Homeworks academic service


Should rich countries pay more on environmental damage

Your job is to debate the issue throughout the essay, to reach a conclusion at the end. Here, you think about the points you will discuss in the essay.

  • The companies that operate in such countries try to minimize costs and therefore use methods which damage waters, forests and the air;
  • Because of this, a call to save the earth has been implemented across the globe.

Why would rich countries pay more? Why should they not pay more? Here, you also decide on which side you are. Are you in favour of rich countries paying more or not?

Yes indeed.

This will be your thesis statement. Depending on which side you are on, you should choose 2 points for your side and 1 point against your side.

Essay on “Should Rich Countries Pay More For Environmental Damage?”

Link them with linking words. So, for our example it should be something like this: A contentious issue of our times has been whether rich countries pay enough for environmental damage.

Environmental Damage: Responsibility of Rich Countries to Pay More

Although such a situation might seem unfair to rich countries, those that favour greater contribution by them argue that rich countries are more responsible for damage to the environment and that they are more able to afford paying for it than poorer countries. You can add different details if you want, like examples of rich countries, examples of environmental damage… etc.

This will be 1 of the points which you mentioned in the intro. It is common knowledge that rich countries, with bigger industries, contribute more to damaging the environment.

How to write a good IELTS Essay

Here, you have the freedom to say whatever proves the point. The companies that operate in such countries try to minimize costs and therefore use methods which damage waters, forests and the air.

  1. Submit It really is arguable In this, the 21st century, the situation which the Earth is in environmentally has been emphasised worldwide. Given that such rich countries are most responsible for environmental dereliction, it follows that they should pay for the damage caused.
  2. Their belief is supported by a proof that these factories create pollutions to water, air, or soil. Less wealthy countries often give attention to more immediate internal issues; economic and social problems prevent them from allocating enough money to protecting the environment.
  3. However, according to reports in the media, the largest environmental impact by far is from climate change, where global warming is the number one issue discussed. This has caused many any environmentalists to claim that developed countries should pay more towards environmental damage than developing nations should.

This destruction of the environment affects not only them, but the whole world. Therefore, it is only right that such countries pay more for the damage they create. So in the end, our paragraph is made of these two steps: Do this for each paragraph: Another reason for more wealthy countries to contribute more money towards fixing environmental damage is that they are more able to afford it. Less wealthy countries often give attention to more immediate internal issues; economic and social problems prevent them from allocating enough money to protecting the environment.

In this case, richer countries with money to spare can help the entire international community by protecting the environment using their wealth and expertise. Hence, greater involvement by rich nations in environmental problems can be seen as an international duty.

Should rich countries pay more for environmental damage?

And then for the paragraph against your side: Despite these arguments, rich nations paying more for environmental damage might seem unfair, as it is poorer nations that care less about the environment and damage it. Rich countries have modern methods of production and lifestyles that try to protect nature, such as green energy and special plastics that do not affect the environment as much as they used to. By comparison, nations less wealthy still burn much coal and oil and do not give attention to their damaging the environment.

This makes it unfair for rich countries to bear the costs of deliberate actions by peoples who give no attention to the preservation of nature. On balance, although rich countries might contribute more to pollution through their industries and are more able to pay for preserving the natural world, it can be unfair given the ignorant actions of poorer countries which damage the environment.

Then, say which side of the argument is stronger: Despite the debatable nature of the issue, it is clear that rich countries, if they are to be good citizens of the world, should use their resources to help reduce the effects of environmental damage. If you can, use synonyms to avoid repeating yourself over and over again.

Use the words and phrases I put in bold when I wrote examples of intro, body and conclusion.

  • October 21, 2016 Environmental Damage;
  • So, if the rich nations can try to save those non-renewable resources and limits fuel consumption, the Earth will greatly benefit by this initiative;
  • This will be 1 of the points which you mentioned in the intro;
  • Second, our Earth has descended into a continuous abyss of self-destruction;
  • Even if a fixed percentage is set as to how much each country will contribute, the richer nations will be the ones who will be paying more.

Have 2 points for the side you are on, 1 point against and make the one against seem weaker than the ones for. The essay we wrote in this explanation: The companies that operate in such countries try to minimize costs and therefore use methods which damage waters, forrests and the air.