Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Many people today have clean water, good food, comfortable houses and money to spend. Billions, however, live in terrible conditions, often without enough to eat. Why is it that, despite all our economic progress, so many people is poor? In this essay I will discuss if the growth of business and capitalism is keeping people in poverty.

It’s easy to blame economic development for many problems. First of all, huge companies exploit the natural resources of countries. Nigeria’s oil, Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the Brazilian forest are used up, but no money goes to the ordinary people. Second, much industry leads to pollution or environmental damage. Huge dam projects in India force people from their homes, and pesticide poisoning kills millions. In addition, companies don’t care about employees. Some even move overnight to different countries, leaving thousands unemployed.

But it’s impossible to turn the clock back and live without economic development. In the first place, any job is better than no job. People need money to buy food, build houses and pay for their children’s medicine. Second, business and trade mean that good governments have money to invest in better infrastructure. They can build better roads, hospitals, sanitation, and schools, thus attracting more development. Finally, large-scale production provides us with cheap clothes, food, electronic goods and other luxuries. Only free trade and open markets can give us this consumer lifestyle, for necessities as well as luxuries.

In summary, we need to balance the greed of corporations with the needs of our people. Everyone deserves a chance to live a comfortable and dignified life.

258 words (The information below is incorrect)

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Despite levels of wealth one side and development unparalleled in history, billions of people on our planet are still uneducated, poorly housed Other side, sick, inadequately fed or even starving as a result of poverty. Is this a result of economic development, or can a rising tide of economic development give all humans a basic standard and dignity of life? In this essay, I will ask if economic progress is only for one group Thesis: what the essay will do in our society.

It’s important to realize that economic activity alone is not enough Topic Sentence: Economic development does not always mean the end of poverty. to end poverty. In many poor countries, natural resources such as copper, oil or even land are being exploited Idea 1: companies are exploiting land and other valuable resources by local or foreign companies but with little benefit for the local people. Nigeria’s oil wealth and Zimbabwe’s diamonds are examples where money leaves the country or does not help the majority. Secondly, economic activity can have devastating consequences on the environment Idea 2:Economic development can mean environmental problems. Dam projects in India or the clearing of the rainforest can mean local people lose land and livelihoods. Furthermore, multinational companies are not tied to any country. Idea 3: multinational companies have no moral obligations to any country. Businesses move overnight and outsource to find even cheaper labor or resources, leaving unemployed people behind them.

However, we can’t go back to a Stone-Age existence Topic sentence: We cannot live without developing our economies of barter and living in huts. More people than ever have access to electricity Idea 1: benefits of development, clean water, good schools, and medicine than ever before. Clothes, electronic luxuries such as phones, televisions and computers are cheap. All these things have come about through business and trade. They have provided income for governments to improve the life of their people. Secondly, other systems have failed: Idea 2: Communism and protectionism have not worked very well when India and China opened their markets and allowed people to do business, millions of people were lifted out of poverty. And even in countries where companies pay low salaries or do not look after the environment, Idea 3: Even a poor salary is better than no salary there are more opportunities for workers. What seems like a sweatshop in China or Mexico may be a first step in building a modern economy.

In conclusion, we can’t live without economic progress. Conclusion One side (Opinion) All that we and our governments can do is try to make sure that it is in the interests of our society and our environment. Conclusion, future or recommendation.

373 words. The info below is not correct.

Development and Technology

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Mr Writefix

The rapid pace of development is damaging our environment. Some people say the answer is for all of us to lead a simpler life, but others say that technology can help solve our environmental problems. What do you think?

Our planet is definitely suffering from the effects of seven billion people. Is the answer to go back to living in villages and farms, or is it to find new technological solutions for our problems? In this essay, I will say why we need to consider both these options.

Technology by itself cannot solve our environmental problems. First of all, it is neutral, neither good nor bad: Only the user can decide how it is to be used. Secondly, it is difficult to imagine in advance how new technology can be used, or misused. For example, if we learned how to produce endless cheap energy , would the results be necessarily all good? A third point is that technology generally belongs, at least at the beginning, to the rich and powerful, who use it for their own ends.

However, we cannot just shun technology and go back to living simple lives in villages. For one thing, there would not be enough space in our rural areas. Imagine if all Bangkok’s or Mumbai’s millions left the city and went back to farming or weaving. But we can make a difference by consuming much less, and reusing what we have. A switch from meat to vegetables or beans for one or two days a week would keep us healthier and reduce pressure on the Amazon rainforest. Walking instead of driving, demanding that products be recycled, and thinking about our consumption would make a huge difference.

In conclusion, we should look at ways of using technology to tackle environmental issues, rather than using it for mindless consumerism. When future generations see our mountains of abandoned cars and iPods, what will they think of us? Or will they get the chance?

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many places, foreign visitors are charged more than locals when they visit cultural or tourist attractions. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Tourist attractions often have two admission prices: one for locals or residents, and one for foreigners or visitors from far away. Some see this as discrimination, while others accept it as being fair. In this essay I will say why I think it is reasonable for foreign visitors to pay more.

I don’t think locals should pay the same as foreign tourists. For one thing, a historical attraction in my country is part of my heritage. My ancestors built it, and I should have free or cheap access so I can know my history. Second, let’s face it : most tourists are rich – or at least richer than us locals. If they can afford to fly from Australia or China to see a castle or a rare animal, than they can pay a few dollars more. In addition, I pay taxes in my country, so I have already paid a lot more from my salary than the foreign tourist who is only here for a few days.

I think foreigners should pay more for several reasons. First of all, it raises money to maintain the attraction. The higher admission fees from foreigners are important in Egypt or Mexico to preserve world-class historical sites. Secondly, tourists pay far more for their flights, hotels, and cocktails. A few dollars extra to visit a museum is nothing. Third, most tourists only visit the attraction once in their lives. Who is not prepared to pay a little extra for a special occasion?

To sum up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to pay a little extra when I am in a new country, and vice versa. In fact, I’ve already started to save for my next trip!

Protecting the Environment

Posted on April 30, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Many people say there is a need to protect the environment, but do not really make any effort to do anything about it. Are you one of these people? What can we do to encourage people to take action to protect the environment?

Most people are increasingly aware of the need to protect our environment. Despite this, not many of us are really taking steps to reduce our impact on the planet. In this essay, I will suggest some steps each of us can take and some ways to motivate others to do the same.

Many environmental problems seem so big that only governments, local authorities or big companies can deal with them. One example is global warming. We need government action to reduce emissions from coal and oil burning power stations and to develop safer sources of power. These require tough regulations and huge investment. The loss of forests and other habitat is another problem. How can we as individuals stop the destruction of the Amazon or Indonesian rain forests? Yet another example is waste. When people live in cities, they may not be able store or recycle waste, so huge landfills or incinerators are needed.

However, as consumers, we are the ones responsible for all these problems. First of all, we all need to consume less power. We need to turn off lights, replace inefficient bulbs with low-power ones, and not leave equipment on standby. Secondly, we need to control our surging populations. Each of us can make a decision regarding family size. This has a huge impact on the size of our cities and the need for food and more agricultural land. In addition, we need to consider eating less meat and more vegetables and fruit, in order to reduce the amount of land needed for meat. Generally, the main step we need to take is to live more simply. We need to reduce our consumption, recycle, and reuse.

In conclusion, our choices, however small, do have a real impact. If each of us made took two or three simple steps to live more simply, imagine the positive effect on the planet!

Traffic: What can we do?

Posted on April 23, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Nowadays traffic in major cities is worsening. What problems does it create? How can we help solve these problems as individuals?

As more and more people move from the countryside into the world’s cities, traffic is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Public transport is unable to cope, and people turn to private transport, often making the situation worse. In this essay, I will suggest ways in which individuals can take the lead in improving the flow of traffic in our cities.

It may seem as if there is nothing the individual can do to solve traffic problems. Investing in public transport such as the construction of a metro, railway or tram system, or even introducing a bus network is far too expensive for the ordinary individual. Even calling on local authorities or politicians to begin such projects is usually very unrewarding because of the long timescales involved. Finally, buying your own car or motorbike just adds to the overcrowding and magnifies the traffic problem.

However, there are some steps ordinary individuals can take. First of all, where possible we should opt for public transport, such as buses, trains, or even taxis, rather than using cars. These are a more efficient use of limited urban space than private vehicles. Another option is to pool: to share our cars with other people going to the same work or school. The fewer vehicles on the road, the less congestion. A third approach is to live closer to where we work, so that we can walk or cycle. It is much less stressful to know that you can reach your work within a few minutes by the simplest forms of transport. Finally, we do need to work with local politicians and urban planners to provide transport services. If they are not constantly pressed, they will spend the money elsewhere.

In conclusion, although traffic may seem like an insurmountable problem, it is simply the result of many individual choices. It is pointless waiting for governments to take action – we must take some responsibility ourselves.

New developments in agriculture (short)

Posted on April 21, 2011 by Mr Writefix

New developments in agriculture include factory farming and the creation of new fruits and vegetables. Many people believe, however, that huge industrial farms and genetically modified plants are dangerous and that we need to go back to smaller, more natural farming. Do you agree with the developments in farming?

There have been big changes in farming in the last 50 years. Scientists have developed new plants and farmers are using more machines and growing bigger crops and herds. However, some people are worried about the effect of these developments on people and the environment. In this essay, I will show why we need to be careful with our farming.

Of course agriculture needs to develop. First of all, we need more food for the world’s increasing population. More people means more mouths to feed. Secondly, there is less land and water available. As a result, we need to use it more efficiently and produce more. A third point is that we need to reduce waste. A huge amount of food is lost due to disease, insects, rats, decay, or poor handling.

However, not all the changes in agriculture are positive. To begin with, some new discoveries such as GMO foods may be dangerous. We don’t know the effect of these foods on humans. Secondly, we keep animals in bad conditions. Hens, cows and other animals are crowded together in sheds or cages, unable to move, and sometimes fed unsuitable food. This can affect the quality of the food, and disease can spread quickly. Finally, farming today has become a business. This means profit comes first. In the past, it was a way of life, and the farmer was closer to his environment.

In conclusion, farming has to change in order to feed the world, but it also needs to produce good food and not affect the environment. As consumers, we need to make sure that our food is produced properly, not just cheaply.

Does cheap air travel damage the environment?

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some people say cheap air travel is good because it enables ordinary people to travel, while others argue that it is bad for the environment. Discuss both views, and include your opinion.

In the past air travel was only for the elite – the rich, the powerful, the privileged. Today, hundreds of millions of people are able to travel around the world for work or pleasure. As Air Asia’s slogan puts it: “Now everyone can fly.” However, the price to be paid for this easier travel may be damage to the environment. In this essay, I will examine some of the arguments for and against cheap air travel.

There are plenty of accusations against cheap flights. Critics of budget air travel claim that the emissions from jet fuel are damaging the atmosphere. This is particularly serious at the higher levels of the atmosphere where modern jets fly. A single short flight from Dubai to Mumbai can produce as much carbon dioxide as one month’s driving for a family. The environmental cost continues when the tourists land, as hotels, leisure and other facilities are very significant polluters and consume a lot of resources. A third point of course is that this travel is mostly ‘unnecessary’ and people would simply stay at home if the flights were not so cheap.

However, the proponents of cheap air travel, such as Ireland’s Michael O’Leary, have their own powerful counterclaims. First, they reject the allegation that jets contribute significantly to global warming. They point out that modern jets are much quieter and much more fuel-efficient than in the past. Secondly, many countries already have carbon taxes or levies included in the price of the airline ticket or aviation fuel. This can offset the carbon produced during the flight. In addition, most of the arguments against cheap flights are based on the belief that it is acceptable for certain people to fly, but not for ordinary people. In other words, the wealthy or powerful would like to deprive ordinary people of the right to travel, to see new places and meet new people.

In conclusion, cheap air travel is not a clear-cut issue, but a political, economic and environmental minefield. In my opinion, everyone should have the opportunity to travel, but we do need some monitoring of the effect on the environment, both in the air and on the ground.

New developments in agriculture (long)

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Mr Writefix

New developments in agriculture include factory farming and the creation of new fruits and vegetables. Many people believe, however, that huge industrial farms and genetically modified plants are dangerous and that we need to go back to smaller, more natural farming. Do you agree with the developments in farming?

In the last 50 years, agriculture has become more and more mechanized and there have been many discoveries in genetic engineering. However, some people are worried about the effect of this on our health and our environment. This essay will look at how agriculture is developing and discuss whether it would be better to turn back to smaller farms.

There is no doubt that we need more food. There are over 7 billion people now and there will be 10 billion in just a few decades. To feed these extra people we need more food. Another point is that this food has to come from less and less land. This means each hectare has to produce more food. A third point is that we need to reduce waste and inefficiency. Up to 30% of food is wasted on the farm, between the farm and the shop, or in the home. New methods to stop food from spoiling or to improve vitamin or other qualities will be good.

However, many of these developments in farming are dangerous. First of all, nobody knows what the effect of genetically modified organisms will be on our bodies. There has not been enough long-term testing to see the effects. A second point is that factory farming often causes disease or helps it to spread. We are feeding our animals unsuitable food and keeping them in bad conditions. This will affect the quality of our food. Finally, if agriculture is a business instead of a way of life, the farm owners will think only of quick profit, not long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, we need more food and more efficient farming, but we need to learn from mad cow disease and bird flu that nature does not like being forced to do things our way.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Environment

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Related Posts:

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Long)

Related Posts:

Development and Technology

Related Posts:

Should foreigners pay more? (short)

Related Posts:

Protecting the Environment

Related Posts:

Traffic: What can we do?

Related Posts:

New developments in agriculture (short)

Related Posts:

Does cheap air travel damage the environment?

Related Posts:

New developments in agriculture (long)

Related Posts: