It is sometimes believed that all nations should have a intensive prevention to declining which the irreversible energy sourses are overly arised around the world. While I understand the logic behind this opinion, I still firmly disagree with it for several reasons.
On the one hand, those who believe that all states should have a live action to restric fossil fuels. First and foremost, they may well argue that leaders should stop dramatically a consume amount of power. This is because it contributes to environmental population growth. As a result, the consumption of nature energy made a climate change , increasing day to day. Additionally , another possible argument is that the extredous amount of exhaust fumes of industrial ares cause healthy issuses. This reason for this is that toxic emissions from nuclear plans is harm agent like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, people’s lifespan is as long as reducing in the futuree.
Nevertheless, i still oppose thí view for several reasons that leaders of all countries cannot replace fossil fuels. Firstly, chief among these is that there have a lot of nations that is till economic dependency on them. This is due to the fact that poor and developing countries are based on fossil fuels to promote economic growth. Secondly, the second reason is that governments of nations could be had strongly financial burden. This means that transition toxic energy to grean energy must be expended a vast budget, especially poor countries. For example, the economy of Nigeria excavated mainly depend on oil, which remained society servises of citizens.
In conclusion, it is understandable why some may agrue that leaders of all nation should reduce fossil fuel. However, I cannot support such a view given the aforementioned reasons.