Some people believe governments should spend money on fast means of public transport. Others believe money should be spent on other important priorities for public transport (e.g. cost, environment, etc.) Public transport has a considerable bearing on traffic flow in virtually every country nowadays, especially where congestion is prevalent. Because of this, what to prioritize when developing new means of public transport has always been a topic of debate. Regarding whether government funding should be spent on speedy means of public transportation or other of its aspects such as fare, capacity or the environment, there is a case to be made on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, it is understandable why some advocate the view that it is worth spending state money on improving the speed of public transport. The key rationale in favor of this argument is that a long-lasting journey is the main source of frustration for the passenger. This can reduce the number of people who want to use these means of transportation and thus contributing to the surge of private vehicles which causes numerous traffic problems ranging from congestion to accidents. Fast means of public transport would appear to be attractive since it could help passenger to save a significant amount of time, especially for commuters. On the other hand, other aspects of public transport are at least as important, as we shall see. With regard to cost, the introduction of low-cost means of public transportation could increase the demand of traffic participants on that means of transport, which could lead to the same outcome as high speed in terms of tackling traffic problems such as traffic jams and accidents. In relation to capacity, public transport in forms of high capacity can also be used to offer lower fare. Moreover, this could also help to address the problems of lacking space which is universal in all most all kinds of public transport in
Vietnam, for example. In terms of the environment, it would be favorable to develop new forms of public transport that help to handle the environmental issues caused by vehicle since it makes up a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions such as the one that uses sustainable power resources such as solar power. In conclusion, I am inclined to believe that speed is important to maintain the number of public transport users. However, other aspects such as fare, capacity as well as the environment are at least as worth spending governments funding on.
Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? It is unanimously acknowledged there is a strong connection between humans’ life and the diversity of the ecosystem. Because of this, any action that helps to address issues regarding wildlife has received the enthusiastic endorsement of many people. However, there are some people who believe that resources put into the protection of wild animals will be better off spent on the betterment of humans’ life. I agree with that idea.
It is totally understandable why some advocate the view that resources spent on the reservation of wild animals would be better used for purposes of improving people living standards. The key rationale in favor of this argument is that the investment in the conservation of these wild species seems to not yield immediate results. Notwithstanding the fact that an enormous amount of time and money has been put into this process, an increasing number of wild species have vanished. Therefore, these efforts just help to slow down the process in which wild animal species become extinct and it certainly does not address the core issue of extinction. Furthermore, these resources could be better used to tackle a number of more urgent problems that people around the world are facing today such as famine, outbreak of diseases and climate change caused by human activities, which pose existential menaces to a large proportion of population around the globe.
I do appreciate that a lot of people think differently, saying that it is worthwhile subsidizing wild animal preservation acts. This helps to safeguard endangered species and thus preserving the global ecosystem for future benefit of all life forms. However, people around the world are dying because of these aforementioned reasons and it would be morally wrong if we do not address these issues first.
In conclusion, I am inclined to believe that there are more urgent problems that humans all over the world are facing on the daily basis such as starvation, epidemics and humanly caused climate shift, which need to be addressed first before thinking about spending colossal resources to protect wild animals. It is sometimes said that the countryside offers a high quality of life, especially for families. What are the arguments for and against families choosing to live and work in the countryside? What is your
own view about this? Regarding the optimal place for families to settle, there are two main camps. One claims that the countryside is the right choice since it offers better living standards, while the other against it, saying there are a lot of problems in suburban areas. This essay will rationalize both standpoints before presenting my own. On the one hand, it is reasonable why some advocate the view that suburban regions can bring enormous benefits to its population. The key rationale is that people living and working in these regions can enjoy fresh air since there are not as many vehicles as in cities, which is one of the main causes of air pollution, thus, enhancing their well-being. Furthermore, it must be admitted that the costs of living in suburban areas-for example: food, housing, to name but a few are much lower than that in cities. Hence, with the same income, suburban citizens could buy more products and use more services to accommodate their needs. On the other hand, there are some substantial drawbacks that people living in the countryside may have to cope with. To begin with, the lack of health care facilities can cause some pressing troubles, as in many emergency cases, a multitude of people have died since they could not get to a hospital on time, which is only found in cities in both undeveloped and developing countries. Another major setback that
suburban citizens suffer is the high unemployment rate among all ages. This can undermine people’s economic prospects and the ability of people to progress in terms of living standards. In conclusion, while uncontaminated environment and lower expenditures could enhance the well-being of suburban citizens, the lack of health care facilities and joblessness are substantial drawbacks that families choosing to live and work in countryside confront. In my opinion, living in cities is better for wealthy families since they have more generous disposable income to spend on exorbitant products and luxury services that is only found in cities and this is one way of enjoying life. Low-income families shall opt to live in the countryside as the costs in cities could make it impossible for them to satisfy their fundamental needs.
When people make more money, they feel happier.
To what extent does money affect happiness? In today’s world, people’s happiness is governed to a large extent by wealth. It is universally believed that the more money we make, the happier we feel. I agree with that view.
There is no doubt that money has a considerable bearing on how content we feel. First, most people aspire to an abundant life and they often get immense satisfaction when they achieve financial success. By contrast, those who struggle financially often feel very bitter and frustrated over their lives. Second, people could enjoy lives to the fullest if they have money, for instance, to spend on shopping and travelling. Last but certainly not least, one thing that give people peace of mind before they pass away is that they have money or property to pass down to their children. This is a driving force that makes people work hard for their entire as they wish to accumulate wealth during their lives so that their children could inherit money or property which will increase their security and standard of living. I do understand why some advocate the view that money does not make people happy since they see a lot of people live comparatively simple lives at a subsistence level but they are still happy. Of course, people cannot use the money to buy happiness, however, they will face real hardship in their lives if they do not have money since it is possible that people may meet ill health or other crises at some point in life. In conclusion, since money could give people a sense of satisfaction, enable them to enjoy their lives to the fullest, benefit future generation, and also money is a buffer against uncertainty, I would argue that money is the main factor that constitutes our contentment. Transport delays and long journey times are a widespread phenomenon in many cities today. What are the causes of this problem, and how could the situation be improved?
Traffic jam (congestion) and extended time of transportation (lengthy journeys) are a universal phenomenon in many cities nowadays. There are two main reasons behind the trend and also two straightforward solutions that governments could adopt to lessen the problem. Possibly the major factor is the proliferation of private vehicles. Over the last few decades, we have witnessed the marked improvement in living standards of people in many countries, especially of urban citizens. This means that people nowadays have a more generous disposable income to spend on buying their own vehicles. This surge in the number of vehicles inevitably leads to a host of traffic problemsranging from traffic jams (congestion) to the longer time of each journey. On top of this, poor infrastructure- for example, narrow roadways, lack of traffic facilities such as elevated highways, which cannot accommodate the growing demands of a large number of commuters exacerbates this issue, especially in rush hours. Regarding possible solutions, perhaps the most effective remedy for this would be to allocate more funding to the upgrade of roadway infrastructures (network, systems) such as roadway widening, constructions of overpasses and elevated highways-which help disperse the traffic flow and reduce the likelihood of traffic jams. The second effective approach could be to increase taxes on imported cars, motorbikes significantly. This move is favorable due to the fact that it not only makes it much harder for citizens to own a private vehicle-thus easing the strain putting on traffic-but also helps raise a large amount of money to cover the expenditure of the roadway infrastructure enhancement projects. In conclusion, the outdated infrastructure that cannot bear the tress (burden) from the enormous number of private vehicle is responsible for this problem. However, the increase in taxes on exotic vehicles and the improvement in roadway facilities (the investment in better infrastructure) could be the answer for that.
The responsibility for the protection of the environment is by a transnational organization or every country Pollution poses an existential threat to mankind as well as wildlife. Because of this, issues regarding the environment has always been a topic of debate. With regard to whether a global institution or every nation should bear the responsibility for the protection of the environment, there is a case to be made on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, it is understandable why some advocate the view that only an international organization should in charge of the protection of the environment. The proponents of this idea emphasize the significance of the transparency of reports made by an independent entity, regarding every environmental index which reflects the status of the environment. This raises an awareness of the menace concerning the environmental pollution and wildlife destruction, which we are facing today and thus hopefully change their habit that is wrecking the environment, for example, the deliberate dumping of waste to uncontrolled areas. This may not happen in some countries where politicians intentionally conceal the truth about the environmental problems for their political purposes. Furthermore, almost everyone would agree that the more governments’ involvement, the more corruption and wrongdoings. For example, a Vietnamese high profiled official has been convicted of corruption crime when he was trying to embezzle the state funding for the environmental protection.
On the other hand, I am convinced that every country must be responsible for the protection of the environment. Firstly, environmental problems such as air pollution and water contamination are among the biggest issues that humans have been facing so far. Therefore, simultaneous efforts are needed to tackle them. To illustrate, if some countries, especially china where industries have been responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions for many decades, do not take part in this effort to handle the problem, other countries’ efforts would be pointless. At the same time, the process of protecting the environment involving tackling the existing problems such as air pollution and water contamination, would be a costly enterprise and thus none of international organizations is able to afford it. Finally, it may be impossible to have a collective effort of every country in protecting the environment unless there is a superpower such as American in charge in this revolution, who has the power to force all countries into submission. In conclusion, I am inclined to believe that none of the institutions on earth is able to address the issue of environmental protection. However, the coordinated actions of all countries around the globe are the answer to that.