ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY.
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE?
Iker R
Close Garoña! Garoña, whose real name is Santa Maria de Garoña, is a nuclear power plant which is in Burgos. It was created in 1970 and it has an installed power of 460 MW. Since 2006 it has been the oldest active nuclear power plant in Spain. In 2011 it was agreed to close the plant, but the government extended that agreement to 2013. In December of 2012 the plant was shut down because Nuclenor didn’t want to pay taxes. Few people think that Garoña has to keep open because it is a company that generates employment. If they close the central, workers will have to seek for work. Many of these people that think that Garoña has to remain open are workers of the nuclear power plant. However, my opinion is different. It is true that the plant creates jobs, but in my opinion, the health is more important than the work. Nuclear power plants are very bad for the people’s health. They contaminate too much and they produce a lot of refuse. In addition, if they explode, they will contaminate the places that are near, like rives, forests, cities… and that explosion and pollution will affect people’s health. There are many cases of plants that have exploded but there are two that are the best well-known: Chernobil and Fukusima. The first plant was opened in 1970 and in 1986 it exploded. The city that was near, Chernobil, had to be abandoned. The second one is more recent than the first. The nuclear power plant of Fukusima was created in 1971. This plant had had a lot of accidents, but in 2011, it was when the worst accident happened. The reactors in the plant were in bad conditions and they demolished. The explosion was very big because the reactors were outdoor. In conclusion, Garoña could benefit some people because it is a company that creates employment. Nevertheless, it is a plant that produces a lot of pollution, refuse and bad things for our health.
Note: This essay was written before we had any news about shutting it down. A doubt that is still there.
Ane Vn
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OUR FUTURE? In our area, environmental issues raise every day, because people pollute the environment, waste energy and dispose waste. Therefore, if we don´t do anything, all the rivers and mountains are going to be pollute because we throw rubbish there. I think we should come up with a solution. If we save energy, recycle, and organize events to keep rivers and mountains clean. It´s true that every year the environment is more pollute and there are more factories with toxic and nuclear waste. Now, some people want to build an incinerator in Olazti (Nafarroa) which is going to be very toxic for the environment, the workers, all the people in Sakana and the surroundings. For example Araia, my village, is a distance of 10 km incinerating remains in concretes ovens is not a good operation because toxic gasses like dioxins and furans will be emitted to the air. As a result, very dangerous and carcinogenic substances will be given out in the area. Moreover, another cause of environmental issues is Garoña, a nuclear power station which is in Burgos. In 2012 the plant operator Nucleator closed it. Garoña was very dangerous because nuclear waste produce a lot of diseases and deformities on people. In addition, a nuclear waste remains in the area for many years and the contamination never disappears entirely. Five years ago, some people wanted to build another factory in Araia Ecofuel, was going to be placed in Amezaga Mountain which is 500 meters from my home, but finally it wasn´t built due to the protest of the neighbours. I think that if it had been constructed, all the nature would have been destroyed and we would have been contaminated. In conclusion, I think nature is contaminated because of our fault. We want to construct this type of factories to earn more money. In my opinion, we should be more active. We could protest at demonstrations or clean the nature, for example so that our planet doesn´t suffer more.
Gorka I
FRACKING IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY In the Basque Country, they want to use fracking to know if there is petrol and gas underground. Many people are against fracking. But, why do so many people disagree with fracking in Araba? And even more important, what is fracking? Fracking is the process of breaking the layers of rocks with a high pressure fluid. This process was invented to extract oil and natural gas from the ground. The process starts punching a hole from the land to the rocks.Then they throw a high pressure fluid to break those rocks and extract the oil and the natural gas. This process has positive results and negative results. The positive result is that it costs fewer than others process to extract petrol. However, it has a lot of negative results in the nature, for example, the fluid they used to extract the petrol can contaminate aquifers water and if it contaminates that water, we can't use it for anything. In Araba they have the intention to use the fracking technique despite that many people are strongly disagree.That's why they have created the "Fracking Ez Araba" organization, which mean "No fracking in Araba". This organization has organized a lot of protests as they don't want fracking to be done. Due to the fact that many people in Araba don't want fracking, this protests have been very significant. "Fracking Ez Araban" is constantly organizing events. Therefore, Fracking is not a fact. In conclusion, I hope Fracking won't be a fact although we will have to fight it hard to stop it. Moreover, authorities only seek the way to make money and they don't look for citizens’ welfare. As a consequence, there are a lot of people against the project. Fracking in Araba is only an option for the government and everyone who will make money out of it. It is not an option for the citizens.
I単igo A
Do we really need the nuclear power plant in Garo単a? Some people have conflicting opinions about the nuclear power plant in Santa Mar鱈a de Garo単a, Burgos (Spain). Whereas some say that it's dangerous and must be closed but others say that it's good to have big plants like that to reduce the amount of energy imports. I think it's not necessary to have such a plant, so I agree with those who are against nuclear power stations. It's true that nuclear power plants might produce energy long-term. However, the environmental problems attached to nuclear power stations are many. Firstly, nuclear plants have a big visual impact due to the size of that kind of buildings. Those buildings need enormous spaces where they can be placed, so big areas of forests or mountains are usually destroyed to build those plants. This kind of building is also really expensive because of the excellent security measures needed on it. Moreover, apart from the main building a nuclear cemetery is needed to contain the nuclear waste, so the price rises. Adding to this list, due to the fact that the fuel used in this kind of plant is radioactive, it's a big menace for people who leave near it and for the environment. There is also a bigger problem, a risk of explosion exists, so if this happens a radioactive cloud will be launched to the atmosphere and will cause a big disaster. In conclusion, on the one hand, nuclear plants provide enormous amounts of energy, which is good for our economy in this global crisis as no imports from abroad are needed. On the other hand, they also create a big menace for humans and environment due to the radioactive residues. If we could obtain the energy produced by nuclear plants from renewable energy sources and we will reduce the damage caused to the environment as a result.
Maria
IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO BUILD AN INCINERATOR PLANT? OR IS IT BETTER TO RECYCLE CORRECTLY? Most of the citizens don’t agree with having an incinerator plant, but the government don’t keep them in mind. On the other hand, some other people want to build it because they get the money out of the project. The incinerator plant is going to be in Olazti, where the multinational Portland (FCC) has a cement factory. At first, Portland will burn 36000t of waste. However, Nafarroa creates more scraps, so I suppose that these tones will increase. It’s true that if we recycled better, we would not need to build the incinerator plant. Even if the substances which will be burnt are %100 recyclable. Therefore, they shouldn’t incinerate the waste. In my opinion, it is not suitable to put up the incinerator in Olazti due to the fact that it isn’t healthy and it carries a lot of problems with it. In my case, the incinerator plant that they want to set up in Olazti is at 5 km more or less from my house. In 400 m there is a primary school, and in the area, there are some natural parks. The incinerator would affect the three provinces of Araba, Gipuzkoa and Nafarroa, so a citizen platform called “3mugak batera” has been made up. As a result of the mobilizations of the nearby villages, they want to stop the project. The citizens are doing what they can to cease the incinerator. For example, in Araia we are going to hold a non-incineration week, and make a video. Besides, Olazti is in a agricultural place where there are a lot of animals. The ashes of the incinerator plant would go to the lands where the cattle graze. Thus, when we eat it, we will swallow the pollution of the ashes. Moreover, this kind of contamination could create cancer in our organism. In conclusion, it is not a good plan to build the incinerator plant because we are going to damage ourselves in spite of not perceiving it. The ones that are going to take benefit of the project are the government and the multinationals since it will give money to them. But is our health on sale?
Paula
Is incineration healthy for us and for the environment? Incineration is a treatment that consists of burning waste at high temperatures. Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into ash, flue gas and heat to produce electricity. This process can be used for documents incineration or organic waste incineration. This method has citizen a lot because of his high economic price and especially for health. There are some advantages and issues about the incineration. The possibility of recovering energy and the treatment of a lot of waste are some advantages. Not much land is necessary, as well as reducing waste up to %80- %85. However, there are more important disadvantages. It doesn’t eliminate and the waste and it creates toxic waste. Therefore, there are more issues than advantages for the incineration. For example to produces toxic gas and it can be carcinogenic .As well as it needs outside energy for his functioning and then also it has high price, it can cost more or less 250 million euro every year and the possibility of breakdown. In our area, there is an incinerator, in Olazti at 10 kilometers from us. It is a project of the cement Portland business. The citizens and people from the surrounding area are protesting to forbid this project. It is very dangerous because you can have asthma, bronchitis, chest illness and cancer, due to toxic waste. The most affected places are Navarre, Araba and Gipuzkoa. There are also more than 33.000 doctors and scientists who have protested before the European Parliament saying that the incineration is bad for our health, animals and fauna. Besides, the village of Olazti is near the incinerator and around it, there are rivers and mountains like Aitzkorri, Aratz, Urbasa, Urederra and Arbara. In conclusion, I think that they have been forbidden incinerators, because our health and our environment are more important.
WHY DO THEY INSIST ON INCINERATION?
Recently, the Government of Navarra has decided to set an incinerator in the locality of Olazti. Olazti is 5 km away from my town. The plan of this incinerator is to burn there all the litter this autonomous community would gather. So incineration is a method to eliminate urban waste quickly, but is it an ecological system?
It is true that incineration has advantages like the recuperation of energy or the reduction of the volume of waste but the disadvantages stand out mostly. This project is very unsustainable due to the fact that it is very expensive. Moreover, it is also dangerous because it generates polluting and toxic emissions.
In my opinion, the incineration in Olazti ought to be prohibited since it would originate social and natural consequences. It isn’t appropriate to build the factory in this area because of the proximity to villages and a lot of natural areas. The emissions that incineration produces pollute the air, the water and the land and it is a threat to the health of the society: it could generate cancer. Furthermore, I think tourism, and agricultural and livestock production would end up affected too.
In conclusion, I’m against the incineration as it is bad for the environment and for the people who live near the incineration plants. I think the Government of Navarra should find another way to get of urban waste like recycling, composting or collecting waste door to door. Citizens need as well to be aware of buying products with less wrapping and work together to generate less rubbish.
But why do they insist on incineration? All they want is make money after brick crisis but building an incinerator what they get are many costs and usually the insufficient waste to burn. So the result of that would be the transport of waste from other places and it could reach to be more than 30 lorries' transport a day. I think there are better solutions than the one Government of Navarra has taken. In fact, according to the latest news, the waste disposal plan could be rejected but we don’t know what is going to happen.
IS OUR FUTURE SAFE? Today, there are many things that affect the environment. Some people agree with these things, but some others don’t. The substances that these things produce pollute the environment and in some part they are affecting us too. So I think that our future is not safe. Garoña is a nuclear power station that produces BWR energy. For the refrigeration of the plant, water from the Ebro river that causes the increase of the temperature of the water in 15 degrees is used. This power station created some other problems in the past and it is going to be closed. Fracking, which consist in taking out gases from under the ground, is another problem. To get the gas they need to drill 5,000 meters vertically and then they will drill several kilometres horizontally. After that, they inject water with sand and other chemicals products. All these things pollute the air, affect human health, and they can produce earthquakes and alterations in landscapes as well as in terrains. Eolic mills produce energy by the wind. They have to build these mills in mountains and pollute them visually. Many birds are killed because of the movement of the wind mills. Due to the problems that these things produce, I think that they aren’t necessary in our environment as well as to in other places. They cause a lot of environmental problems and I don’t think that these power stations and mills are necessary if they are going to produce so much hurt.
Alazne
The true behind the INCINERATION
Incineration is a waste treatment process that involves the combustion of organic substances contained in waste materials. In this process, the waste converts into ash, flue gas and heat. The ash is formed by the inorganic constituents of the waste, and may take the form of solid lumps or particulates carried by the flue gas. The flue gases must be cleaned of gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed into the atmosphere. In some cases, the heat generated by incineration can be used to generate electric power. But everyone knows that incineration is damaging the environment and not everyone agrees with this. There are two sides to this debate. On the one hand, some people think that incineration is a waste treatment that doesn’t damage our environment very much. These people are usually involved in business interests or government regulations, so they think that an incinerator can create jobs and energy. On the other hand, many people complain about the environmental impact of incinerators. Incineration emits ash and gases that pollute the atmosphere. What is more, they say that emissions from incinerators can produce cancer on the people that are in the surrounding area because of the heavy gases (they are carcinogen) they spread. Incineration, apart for harming public health, generates pollution. In conclusion, while it is true that there are dangers in incineration waste treatment, I believe we have to fight to stop the building of the incinerator around us, and we are all facing this problem. We can do something to have a better world. If we invested more money and time now in researching, for example on storing waste safely, we would be able to generate energy in a clean and safe way.
Ane Gn
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO US BECAUSE OF THE INCINERTOR? Olazti is a village near mine, which is at 4,6 km more or less. There is a cement factory in which they want to build an incinerator. They want to burn all the waste that is produced in Nafarroa. This “recycling” plant will let out gases with lots of dangerous chemical particles for us and the environment. Due to this fact, I do not want this plant near my house. “Portland” says that the particles are going to go to the atmosphere without damaging us and our environment, but it is not true. Considering that this plant is going to be built in Sakana, a valley, the chimney may be bigger than the mountains in such a way that the particles could go to the atmosphere in the absence of going down to the land. Furthermore, some doctors have studied these consequences and they say that the illnesses are not going to appear from one day to another, but by the time more people near Olazti are going to suffer cancer, lung illnesses and other diseases. On the other hand, Portland and FCC the multinational owner of waste incinerators affirm they are going to create more jobs. They add that the waste they are going to burn is not going to be more than 56.600 tones, which is also false. In some other incinerators, they started burning the quote which the government allowed, but nowadays they have duplicated the tones they were burning. In other words, the incinerator is going to damage the environment and our health, that’s why the habitants who live near Olazti don’t want the indicated burning plant. On 16th March, there is going to be a protest in Altsasu against the incinerator. So, do you want some people to damage your life just for money? Come to the demonstration. That’s how we can stop the incinerator!
Irati R
IS IT REALLY BENEFICIAL FOR US THAT GAROÑA CONTINUES OPERATING?
Just a few miles from us, there is a nuclear power station which many people consider dangerous. Garoña can go against our health while it allows us to use its service. Yet, I think that in spite of offering us energy, Garoña isn‘t safe and it can cause an environmental disaster, so it‘s not worth keeping it open. It‘s true that Nuclenor, the company running Garoña, provides work to many people who might become unemployed if it‘s closed. Nevertheless, I just don’t think it‘s a good reason to remedy its closure because of the other negative elements. To support my opinion, I have found different reasons to emphasize the negativity of Garoña. Firstly, its action produces a temperature rise of 15 degrees that involves enormous problems of alteration in the river. Secondly, it emits different toxic wastes which could produce pollution. Besides, the danger level it transmits is terribly high and jeopardizes our health. In short, even though this issue may have a few positive impacts, for most people it is important to close it. Moreover, I think any reason could be important enough to put our health and lives at risk.
Photo: forwhatwearetheywillbe
Irati R
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE? It‘s clear that nowadays climate change is an important global issue. Everyone knows that it is a big problem and the solutions should be given by the citizens and the government. Many authorities are promoting the fight against this problem, but the measures that are being taken aren‘t enough. However, others say that citizens are getting more and more involved in this issue. Therefore, we can say that there are two points of view regarding this problem. On the one hand, the governments of some countries are looking for solutions to solve the problem of climate change and it is true that they are trying to control the CO2 emission. Besides, many people already are concerned about finding an answer and they are trying to reduce, reuse, recycle and save energy to save the planet. On the other hand, it is important to say that many authorities aren‘t making a big effort to fight climate change. In my opinion, there should be more laws to control the CO2 emission from factories, fuels, etc. Bearing in mind this problem, it is evident that governments should be more demanding. In conclusion, while it is true that we are getting more involved in this problem, I ‘m sure that we could try harder. Actually, there are some solutions that we can use like installing solar panels, using public transport and reducing energy consumption. Therefore, we are the ones who can save the planet.
Maitane
Are authorities taking enough measures to fight climate change? Climate change is a problem that is increasing a lot nowadays all over the world. Citizens are doing things to fight this problem but our authorities should collaborate, too. Although some people don’t see the problem that climate change is causing, others are fighting actively against it. On the one hand, it is true that our authorities are collaborating against climate change changing some laws and making projects. For example, in Vitoria, they created the project of a “green capital” last year, and after that, they tried to encourage people to use public transport and use cars less among their goals. On the other hand, authorities say that they are fighting climate change but it isn’t true because for example, they cut trees to get money causing deforestation or they don’t give financial support to people who would like to make an eco-house using renewable energies like solar panels etc. In conclusion, I don’t think that our authorities are doing much. However, if they really want to do something serious against climate change, they should make a bigger effort and give funds for more projects to recycle more, to reuse and to diminish the pollution that nuclear plants emit.
Are authorities thinking about the climate change?
Everybody knows that climate change is a problem which affects the Earth and our lives. Some people say that it is a big problem and they think that authorities are doing many things to solve this problem. However, other people think that they are not doing enough things to stop this change and I agree with them. On the one hand, it is true that they are trying to solve this problem. For example, they reduced the speed limit from 120 km/h to 110 km/h to produce less CO2 and to contaminate less. In addition, in 1997 the “Kyoto Protocolo” was created to fight climate change. On the other hand, many authorities don’t achieve this initiative and they aren’t doing anything to solve the problem of climate change. They prefer to fight other things or they prefer to steal our money. They are more worried about winning our vote than fighting the climate change. In conclusion, climate change is a very big problem which affects us and authorities are not doing their best to stop this change even if they know that this climate change is a major problem.
Xabi
Are the authorities taking enough measure against climate change? Nowadays a lot of politicians enjoy saying they are green just for having some more votes, but then once they have been elected, they don't keep their promises. As a consequence they don’t do them. Other politicians just don't say anything about climate change in their programmes. They are only worried about the deficit, the risk premium and other financial problems, but not the real social problems. I don't know which of these two cases the worst is; nevertheless, the problem is that politicians are not taking measures against climate change as they should. It is true that for a government it is difficult to go against climate change because they are only elected for four years and then they have to leave if they lose elections. Many times politicians must choose between keeping free health and social services or environmental policies, so they choose the first option instead of being a right-wing party that cuts back everything. Authorities think that health and social services are more important in a short term and more necessary at the moment. This could be true but we can't be egoist and just think in the present, because the next generation will pay all this bad things. Moreover, nowadays, when we are having a hard economic crisis, it is not an easy job to collect a lot of money to go against these global problems, and less with all these corrupt people that are working in politics. I agree with all these difficulties, but I don't think they are enough excuse to not face this issue. Some politicians are against fighting climate change. There are initiatives like collecting rubbish from home to home in Gipuzkoa that has shown that more than 60% of the waste can be recovered instead of burning so much waste. However, some politicians find this system as an imposition and think waste is optional.It is a way to go against the political party which is governing now. The sad true is that they could do much more than what they do. Politicians and authorities should be examples for the society. If they don't promote ecological awareness, the society will forget this huge problem. There a lot of steps like promoting renewable energies, not producing so much plastic, recycling, reducing consumption... that are not really expensive to take that would help fight the climate change. Of course, climate change is a thing that humans can't change on their own, but it is in our and the authorities’ hands to slow down the rapid growth of climate change. The work of the authorities is not only compulsory but also good habits in society are needed. But habits must be promoted by authorities.
Gorka
Are authorities taking enough measures to fight climate change? Climate change is a fact nowadays and it is obvious that we have to do something to fight it. Basically because if we don't do anything, we are wiping out the world. But who has to take measures to stop it? Have authorities all the responsability in this field? On the one hand, some people think that authorities aren't taking enough measures to figth climate change and they want to involve them situation more. Moreover, they also think that it isn't the best economic situation of the state and that it is very difficult to invest money only to reduce pollution, so they aren't very coherent with their ideas. Although generally their ideas are very consistent, they aren't sure how to make money to fight climate change. It is also true that authorities could get money from other projects that are less important. On the other hand, there are people satisfied with what authorities make to mitigate climate change. They know that the inancial situation it is bad and they think that authorities are doing their best. This kind of people don't usually do anything to fight climate change because they think that as authorities are taking all the measures, they don't have to do anything to solve the problem. In conclusion, I think that people are also responsable to fight climate change and they can't hand over all the responsability to authorities.It is also necessary that people make their own contribution to the fight against climate change and start their own fight against climate change.If only authorities fought against it, they could do what ever they wanted and we would have to suffer the consequences.
Maria
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE?
People believe that authorities are taking some measures to fight climate change, but they aren’t enough. Climate change is a responsibility of all of us. Not only authorities have to fight the problem, but people have to solve it too. On the one hand, authorities are doing some things like encouraging recycling to fight against global warming. They are also trying to control the pollution from vehicles and industries. Furthermore, they don’t allow cars which have a high CO2 emission. Besides, in some villages solar street lamps are being placed to reduce the cost of energy and the authorities are banning some products that pollute a lot. On the other hand, the government agreed they would invest a lot of money on renewable energies but they are not keeping their word because they depend absolutely on oil. A lot of countries which have a lot of money are not using it to save energy or to fight climate change. They use their wealth for other less important things while their citizens are getting poorer. That is the case of China. In conclusion, authorities should take further steps to fight climate change. They could support Greenpeace and local initiatives that deal to confront the problem really.
Ainitze
Are authorities taking enough measures to fight climate change? Climate change is a big problem that affects worldwide. This is the reason why we are taking measures to combat climate change, but authorities should help us in this fight. There are arguments for and against the measures that authorities are taking. Some people think that authorities are doing their best to fight climate change. Authorities are encouraging inhabitants to recycle. In order to do so, they are investing in new dumps, recycling plants and different containers to recycle. Moreover, they are advertising campaigns to make people aware of environmental problems. They are also controlling the CO2 emissions of factories and transports, and the carbon footprint of citizens. What’s more, new building must have solar panels installed. However, other people think that authorities could take more measures to fight climate change. They should control deforestation and the building of incinerators and nuclear plants. People who would like to build an efficient house with green materials and renewable energy should get financial help to achieve their aim. In conclusion, I think that authorities can try harder to fight climate change but they don’t want to spend money to save the environment. They think that it is not very important to invest on ecological measures that could mitigate global warming. That’s why they don’t invest in it. Our environment is our future, so we have to protect it.
Ane Gn
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE? Climate change is a very serious problem. Authorities say that they are taking measures to try to control this problem, but is it true? Are they taking care of our environment? It could be argued that, they are not doing their best. On the one hand, the emission of CO2 could be reduced by effective measures. For instance, traffic jams are very common in our life. Most of the habitants in the world commute to work buy car. These vehicles produce lots of gases which contaminate. If the government improves the public transports like the buses or the underground, more people will go by them and cars will be using less so the gases will be reduce. On the other hand, International protocols are signed to stop global warming. Even though many governments are taking part in projects to control climate change, they aren’t fulfilling their agreement. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which sets obligations not to produce greenhouse gases. Hence, the air that we breathe will be better and we won’t notice the climate change. Moreover, non-renewable energies will not be used as much as they are now. In conclusion, governments are taking climate change into account, but they could try harder to improve our living conditions like promoting public transport, using less non-renewable energies and cutting fewer trees in the Amazon. If authorities do their best, climate change won’t be as important problem as it is now.
Iñigo
Are authorities taking enough measures to fight climate change? Authorities are supposed to take measures to fight climate change. Anyway, are they doing anything? Although some issues are being fixed, they are being fixed really slowly, and therefore, there are different opinions about the efficiency of the authorities. Some people say that authorities are trying hard. They say that closing Garoña, cleaning rivers and seas, developing electric cars and investing on renewable energies are enough measures to preserve our world and fight climate change. Others say that they are not making enough effort to fight climate change because apart from all measures they aren’t implementing corrective actions and they are doing some bad actions such as the incinerator in Olazti, the nuclear cemetery and the changes in laws to allow fracking. In conclusion, there are different opinions about the issue. We can say that taking more measures will be a big step towards the fight against climate change which will improve our health, happiness and our planet’s health.
Egoitz
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE? People now are realizing about the problems climate change brings . Some people don´t do anything to fight against climate change but some others do. Is it worthy if the laws are not adequate? Authorities should make policies to fight climate change but they don´t always do it.
On the one hand, it´s true that nowadays the policies against climate change are stricter. 20-30 years ago, industries didn´t have pollution laws, so they polluted a lot. Now industries have to respect the laws so they can´t do what they want. Nowadays, laws that have to be respected by types of transport have been changed and as a result less CO2 pollution is emitted. It´s true that measures like promoting public transport help the fight against climate change.
On the other hand, a lot of authorities say that are going to pass laws against climate change because they want to be popular with people, and then when they win the elections, they don´t do anything. Authorities have to be the example for people but rarely can be considered like an example. They say that people have to use public transport to decrease the CO2 emissions. However, they always travel in their own car and never use public transport. Despite promoting the using of the bicycle because this type of transport is 100% clean, they don’t make bike lines, so this measure is not enough.
In conclusion, I think that authorities are taking some measures to fight climate change but these measures are not enough. The policies against climate change have to be stricter because it is a very serious problem. Another thing they have to change is that they have to be an example for all the people. They can´t create laws for citizens if they are not going to fulfil them.
Uralde
ARE AUTHORITIES TAKING ENOUGH MEASURES TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE? Many people know about the climate change. Although everyone thinks that this problem has to be solved, but only few of them act accordingly to avoid it. Authorities have more resources than us to take measures against climate change. At the same time I also believe that they are not the only ones to be blamed. Even if they don’t do anything to combat it, there are many things that we can do. On the one hand, we can contribute using public transports, reducing the waste of energy at home as well as in other places. In order to achieve it, we should recycle waste and reuse materials efficiently. However, there is a need to reduce the water consumption, respect the protected areas and minimize the impact on natural areas. What´s more, we can put photovoltaic solar panels connected to the grid, we shouldn´t move the species outside their home or origin and we have to educate children with these ideas. On the other hand, governments must be demanded the sustainable long-term management of natural resources. In my opinion authorities are not doing enough to solve the problem. They still have to do many things. In conclusion, climate change is a thing that affects all us and we have to make an effort to improve it.