IELTS Writing Task 2 — Teacher Feedback

There has been a considerable debate among people over whether solving enviromental problems should be responsiblity for global organization rather than each countrywide government. From my perspective, I would suggest a range of reasons to support this idea.

There are two reasons for national goverments are vital for local enviromental action. Firstly, it can direct control over domestic industries. For example, governments should promote green energy use so they can adapt meassures to enviromental conditions. Secondly, national government can built stronger accountability to citizens. As a result, they protect their citizens' health.

On the other hand, global organizations can better address cross-border enviromental issues. The climate issues required joint efforts accross country. The result is international body can ensure cooperation to prevent contradictory national policies. Secondly, international globalization will share expertise such as technological innovations and scientific knowledge to enhance efficently in tackling global issues. For instance, the IPCC is consolidating world wide research to support policy for all national.

In conclusion, I prefered solving environmental problems are the responsibility for international organization than each national goverment.

Environmental problems often extend beyond national borders, leading to debate over whether international organisations, rather than individual governments, should bear the main responsibility for solving them. I agree that international bodies should take the leading role because they can coordinate action across countries and pool expertise, although national governments remain essential for implementing policies locally.

Admittedly, national governments are indispensable at the implementation stage. They can regulate domestic industries, set renewable-energy standards, and tailor measures to local environmental and economic conditions. They are also directly accountable to citizens, so they have a strong incentive to protect public health. However, these advantages mainly concern action within national borders. A government acting alone cannot fully address problems such as climate change or transboundary pollution, whose causes and consequences extend across several countries.

International organisations are therefore better placed to coordinate the overall response. First, they can establish common frameworks and encourage countries to pursue compatible policies, reducing the risk that one state's efforts are undermined by weaker action elsewhere. Second, they can bring together scientific knowledge, technical expertise and policy experience from many countries. The IPCC, for example, assesses climate research from around the world and provides governments with a shared scientific basis for climate policy. Such coordination does not remove the need for national action; rather, it makes that action more consistent and better informed.

In conclusion, national governments should remain responsible for enforcing environmental measures at home, but I agree that international organisations should have the primary coordinating responsibility because the most serious environmental problems cross borders and require shared knowledge and collective action.