Politicians are more responsible for the protection of the environment than individuals. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some profess that it is the responsibility of the state to preserve nature, while some are with the notion that this is the collective effort, the public at large should intervene, as well. This essay shall delve deeper into this matter and emanate a partial agreement on this notion.
Those who uphold the opinion that it is the sole duty of the policy makers to take measures to ensure that the planet remains hospitable, feel that they are elected to take decisions on behalf of citizens, to afford a safe living condition, and life-supporting ecology forms one of those components; hence, it is their job to surmount this challenge.
Moreover, they have the jurisdiction to make policies and statutes to help mitigate destruction of the planet, and these laws are followed by the masses without reluctance; as they are aware that non-compliance will fetch them severe consequences such as penal punishments, pushing them to environmentally friendly practices. Similarly, lawmakers have a broader global perspective about this menace, as well as resources to coordinate with other nations to develop strategies that can help reduce deterioration of the ecology.
However, some suggest that the power lies with individuals to make constant changes that protect nature: they are the foundation and a root cause of this imbroglio. Thus, they must share the onus. For instance, if individuals, at their own devices, adapt to using environmentally-friendly methods, they will help engender sustainable methods at all levels, stimulating business to eco-friendly techniques.
To conclude, undeniably, regimes enjoy an overwhelming influence on citizens and have a profound knowledge of the causes and tools that can help mitigate environmental damage, nonetheless people cannot shirk away from sharing this responsibility, for they are the ones who can help make policies effective.
