8.0 or above band score:
From an analytical perspective, escalating environmental challenges command global attention due to their far-reaching consequences. In this context, some argue that environmental protection should primarily be the responsibility of governments, while others contend that individuals must play a more active role. Although public participation is undeniably important, I firmly believe that governments are better positioned to lead efforts to safeguard the environment.
There are several compelling reasons why state authorities can address environmental degradation more effectively. First and foremost, governments possess substantial financial resources that enable them to implement large-scale solutions. Tackling complex issues such as air and noise pollution often requires advanced technology and heavy infrastructure, which are beyond the capacity of ordinary citizens. For example, smog has long been a critical issue in Lahore, one of the world’s most polluted cities. However, the recent adoption of modern monitoring systems and emission-control technologies by the government has contributed to a measurable reduction in pollution levels. Such initiatives would be impossible without public funding.
Another decisive advantage governments hold is their legislative and enforcement power. Through strict environmental laws and regulatory frameworks, authorities can hold industries accountable for harmful practices. Factories that discharge toxic gases or dump untreated waste into natural ecosystems can be penalized, shut down, or compelled to adopt cleaner technologies. The presence of regulatory bodies and law-enforcement agencies ensures compliance, something individual efforts alone cannot guarantee.
On the other hand, proponents of individual responsibility argue that citizens, as primary stakeholders, should take greater initiative. They claim that public pressure can influence policymakers and lead to meaningful reforms. Indeed, actions such as reducing waste, conserving energy, and participating in environmental campaigns can collectively create positive change. Nevertheless, while these efforts are valuable, they remain supplementary and lack the authority and scale required to combat environmental crises independently.
In conclusion, although individuals play a supportive role in environmental protection, governments, with their financial capacity, legislative authority, and enforcement mechanisms, are far better equipped to address escalating ecological problems. It is therefore essential for state institutions not only to implement strict policies but also to raise public awareness. Educating citizens about environmental risks can strengthen cooperation between governments and society, thereby accelerating sustainable recovery on a broader scale.
---------------
7.5 band score
From an analytical perspective, growing environmental issues attract our immediate attention because of their universal significance. In the given context, many believe that safeguarding the environment should be the state’s responsibility, whereas others think that ordinary people should take more action. In my view, the first argument sounds more convincing.
There are two fundamental reasons why governing bodies can do a better job to curtail life-threatening environmental problems. The foremost factor which goes in favour of this viewpoint is the availability of state funds. To address air and noise pollution, sometimes heavy machinery is required. For instance, smog was one of the age-old problems of Lahore, one of the world’s most polluted cities. The recent induction of high-tech technology has somehow reduced the level of threat. The second plausible explanation that goes in favour of the government is its ability to utilize its power to curb industries that are causing major damage to our environment. Through legislation and security forces, restrictions can be imposed on factories releasing toxic gases and contaminated waste into the ecosystem.
Conversely, opponents rightly argue that individuals should take more action. They further their argument by providing a reasonable justification regarding primary stakeholders. According to this perspective, the general public will be the primary victims and they should raise their voices while taking necessary measures to push their governments. In this way, their efforts will bring productive outcomes.
In conclusion, we may assert that because of their huge capital and resources to enforce state authority, state-run bodies can bring significant improvements to resolve growing ecological issues. It is recommended that they run awareness campaigns. Educating people about the possible threats could accelerate this process of recovery manifold.