The government should reduce the amount of money spent on local environmental problems, and instead increase funding into urgent and more threatening issues such as global warming. To what extent do you agree?

It is often argued that spending on local environmental issues should be reduced and used for global problems such as the increase of average global temperature. In my point of view, I strongly believe that expenses spent on environmental problems in local areas are necessary and they will result positively in global concerns. First of all, the governments should focus on fixing local environmental issues as they are the main cause leading to global problems. These problems result mostly from human’s daily activities which can only be resolved by local residents. For example, global warming is the consequence of greenhouse gases emission, while deforestation is one of the main releases of these gases. Meanwhile, planting more trees, imposing stricter punishments, which are local-level solutions, have a big impact on the reduction of forest clearance and also global warming. Furthermore, because of affecting directly to people’s daily life, funding for local issues is more necessary and urgent than global concerns. For instance, while global warming will not likely to happen in the near future, air pollution, which is mainly caused by the emission of transporting vehicles and industrial activities, is a major concern nowadays. A huge number of people die every year because of lung cancer, which results from breathing in polluted atmosphere. In conclusion, spending on environmental issues in local area can result in positive impacts to global concerns and residents’ lives. In my opinion, these expenditures are necessary and important.