It is undeniable that plants and creatures are negatively affected by our activities globally. While a proportion of individuals believe that it is unchangeable, others firmly argue that required procedures must be committed to optimise the situation. This essay will examine both viewpoints before presenting my own opinion. Which flavours taking action towards practicing sustainably is not logical.
On one hand, proponents of the fact that activities cannot be changed often point out that fossil fuels and deforestation are crucial for economic development, which effectively means these practices must be done in order to sustain a steady growth in the Gross Domestic Product. In addition, petrol and gas are significantly essential for our daily basis, forbidding the extraction of oil for the purpose of animals is not beneficial for us. For instance, a recent study from an English university revealed that 88 per cent of households rely on petrol for transportation, and gas for operating air conditioners. Consequently, It is imposible to take any action against it because modern houses relies on non-renewable energy.
On the other hand, some people believe that alternative methods could resolve the issue, such as using electric vehicles instead of petrol-reliant motors, and solar energy for the operation of electricity. However, the majority of these alternatives faced challenges in terms of efficiency, convenience, and fastness, where electric cars require 6 hours of charging to drive 500 kilometres, and car batteries must be replaced fortnightly. In addition, some motors relying on electricity reach a speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour, which is insufficient for highways and global standards.
In conclusion, despite individuals holding diverse points of view. I firmly believe that human activities cannot be changed with the current alternatives that are not practical for human use.