[资料分享] issue 10 范文 [复制链接]

tesolchina_RA
UID: 3675555

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 102
寄托币: 678
注册时间: 2015-11-30
精华: 0
帖子: 177

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2015-12-8 13:29:30 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 tesolchina_RA 于 2015-12-14 15:54 编辑

issue 10/125/148

Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

三个分论点

for nations where people are fighting against poverty, this policy should not be adopted

for nations where people need more land for basic needs such as housing, this policy is not sensible

for nations which are well-developed, a conservation program rather than preservation program should be introduced

Human activities since Industrial Revolution have brought enormous impact to the natural environment of the earth. The size of wilderness areas worldwide has declined dramatically over the last few centuries. It is understandable that many environmentalists call for legislation to preserve the remaining wilderness areas. I believe that such policies are not suitable for nations where people are still fighting against poverty or struggle to meet the basic demands of their citizens such as housing. On the other hand, for more developed nations, a policy focusing on conservation and sustainable development is more desirable than the proposed preservation legislation.

The preservation program would be neither sensible nor feasible in least developed countries where people suffer from poverty and other related social problems. Consider the opportunity costs of implementing such a policy. The land of the wilderness area could be used to build manufacturing factories that can provide jobs for the local people who lack the opportunities to create value via economic activities.  Development economists agree that unemployment is the root problem that causes poverty, lack of education, malnutrition and high fertility rates among women. Any policy that would exacerbate unemployment should not be implemented. In fact, it would be politically impossible for the governments to develop such preservation programs that would deprive the people of valuable job opportunities. The democratically elected government officials have to consider the consequences of introducing a massively unpopular policy.

The preservation policy is not helpful for nations or regions where the supply of land is particularly limited. Take Hong Kong as an example. Due to the grave shortage of land for housing, the people in Hong Kong have to deal with outrageously high property prices and uncomfortably small living space. The preservation policy  for wilderness areas in Hong Kong would take away the land that could have been used for housing and related infrastructure construction projects. Again such a policy would not receive public support and the government officials and the legislators have to consider the public opinions when making decisions on this issue.

Even for nations that do not have problems of poverty or housing shortage, the governments should probably consider a conservation program rather than the proposed preservation program. The difference between preservation and conservation is that the former provides absolutely no opportunities for any human activities in the wilderness areas whereas the latter policy allows development in a sustainable manner. For example, under a conservation program, the wilderness areas could be developed for low-pollution industry such as tourism.  Low-density hotels may be built in the areas to attract visitors all over the world. Efforts would be made to minimise the impact on the environment without compromising the opportunities of future generations to benefit from the resources in this area. I think conservation policies are more likely to win support of the public as it can strike a balance between the need for development and the protection of the environment.

In conclusion, for nations where poverty, unemployment or shortage of housing are major problems, the proposed policy should not be adopted for the sake of the livelihood of the citizens. Even for more developed countries, a conservation policy focusing on sustainability is more reasonable and politically sensible for the legislators.

issue范文与提纲目录(tesolchina)
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3675555

tesolchina_issue_e, issue_pres, issue_government