Currently, an increasing number of people concerned about the health care and education. Some people state that government should pay for that; others think that it is not the responsibility of the government. I mainly agree the former for the following reasons.
It is obvious that health care service is a part of the social welfare system which can enhance the citizen’s satisfactions. If the government provide financial help to the hospitals, people, especially from lower income families don’t need to worry about the illness, can concentrate more on their jobs, thus leading to a higher productivities. Therefore, it is valued to invest money on health care service.
Besides, education can help to improve the productivities of the society. For instance let me sight an example. Online shopping which is supported by the information technology, changes people’s living way which is more efficient than before. How can we acquire the related knowledge? The answer is by education. People gain the necessary knowledge from schooling can contribute back to the society. It is worth to pay for that.
On the other hand, it’s also true that citizens should able to build schools and hospitals to meet people’s need. Schools and hospitals managed by individual companies can help to release the economic burden on government. Moreover, the competitions between companies improve the education quality and the health care service. But it would cause unfair competitions for the whole society if it lack government’s guidance.
In sum, it is the government’s responsibility to provide financial aid on health care and education. Meanwhile, we should encourage the individual companies to run business in these two area with the guidance from government.
Individuals can do nothing to improve the environment, and only government and large companies can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays environmental issue has always been the social concern because the degree of eco-problems is getting increasingly severe. So some people think the efforts that individual make are useless in better off the environment but it would be great change if government and large company take measure in combating the environmental situation. Overall, I personally think the topic is overly simplistic.
Admittedly, government and large companies have played a pivotal role in improving environment. With the monitoring and supervision of government, the laws and policy related to protection of environment can be implemented effectively. Likewise, by the efforts those companies make, especially for the chemical corporations with factories that involve their manufacture and production in eco-system. It would benefit the environment as a whole if these companies ensure the abidance of eco-friendly policy.
However, reaching the conclusion that government and company can contribute largely does not assume that individuals have few efforts for environment advancement. My own view is that personal awareness and behaviors are the significant key point that in improving environment. For example, those garbage pervade over the city such as plastic containers, littering and even household waste disposal without sorting, are due to that individuals and families do not have enough awareness on environmental protection. It would be great improvement if all individuals are able to behave themselves in eco-friendly life style. Furthermore, in some cases the efforts which government make are rather restricted in terms of degree of activity relating to policy and law, therefore, the cooperation and supervision from individuals can help it practice better. Last but not least, my own view is that a negation in personal impact on environment is also a denial on government practice. Without individual's efforts, the government's measure would not be implemented effectively, and without guidance and supervision from government, a person would not be able to behave themselves appropriately in improving environment.
In conclusion I think individuals play a significant role in protecting of environment, because they are indispensible in any activities in any measure of improving environment
The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the price of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Environmental problems are rapidly increasing all over the world. Scientists infer that this is due to burning of fuel such as petrol, coal and gas etc. Some people think that the use of fuel can be controlled by increasing its price whereas others believe that the threats to the environment can be controlled by introducing other sources of energy and supporting researchers for their environmental problems research. In the following essay I would look at both sides of the argument and provide my opinion in light of the results.
The people who consider increase in fuel price is the solution of environment pollution give reason that this will cut down the use of cars. As most of the people prefer to use their personal vehicles to for travelling and increase in fuel price will force them to stop using them. Moreover this will motivate them to use public transports for daily travelling to work and other places. As a result, there may be a large reduction in the number of cars on road, so this this will help to lower the air pollution.
The supporters of the other side of argument, however, argue that instead of increasing fuel prices other actions should be considered to minimize environmental issues. Both government and individual must take it seriously. Individuals should buy the cars which emit less fumes. At government level, the authorities should educate people to use other sources of energy; for example light energy and water energy to generate electricity instead of coal, patrol or other kinds of fuels. Moreover they should support researchers in finding other ways of minimizing impacts of fuel burning on our environment. The research for running vehicles on other resources such as water and solar kits must be funded. By doing so, the threats to our environment can be reduced.
In conclusion, I believe that we should look for other ways to reduce environmental pollution caused by fuel instead of increasing prices of it.
People think the public library will be replaced by the computer. To what extent do you agree or disagree?