Although international aid illustrates a moral ideal of mankind, many people who hold the opposing views think that the welfare of fellow citizens is the priority. International aid has its weaknesses but its importance should not be denied.

The main reason why international donation agencies should view international aid from a global perspectives is that their funds can help the citizens of those recipient countries to combat poverty, disease and inequality. We should recognise that citizens of developing countries are in desperate need of aid, because they are susceptible to natural or man-made disasters such as wars. In those war-ton or poverty-stricken countries, resources are extremely scarce, which demand for food, medicine, tents and shelters.

Despite the importance of helping those beyond our national borders, it is reasonable to lend a hand to our fellow citizens. Even in the richest countries, there are some disadvantaged people whose needs for daily necessities are not met. If we can solve problems on our doorstep, low income people can have basic living standards and this is beneficial to social stability.

From my personal perspective, humanitarian action can restore some of their basic rights, such as the right to receive education, in recipient countries. This is consistent with the universal principle of supporting vulnerable populations. Those who cannot provide financial support can work as aid workers and deliver services to those needy people.

To summaries, we should realise the implications of international aid to those who are affected by disasters, poverty and misfortunes. We can deliver aid to other countries to show compassion, although helping local beneficiaries is important.

The tourist industry has been expanding in some countries and international tourism has benefited these countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In recent decades, tourism has become an important industry and has brought unprecedented opportunities to these countries. However, the impact of tourism on these countries remains a source of constant debate. The essay will elaborate on both positive and negative impacts of tourism.

The implications of tourism for some countries are two fold. First of all, it should be recognised that the development of tourism stimulates economic growth by generating enormous employment opportunities and increasing foreign exchange earnings. This benefit is particularly valuable to those impoverished countries, whose citizens are jobless, malnourished and ill-housed. Tourism provides a driving force for the development of various industries such as hospitality, transportation, communications, retail sales and manufacture, which require substantial capital investments. Without the revenues created by tourism, these industries are not likely to develop and the economic growth will be sluggish. Furthermore, tourism provides economic incentives for cultural preservation, because some places of cultural importance,e.g., historical sites,remain the most popular destinations.Those who express concerns about the negative effect of tourism should realise that tourism revenues can be used to protect cultural or historical heritage and also the local landscape.

On the negative side, environmental destruction is one problem that arises from international tourism. The construction of infrastructure and tourism facilities(including airports, roads,hotels and resorts) will destroy environmental resources. Another problem associated with tourism is that it can threaten the local culture. The arrival of tourists can disrupt the life of local people, who abandon their traditional livelihoods and start to work in the tourism industry. It is also true that in many places, local people do not embrace tourism with open arms. Due to a lack of understanding of local customs, tourists might display some impolite or even offensive behaviour, which can lead to local people’s unhappiness or hostility.

In the light of these facts, we can come to the conclusion that tourism can help some countries reap benefits although these countries may have to accept social and environmental costs. These countries should promote culturally appropriate activities and require tourists to show respect for the local life, traditions and natural scenery.

English has become a universal language. Do you think that the positive effects of the trend outweigh negative effects?

At the present time, the role of English as a global language is indispensable, but it is worth mentioning that the prevalence of English worldwide might have its negative effect. In my opinion, English’s dominance can be viewed in a positive light.

It is unquestionable that the extensive use of English worldwide helps promote international cooperation, as language constitutes the biggest barrier to people’s communication in the global setting. For example, if a company’s financial statements are written in English, any investor who has a good command of English is able to read this company’s documents and understand this company’s operation, whether or not English is their first language. That’s why English has been recognised as the main language by many international conferences and academic groups. Around 80 per cent of websites in the world present their information in English. It would be no exaggeration to say that those who do not speak English find it difficult to survive in the global community. By contrast, people who have proficiency in two languages( English plus their native language) can easily find jobs, collect information and travel overseas.

Despite the contribution of the English language to globalisation, it is considered the main culprit of the loss of language diversity. The idea lies in the fact that many English learners, such as those who move to English-speaking countries, speak their native language less frequently. It should also be noted that English, as the favorite language for international media, conveys English-speaking countries’ lifestyles, values and beliefs to different parts of the world. It might  affect the world’s cultural diversify.

In spite of this, I am convinced that English is able to bridge the language gap and introduce minority cultures to the world, thereby protecting these cultures.

In conclusion, English plays a vital role in communication and cooperation among people from different countries. Although some people suspect that English will endanger some minority languages. This claim is not supported with evidence. The reality is that English sometimes assists us protecting cultural heritage.

Many countries spend a lot of money in art. Some people think investment in art is necessary, but others say money is better spent public services and facilities. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Government sponsorship for arts is a controversial issue, especially when the state is confronted with budget problems. There who object to public funds for arts believe that money should be diverted to the construction of public facilities. I am of the opinion that the government should take citizens’ benefits into consideration and adjust the spending on art or infrastructures accordingly.

It is important to realise that art is an essential component of cultural legacy, so the protection and development of art has important implications to cultural diversity. In terms of painting, for example, styles, genres, tools and materials differ from culture to culture. An art form is likely to disappear, if it is not well protected.

Despite the importance of art, public facilities deserve more of government spending than art. Citizens are interested in the availability of public facilities, such as water and electricity supply, schools, libraries and roads, which have a direct impact on their daily lives. By contrast, for most people, sculptures, paintings or operas are luxury items, which cannot bring tangible benefit to them. Therefore, it is pointless to support the use of public funds for this purpose, if basic facilities are underfunded and ill-equipped to meet public needs.

I personally think that the arts should get public money, because it boosts the appeal of the built environment, reflected in the diversity of architecture and landscaping. If we are exposed to visually attractive objects everyday, we can enjoy peace of mind and feel an increased level of satisfaction with life. People will be less likely to commit violent or anti-social behaviors, and this is beneficial to community cohesion.

In the light of the facts outlined above, government investment in the arts is essential to cultural diversity and the visual appeal of the built environment. However, in those countries whose infrastructure is inadequate, spending cuts on the arts are justifiable.

Instead of asking the government to bear the cost of higher education, students should pay tuition fees themselves. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The government has long been the major founder of university education. Those people who support government spending on education think that some students do not enroll because of learning costs. My view is that students’ personal situations should be considered, before the government decides whether to offer free education.

It is worth noting that university education is the key to bridging the income gap. There are numerous students, especially those from low income families, who cannot afford educational expenses. For example, students who study architecture or medical science may spend many years in the university, which is an expensive choice for them. Because of financial constraints, people of low socio-economic status are at a disadvantage in terms of educational opportunities and career development. If the government provides free access to education, children from disadvantaged backgrounds can get into the college and find decent jobs in future.This can close the social divide and create a prosperous country.

Even though government sponsorship can inspire people to receive tertiary education, it can also cause the waste of public resources. Free education may be a reason why many students are reluctant to complete their courses and enter the workforce at the earliest date. It not only imposes a burden on the country but also affects state funding for other sectors(e.g., primary and secondary education). Another problem is that, because of financial pressures, universities cannot upgrade facilities and recruit well-qualified lecturers, which can have a negative impact on students’ academic achievement.

To summarise, government should provide financial support according to students’ needs to ensure that they have access to education. However, tuition fees are applicable to most students, especially those from middle to high income families, as it helps maintain the quality of tertiary education.

Some people say that the government should ensure that people lead a healthy life, while others believe that individuals should have their own choices. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Healthy lifestyle is very important because it relevant to dignity and happiness. It is suggested that people are unlikely to adopt healthy lifestyle, unless the government takes some actions. My view is that lifestyle should be decided by people themselves, despite the importance of the government’s guidance and intervention.

It is reasonable to argue that if people can choose their lifestyles freely, it reflects the respect for basic human rights. People who are obsessed with how to comply with government regulations will live under tremendous pressure. Although people are encouraged to eat vegetables and adopt a balanced diet, it does not mean that laws should specify the proportion of vegetables in diet. It not only poses a threat to their health, but also causes their resentment against the government.

On the other hand, it is important for the government to impose restrictions on some habits, especially those that are widely believed to be damaging. This is due to the fact that most people have difficulty in disciplining themselves and cannot refrain from some unhealthy habits. For example, it is common knowledge smoking is harmful to people’s health but many people have problems ceasing smoking. The consequence is that their behaviour not only damage their own health but also has an adverse effect on others. Their reliance on medical care leads to overconsumption of resources and a higher demand for the  use of taxpayers’ money; this is unfair to  those who follow healthy habits.

Overall, I believe that one’s freedom to choose lifestyles should be protected provided that it dose not interfere with other people. The primary role of the government is to provide information rather than to regulate citizens’ behaviour. This is important especially when citizens do not realise the health consequences of their habits and their problems can put pressure on the health service.

The society is based on rules and laws. The society would not function well if individuals were free to do whatever they want. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Laws refer to the rules imposed on human beings. Although the laws is important in regulating people’s behaviour, many people argue that it restricts individuals’ freedom. I think that it is necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the functions of law in society and its demerits.

It is an undeniable fact that the law informs citizens of the rules that are recognized by the whole society. The essential point of formulating laws is that laws can prevent one from engaging in actions that are harmful to other people. Anybody who fails to comply with laws will be punished, so the law helps establish a harmonious society. For example, people may commit robberies and murder because of jealous, greed and hatred. If these actions were accepted on the grounds of personal choice, it would be detrimental to other people’s interest. It is also true that many ethical standards, such as those standards that emphasis honesty, loyalty and compassion, enhance social cohesion.

Nevertheless, laws sometimes inevitably infringe upon human’s freedom and even hamper social development. For instance, if one country has many limits on the business world, the business activity will not be active. High income earners who are subject income tax rates may lack motivation to make greater efforts to increase their income. It is also the case that in a society where personal freedoms, such as the freedom of speech are limited, it is impossible to have different voices heard and solve problem efficiently.

It is reasonable to conclude that society cannot operate well without laws and rules. Even though the law does not allow people to act at will, the main purpose is to create a society where people can live in harmony.