Environment

These few posts will be a collection of my own writings, either written during exams or normal school practice. I'm posting them here to keep a collection of these writings in somewhere I can always find them.

Anderson Junior College
JC 1 Promos 2007
“Developed countries should lead the way in the conservation of our environment” Do you agree? (I sort of forgot the actual question, its something like that)

Gaia is in danger. This is a fact known to almost every living person on Earth. With the Artic predicted to have lost 40% of ice by 2050 and having temperatures high enough to sunbath or swim in swimsuits, I believe this is a wake up call to everyone, to start doing something for our environment.

Here comes the question. Who will bear the cost? It seems as the most direct solution for developed countries such as the United States or Britain to bear bulk of the monetary cost in our efforts towards conservation of the environment. Simply because they have more reserves compared to third world countries who do not even have the means to feed their people. More importantly, they are the ones who own the most factories, engaging in the production of goods for consumption all over the world. But, does owning the most number of factories mean that they are the main culprits for the destruction of our environment? Not exactly. Does being richer and more developed directly lands developed countries into the role of a monetary bearer for the preservation of the environment?

Considering the world’s “big brother”, the United States, tops the world in everything be it good or bad. If there were to start putting in effort in environmental conservation, promoting the good side towards conservation, perhaps half the world would follow suit. Perhaps this would be overgeneralizing, but my point is that developed countries should set an example should set an example by first starting to bear the cost for environmental conservation. In doing so, they are encouraging every other nation in the world to take up conservation of our environment under their lead. Taking “Live Earth”, the 24 hour long event as an example, only developed countries have the ability to support such a major event. This is something that poor counties do not have the means to. By taking up the cost of such a major event creates awareness about the importance of conservation worldwide. Knowledge about the effects of global warming of melting sea-caps will allow people to understand and start putting in effort to try and savage the situation. Instead of bearing the total cost for the conservation, developed countries should on the other hand aim to produce a start up cost, this cost will benefit the world in gaining knowledge and is not for an idle cost. Although this cost may not be recovered, but it is necessary as only developed countries have the economic ability to support such major events.

Another somewhat logical argument is that one should be responsible for one’s actions. That is, if country X was the one who destroyed the environment, country X should bear the cost. Contradictory to what it seems, not all developed countries are the ones who produce the most waste gas. When asked who is the third largest producer of waste gas behind United States and China, many would probably name a developed and industrialized country such as Germany. Many would be shocked to hear that it is Indonesia. Indonesia is neither developed nor industrialized but creates tons of carbon dioxide because of deforestation.

The culprit for producing waste gas is not that of a developed country, should Indonesia bear the cost for environmental conservation? Through the clichéd thinking of bearing responsibility for one’s act. One would most probably nod in agreement. However, Indonesia is not a developed country and may not have the ability to produce additional reserves towards conservation. Judging based on fairness, it seems illogical for countries who did not contribute the most to waste gases to bear the bulk of the cost for conservation. It would seem as punishing the innocent.

Having proven that developing countries are not exactly innocent in causing harm to the environmental brings me to may next point, that it is not to say that developing countries should not be involved in environment conservation. Therefore developed countries should not be the only ones bearing the cost for environmental conservation. If developed countries put in large amounts of money to develop environmentally friendly products which are CFC free or technology that makes use of natural forces rather than coal, yet developing countries such as Indonesia are burning down their forest, all efforts will be going down the drain. Perhaps developed countries should help come up with the start up cost to educate the world, but the maintenance cost of sustaining the “going-green” efforts, should come from all nations, as it always takes two hands to clam, one-sided effort will only lead to waste.

In conclusion, I agree with the statement to a small extent. Developed countries should bear the start up cost of conserving the environment because developed countries have higher economic abilities as compared to developing countries. This is however not to say that developing countries can keep their arms folded and sit back and relax. Conservation of the environment should be done with nations having one common goal. It can only be achieved when nation co-operate and not boycott an agreements. Only that way are we able to conserve our environment.

Comments: Arguments put across are well argued and developed. Points are logically linked and evaluated. Style is very good – keep it up. What you need – specific examples as concrete evidence to further boost your arguments. Language is fluent and clear. Continue to practice - ____________.
Score: C 19/30 + L 14/20 = 33/50

One of the most fun time I had writing this essay. The style came naturally in a very relaxed manner.