Some hold the view that government should plan more trees, whereas others take the opposing perspective, arguing that they should build new houses. Persuasive arguments cab be made for both sides, and I believe that it can be advantageous when a balance between these viewpoints is maintained.
On the one hand, supporters of the first viewpoint highlight the importance of planting more trees. Since trees can protect the nature, they can improve air quality by absorbing pollutants and control city temperature. Moreover, tees not only help protect the environment, but they also contribute to humans’ mental well-being by providing places for relaxation. Hence, in some cities, people often value natural places as they have air pollution. To prevent environmental damage and providing opportunities for people to relax, planting more trees is necessary.
On the other hand, the potentially significant role of building houses should not be underestimated. As the population grows rapidly, requirement emerges for new houses. Constructing new accommodations offers enough space for individuals to live comfortably and reduces overcrowding. In addition to providing houses for people, it can also improve living standards as new houses often include modern facilities. As a result, this improves people’s quality of life and provides a healthier living environment.
In conclusion, although planting trees and building new houses are equally important, government should reconcile these competing demands. I firmly believe that a balanced approach between these two viewpoint offers significant benefits.