ENVIRONMENT
It is necessary to raise the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to protect the environment.
(For) Reducing Private Transportation: Increasing the cost of fuel can act as a deterrent for
individuals to use private transportation, such as cars. As the price of fuel rises, people may reconsider
their reliance on personal vehicles and seek more sustainable alternatives. This can lead to a decrease in
the overall use of private cars, resulting in lower carbon emissions and less environmental impact.
Encouraging a shift away from private vehicle use can contribute to reducing air pollution, greenhouse
gas emissions, and traffic congestion.
Promoting Public Transportation: Higher fuel costs can incentivize people to explore cost-effective
alternatives, such as public transportation. In response to the increased expense of driving a personal
vehicle, individuals may opt for buses, trains, subways, or other forms of public transport. This not only
reduces the financial burden on individuals but also decreases the number of vehicles on the road,
thereby lowering emissions and contributing to a cleaner environment. A well-functioning public
transportation system can offer a more efficient and eco-friendly mode of travel for many individuals.
(Against) Short-Term Measure: Raising the cost of fuel can be seen as a short-term solution to
reducing environmental impact. While it might deter some individuals from using their cars, it doesn't
address the underlying issues that contribute to pollution and emissions. Authorities should focus on
implementing more comprehensive and sustainable transport policies that encourage the adoption of
electric vehicles, improve public transportation infrastructure, and promote carpooling and cycling.
Addressing the root causes of environmental issues through long-term strategies is more likely to lead
to lasting change.
Equitable Access to Alternatives: While the idea of using public transportation to reduce emissions is
valuable, it's important to consider the accessibility of these alternatives. For some individuals, public
transport might not be a feasible option due to factors such as limited routes, inconvenient schedules, or
lack of availability in rural areas. Instead of relying solely on increased fuel costs, governments should
invest in improving public transportation systems and consider offering free or subsidized passes for
buses and trains. This ensures that everyone, regardless of their financial situation or geographic
location, has equitable access to environmentally friendly transportation options.
The comparison between animal extinction and the benefit of human beings.
Animal extinction should be prioritised
Ecosystem Balance: Every animal species plays a specific role in their ecosystem, contributing to the
balance and stability of the environment. When a species becomes extinct, it can have a cascading
effect on the entire ecosystem. The loss of one species might disrupt food chains, affect pollination,
alter predator-prey dynamics, and impact other interdependent relationships. This disruption can lead to
further species declines and ecosystem degradation. Prioritizing the conservation of all animal species
helps maintain the intricate web of life that sustains our planet's biodiversity and ecological health.
Human Responsibility: Humans are often the cause of animal extinctions through activities such as
overhunting, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. As the dominant species on Earth,
humans have a moral responsibility to prevent or mitigate the negative impacts they have on other
species and their habitats. By actively working to protect and conserve animal species, humans
acknowledge their role in these extinctions and take steps to rectify the harm caused. This
responsibility extends to preserving the natural world for future generations and ensuring a healthy
planet for all living beings.
The benefit of human beings is more important
Addressing Human Suffering: There are pressing humanitarian issues such as malnutrition, poverty,
lack of access to healthcare, and basic living conditions affecting millions of people globally.
Prioritizing human well-being is essential in addressing these urgent needs. Allocating resources
towards improving human lives, lifting people out of poverty, and providing essential services can have
an immediate and direct impact on reducing suffering and improving the quality of life for those in
need.
Sustainability of Human Benefit: While conserving animal species is important, an argument can be
made that if too many resources are invested exclusively in this endeavor, it could potentially
compromise the long-term well-being of human beings. If the allocation of resources becomes skewed
towards animal conservation at the expense of addressing human needs, it might hinder economic
development, access to education, and healthcare, leading to negative consequences for human
societies. Striking a balance between environmental conservation and human development ensures that
both aspects are sustainable in the long run.
Humans can still take action to make up for those negative impacts on plants and animals around
the world.
(For) Environmental Conservation Efforts: Many individuals, communities, organizations, and
governments are actively working to address the negative impacts on plants and animals caused by
human activities. Conservation initiatives, reforestation projects, habitat restoration efforts, and
sustainable resource management are being implemented to counteract environmental degradation.
These actions demonstrate the potential for humans to make positive contributions towards mitigating
the harm done to ecosystems and species.
NGO and Public Engagement: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in raising
awareness about environmental issues and rallying support for conservation efforts. These
organizations often engage in fundraising campaigns, educational programs, and advocacy to prevent
habitat destruction, protect endangered species, and promote sustainable practices. The power of public
awareness and collective action has the potential to drive positive change, demonstrating that humans
can actively participate in rectifying the negative impacts on plants and animals.
(Against) Irreversible Damage: In some cases, the negative impacts on plants and animals have
already caused irreversible damage to ecosystems. For instance, the pollution of oceans with toxic
waste and non-biodegradable plastics has resulted in widespread harm to marine life, impacting entire
ecosystems. These types of environmental degradation can have lasting consequences that cannot be
easily reversed, even with concerted human efforts. The loss of biodiversity and habitat destruction can
lead to cascading effects that are difficult to mitigate.
Long-Term Ecological Imbalance: Some negative impacts, such as the greenhouse effect leading to
climate change, can have long-term and far-reaching effects on the environment. Rising temperatures,
extreme weather events, and sea-level rise can disrupt ecosystems and affect both plant and animal
species. The consequences of climate change can result in habitat loss, altered migration patterns, and
reduced access to resources, leading to potential mass migrations of both humans and animals, as well
as widespread food insecurity.
