SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HAVE A HIGHER RESPONSIBILITY TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE THAN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. OTHERS BELIEVE THAT ALL COUNTRIES SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARDS PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.DISCUSS BOTH THESE VIEWS

Climate change is a global issue which requires urgent responses from countries regardless of their development status. Any country should act on global warming depending on their capacity. Yet, views are divided on taking stake over the issue, should it be the developed countries or the developing ones. This essay will discuss both opinions and progress towards my opinion on the same.

Anthropogenic climate change is the result of industrialization, exploitation of resources and mass consumption and developed nations are responsible for this. For instance, oil extraction affects marine life that has a significant role in maintaining ecology. Also, if we look at the world scenario affluent countries are the ones who have large-scale industries liking mining, oil extraction and manufacturing industries. Needless to say, they are the ones manufacturing and operating huge volumes of automobiles that produce toxic gases. Furthermore, the society of these nations are highly consumerist which give hugely in producing carbon footprints that contribute on green-house effect. Thus, developed nations with their industrial and consumerist characteristics looks fair to have higher obligation in tackling the issue, not to forget they are wealthy too.

However, climate change being a local issue as well, hits hard to developing countries which they are bound to respond. Though developmental activities could be a regular agenda, focus should be on sustainable development with sufficient consideration to the environment. Some initiatives like awareness program on global warming at community level can be organized to educate people about global warming issues and its minimization. This will result in informed local people who can practice environment friendly activities.

In summary, climate change is a glocal pressing issue which needs concerns from both global and local level stakeholders. As developed countries being industrious and mass consumers has detrimental effect on the environment they are liable to fight against global warming. However, developing nations can put educational initiative to aware people. So, in my view both should have collaborative stake over the environmental issue.

WITH THE INCREASED GLOBAL DEMAND IN OIL AND GAS, UNDISCOVERED AREAS OF THE WORLD SHOULD BE OPENED UP TO ACCESS MORE RESOURCES.

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE?

With the increase in global population, consumption of non-renewable energy has been ever increasing. However, it is highly debatable whether to explore new sites of energy resources of oil and gas, or seek alternate resources for environment protection. With consideration about the adverse impact of such expedition, I strongly disagree with the view of discovering new location for hunting resources. This essay will argue why further resources hunting for oil and gas should be discouraged rather seek other energy resources and progress towards my opinion on the same.

Firstly, oil and gas are non-renewable resources, meaning once they are depleted from their existing source they cannot be refilled up. Unfortunately, many other areas will be screened that might end up with possibilities of power banks in an inhabited land; the result are inhuman. Take and example of America, where they tried to displace indigenous people, which was the site for enormous oil resources. With this one representative example, the point here is to what extent the resource hunting will continue on; till when; given the unstoppable population growth? Hence, there is no positive future if economists and scientists believe to excavate lands or drill oceans just to suffice the power demands.

Furthermore, the exploitation of resources has been proved to have adverse effect to the environment. Oil spills on the Pacific Ocean is a solid example of it. Another example is the Australian bight, where marine life is severely damaged; species are endangered. This has huge impact on the ecology. Yet, hopefully, there are other energy options that can be helpful for the increasing demands. For instance, petroleum cars can be replaced by solar or electric cars. Gas induced cooking stoves can be substituted by electric stoves.

In conclusion, with the population boom, demands are limitless, but the powerhouse are limited; further resource exploitation is impractical. Thus, considering the aforementioned argument I strong disagree that newer areas should be opened for resource access as it has detrimental impact on the environment, whilst huge potentiality for alternative energy use.