Would you rather...?

Here's a quick game to get thinking about rewilding.

Challenge:

Pick one of your answers and explain it below in THREE sentences. Start them like this:

For question that asked...

I said...

My main reason was...

The best answers will explain your decision-making within these sentence limits.

Comments (79)

  • British Council.jpg bright_conversation | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    29 Oct 2021

    for the question that asked "would you rather control the population of a predatory animal or species or let nature takes its course"
    I said to let nature take its course
    my main reason was that The natural cycle of life and death balances the system, and external or human intervention can have dramatic impacts on ecosystems and wildlife. Fewer plants will release the oxygen they need to survive. Ultimately, it's a domino effect caused by human interference. By protecting wildlife, we enable future generations to enjoy our natural world and the wonderful species that inhabit it. To protect wildlife, it is important to understand how species interact in ecosystems and are affected by environmental and human influences. Without protecting and caring for our environment, we endanger animals, plants, crops, and even as many lives as ourselves. All the ecosystems that make up our environment are deeply interconnected

    Reply to this comment
    1. katie.jpg Katie @ Topical Talk
      bright_conversation's comment 29 Oct 2021

      What if human actions led to an animal becoming endangered? Then is it our job to protect them from predators?

      Reply to this comment
      1. British Council.jpg bright_conversation | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
        Katie @ Topical Talk's comment 29 Oct 2021

        A healthy ecosystem is based on plant and animal species. A species on the verge of extinction is a sign that an ecosystem is slowly collapsing. Each lost species results in the extinction of other species in the ecosystem. To purify the environment, humans depend on healthy ecosystems. Without healthy forests, grasslands, rivers, oceans, and other ecosystems, there is no clean air, water, or land. Leaving the environment to be polluted puts your health at risk. With a strong awareness of the importance of endangered species, we must ensure that they are protected. protection from extinction. Unfortunately, the species are disappearing along the tracks. Citizens across the country remain vigilant to protect the biodiversity and wildlife of their communities.

        Reply to this comment
      2. British Council.jpg wondrous_flight | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
        Katie @ Topical Talk's comment 30 Oct 2021

        The question I questioned the most was controlling the numbers of animals or predators / let nature run its course.
        This question is of great importance.
        We must respect nature and respect its laws. It is the duty to accept it. Man must protect it. Predators from extinction. It helps balance the world, and it is also more than humans. It also helps reduce soil erosion, which increases the cultivation of plants and increases the survival of herbivores. Whenever animal species become extinct Predatory led to disruption of life and also eliminates harmful animals such as snakes, worms.
        And there are also animal laws that people must respect, such as I know their provocation is what they will do to us if they are not interfered with.
        But predators do not attack humans because of people unless they are hungry. Therefore, humans must be careful about their place of residence, food, and everything that must be available to them.
        But if we eliminate predators, nature does not balance and will be disturbed because predators are the perfection of nature. There can be no natural plants without organic fertilizer, and so nature cannot be formed without predators. The Creator shows his creativity with these animals, which are considered from the foundation We also benefit from it in our clothes, in composting, in extracting organic materials, and so on.

        Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg appreciative_pear | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    29 Oct 2021

    In the first question, you chose to protect the citizen and live without electricity because protecting the citizen is one of the priorities of society and because the citizen must be protected. In the second question, you chose to help your country pay for solutions to climate change because the citizen must be protected, build his country and help him by paying for climate change, and in the third question you chose Let nature take Its course is because all of nature must flourish without human interference

    Reply to this comment
    1. avatar.jpg EXPERT: Kirsty @ Clifford Chance
      appreciative_pear's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Thank you for your comment, appreciative_pear. Have you considered how letting the population of a predatory animal grow uncontrolled might affect other animals?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg active_fact | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    29 Oct 2021

    Perhaps here comes our role in deciding our fate and our need for electricity and making decisions for the public interest, while we will learn about the harms of electricity extraction and the stages it enters and the effects resulting from it. It still poses a number of environmental problems. The consumption of electricity leads us to the need for fuel, which in turn leads to many devastating consequences for the environment.

    Over the past few years, emissions from automobile exhaust have been treated as an ideal scapegoat for environmental problems plaguing many cities, which has led many car manufacturers to turn to hybrid and electric cars. However, the problem of electricity consumption still poses a great danger to the environment.

    . But the problem with consuming electricity is the fuel needed to produce it, which can pose a clear harm to the environment.

    Coal and natural gas are currently the most important energy sources that are used to produce electricity. The burning of coal and natural gas creates a huge amount of carbon dioxide, which the environment cannot tolerate.

    In such cases, trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen gas, but the problem is that there are not enough trees to do this task. As a result of this, carbon dioxide gas settles in the atmosphere, contributing to the occurrence of global warming, noting that the combustion of coal contributes to the release of many substances; Such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, arsenic, many volatile organic compounds and mercury, and this leads to smog and acid rain, and to many diseases that affect humans and animals.

    Atomic energy emits a small percentage of emissions, but it produces solid waste, and these wastes are radioactive, and pose a real danger to humans and animals alike. Also, this energy can cause catastrophic problems for the environment, and for many years if it is misused.

    Electric power does not emit any emissions, but it can cause many problems; Such as slowing the movement of water through dams, causing an increase in temperatures or reducing oxygen gas in the atmosphere. These simple changes can clearly affect the animals and plants that depend on drinking from rivers. Regardless of the method that is used to generate electricity, environmental issues related to the use of electricity will help to make the method used to be the most appropriate for the environment as a whole. The best way to reduce the environmental problems resulting from the consumption of electricity, is to reduce this use as much as possible.

    It must be known that no matter how simple the method used to reduce electricity, its impact will be great. We must protect our home and environment and live on simple possibilities that do not harm us, our environment, our society and our world. The most important question is whether we can live without electricity in order to keep our world pure from Risks and therefore our safety as individuals and living in an environment far from danger bells and human distress to reduce diseases and dangers?? Let us all think about protecting the homeland and living without electricity, but the most important question is, can we dispense with electricity, with its positive and negative aspects, for the sake of a clean life?? Here we have included the damages of electricity, so let us raise the voice of the interest of our world loudly without fear!!!

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg quirky_sheep | Faujdarhat Cadet College | Bangladesh
    29 Oct 2021

    For the Question, 'Would you rather Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change?'
    I chose o help my country pay for solutions to climate change.

    Well according to the World health Organisation, Climate change has an impact on the social and environmental determinants of health, such as clean air, safe drinking water, enough food, and a safe place to live. Climate change is anticipated to result in an additional 250 000 deaths per year between 2030 and 2050, due to starvation, malaria, diarrhoea, and heat stress. And by 2030, the direct damage costs to healthcare sector due to climate change is expected to be to be between USD 2-4 billion per year! If this turns out to be true, without support to plan and respond, areas with poor health facilities, especially the developing nations, will be the least able to cope.

    Now if I talk about my own Country which is Bangladesh, In Bangladesh, cyclones in 1970 and 1991 killed an estimated 300,000 and 139,000 people, respectively. Bangladesh has the largest number of deaths (4729) due to extreme weather events (primarily storms, followed by floods and heat waves), according to the Global Climate Risk Ranking. Bangladesh was likewise placed first (2.98) in terms of deaths per 100,000 people. Along with that, Bangladesh requires an estimated $2,801.47 million USD to eliminate and control diseases induced by climate change between 2010 and 2022. That's why, if I can aid my country to Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through better transportation, dietary, and energy-use choices, then it can benefit our healthcare sector & climate change protection measures at the same time, especially by reducing air pollution.

    Reply to this comment
    1. British Council.jpg bright_grape | Mymensingh Girls Cadet College | Bangladesh
      quirky_sheep's comment 02 Nov 2021

      Since you read in Faujdarhat Cadet College, that means you are a native of Bangladesh. My dear friend according to WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Bangladesh suffers from both a shortage of and geographic mal-distribution of HRH. There are an estimated 3.05 physicians per 10,000 population, and you might've seen how there was a lack of ICU beds and other facilities to tackle COVID-19. For a country like Bangladesh don't you think paying for medical facilities is much more important since people are dying due to lack of proper medical care?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg active_fact | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    29 Oct 2021

    For the question you raised, I chose to destroy the habitat of fossil fuels, and this is if the world wants to avoid a dangerous change in the climate. Instead of fuel, we replace it with low-carbon sources. The world must get rid of the fuel because of the resulting transformation of chemical energy into heat from which many are generated when burning fuel. From climate changes that harm the environment and humans, let us seriously think about dispensing with it to avoid the slow death of the world

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg valuable_tennis | Pabna Cadet College | Bangladesh
    29 Oct 2021

    For the Question, 'Would you rather Help your nation pay for better medical services or Help your nation pay for answers for environmental change?'

    I picked o help my nation pay for answers for environmental change.

    Well as indicated by the World wellbeing Organization, Climate change affects the social and ecological determinants of wellbeing, like clean air, safe drinking water, enough food, and a protected spot to live. Environmental change is expected to bring about an extra 250 000 passings each year somewhere in the range of 2030 and 2050, because of starvation, jungle fever, looseness of the bowels, and hotness stress. What's more, by 2030, the immediate harm expenses for medical services area because of environmental change is relied upon to be to be between USD 2-4 billion every year! If this ends up being valid, without help to design and react, regions with chronic weakness offices, particularly the agricultural countries, will be the most un-ready to adapt.

    Presently if I talk about my own Country which is Bangladesh, In Bangladesh, twisters in 1970 and 1991 killed an expected 300,000 and 139,000 individuals, separately. Bangladesh has the biggest number of passings (4729) because of outrageous climate occasions (principally storms, trailed by floods and hotness waves), as indicated by the Global Climate Risk Ranking. Bangladesh was similarly positioned first (2.98) as far as passings per 100,000 individuals. Alongside that, Bangladesh requires an expected $2,801.47 million USD to take out and control sicknesses actuated by environmental change somewhere in the range of 2010 and 2022. That is the reason, if I can help my nation to Reduce ozone harming substance outflows through better transportation, dietary, and energy-use decisions, then, at that point, it can help our medical care area and environmental change security gauges simultaneously, particularly by diminishing air contamination.

    Reply to this comment
    1. katie.jpg Katie @ Topical Talk
      valuable_tennis's comment 01 Nov 2021

      Thank you for sharing, valuable_tennis. Could you share where you found all of this information please so that other people can check the reliability of your sources?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg quirky_sheep | Faujdarhat Cadet College | Bangladesh
    29 Oct 2021

    For the Question, 'Would you rather Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change?'
    I chose to help my country pay for solutions to climate change

    Well, According to the World health Organisation, Climate change has an impact on the social and environmental determinants of health, such as clean air, safe drinking water, enough food, and a safe place to live. That's why, if I can aid my country to Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through better transportation, dietary, and energy-use choices, then it can benefit our healthcare sector & climate change protection measures at the same time, especially by reducing air pollution.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg quirky_sheep | Faujdarhat Cadet College | Bangladesh
    29 Oct 2021

    For the Question, Would you rather Control the population of a predatory animal/species or Let nature takes its course,
    I chose to let nature take it's course.

    And that's because I believe that according to the flow of ecosystem, the predatory animals play the major role in maintaining and regulating the balance of the environment. As an example, predatory birds such as Owl, Eagle, Vulture and raptors eat rats and keep the number of rats under control; but if a pair of rats, living at a house of a human without any trouble could reproduce freely, the number of rats would be 880 at the end of the year which is exactly why, all the animals including predators are necessary and the nature should take it's course.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg open_drum | Asmaa Prep School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    29 Oct 2021

    For the first activity
    Destroying a habitat for fuel to produce electricity or protecting the habitat and living without electricity, of course I will choose to protect the habitat and live without electricity because if the habitat is better protected
    Thus, we will get more money, and then we buy fuel to run the electricity. But if the home is sabotaged to produce fuel only, then there is no need for fuel, then without a good home

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg focused_otter | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    30 Oct 2021

    The question asked: "Would you rather help your country pay for better health care or pay for solutions to climate change?"


    I choose to help my country pay for solutions to climate change? Because achieving climate change goals has huge health benefits that outweigh the costs.


    My reasons are: As the planet becomes warmer, there is a shift in rainfall patterns, however, the occurrence of severe events such as: the increase in the frequency of forest fires, the loss of rains, and floods increases.

    It will also lose millions of people living in coastal areas.

    The poor also face crop failures resulting in lower agricultural productivity, increased hunger, disease and malnutrition.

    Climate change must be addressed because it is multidimensional.
    In order to achieve such a change we must work together, and we must act now: because we are in the present day We emit greenhouse gases and heat is trapped in the atmosphere for centuries of years; Storage dams, transportation networks, and power stations must be built.


    My opinion is that we should work together; Because the problem of climate change cannot be solved without the cooperation of countries.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg aware_forest | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    30 Oct 2021

    The question that asked if you prefer? Control of the numbers of animals or predatory species b Let nature take its course, I said Let Nature take its course, because animal rights are an idea that some, or for all non-human animals have the right to own their own lives, and those of their biggest basic interests - such as interest in Non-suffering - and therefore should have the same consideration as similar interests of humans. Lawyers are given to waiver of moral values, and basic protection on the basis of species alone. This idea is known as to raise awareness, which Richard Rider-based arguing that the term is irrational as the uniforms. They are mostly agree that animals should not be considered as property, or they are used as a food, or as subjects for research or entertainment, or as a burden.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg centered_ant | Sylhet Cadet College | Bangladesh
    30 Oct 2021

    For the question that asked, “Would I rather destroy habitat for fuel to produce electricity? Or protect habitat and live without electricity?”
    In reply, I chose the 2nd one.
    Because protecting a habitat doesn’t always mean living without electricity. We have more environment-friendly energy sources like sunlight and wind energy available everywhere to produce electricity. But if we destroy habitat, this will affect the ecosystem, and the fuel we get destroying the habitats will emit greenhouse gases during combustion. So, instead, if we protect those, we will be able to save the biodiversity and at the same time find a renewable source of energy to produce electricity.

    Reply to this comment
    1. British Council.jpg bright_grape | Mymensingh Girls Cadet College | Bangladesh
      centered_ant's comment 02 Nov 2021

      Can a growing country like Bangladesh go forward without electricity? According to Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) there are 4.62 thousand garment factories in Bangladesh which employs 4.4 million people, mostly women, contributes more than 11 percent to the country's GDP. Without electricity, won't the GDP of our country decline and won't these 4.4 million people face unemployment problem? If you think from our country's perspective, electricity is extremely necessary. According to BBC China is the world's largest source of green house gas emissions and compared to that, our country produces lesser in amount. Shouldn't the P5 countries take action at first? And if we want to be a developed country, without electricity, how is it possible? In an overpopulated country like Bangladesh where poverty is still visible, is it easy to take alternative solutions and will people except them easily?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg appreciative_writer | Khan Younis Prep A Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    31 Oct 2021

    1 I was asked Do you like to control the numbers or types of predators 2 I said I want to control their numbers 3 The main reason for my choice is because there are very many species in the world but how many are their numbers Is it suitable for the size of the world Is this type of animal suitable in number?

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg phenomenal_orange | Rajshahi Cadet College | Bangladesh
    31 Oct 2021

    For question that asked would you rather control the population of a predatory animal or species or let nature takes its course.

    I said that I would rather control the population of a predatory animal or species.

    My main reason was the fact that the nature has already become imbalanced. At this stage if we let the nature take its course we would face nothing but extinction of different animals or species and even risk our existence if that predatory animal increases at an alarming rate. That's why, I would control the population of the predatory animal and help creating a perfect balance of animals in the nature.

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
      phenomenal_orange's comment 01 Nov 2021

      Who might disagree with you and why?

      Reply to this comment
    2. British Council.jpg majestic_moon | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
      phenomenal_orange's comment 03 Nov 2021

      I do not agree with your opinion because animals have the right to freedom like humans and we will not face the extinction of animals unless humans hunt them, but if we put laws prohibiting hunting endangered animals, they will not become extinct and I would like to ask you a question, which is how will you control predators

      Reply to this comment
      1. Tiff-Avatar.jpg Tiff @ Topical Talk
        majestic_moon's comment 03 Nov 2021

        Do predators always need controlling?

        Reply to this comment
        1. British Council.jpg majestic_moon | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
          Tiff @ Topical Talk's comment 20 Nov 2021

          I do not think this because when there is a danger like a human, she can control herself and hide from her. Many believe that hunting animals is a fun thing, but it is actually a very bad and harmful thing to the environment, so we must not hunt animals so that they do not become extinct and do not harm the environment

          Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg active_fact | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    01 Nov 2021

    The main reason is the great enthusiasm for protecting the habitat and living without electricity in order to save an environment that contained many elements and natural resources that I will use to live my clean life without environmental risks, while it may seem unnatural to live without all the electrical elements that play a big role in our lives Living without electricity has been something humans have done since the dawn of man. With determination, a positive attitude, and a bit of creativity, you can also live without electricity, whether it's for a day or two.

    Investing in alternative energy. If you plan to live without electricity, you have to find other ways to power your home without the help of electric companies. Renewable energy sources are an excellent way to do this. Install solar panels to harness the sun's energy, and exploit the available resources in a way that dispenses with electricity that causes risks to health, the environment and the world

    Reply to this comment
  • Boutcher-logo-250x250.jpg productive_lobster | Boutcher C of E Primary School B | United Kingdom
    01 Nov 2021

    I said protect a habitat and live without electricity because there is no point destroying a habitat just so that we can live with electricity because electricity is less important than a HABITAT because a habitat is a home and you need habitats to produce electricity.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg playful_dragonfruit | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    01 Nov 2021

    The question asked Help your country pay for better healthcare B Help your country pay for solutions to climate change I said Help your country pay for climate solutions The main reason we have the ability to end extreme poverty even in the face of climate change But to be successful, considerations must be integrated Climate change is at the center of development work. We must also act quickly, because as climate impacts increase, so will the difficulty and cost of eradicating poverty. "So my country must be helped in that. It is my duty to do so. I say, I do not agree with that, because money does not solve the crisis. Rather, it unites us with some that gives us ideas to solve it. So I choose to help your country in paying for health care to secure health and strength for you and your family."

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg phenomenal_orange | Rajshahi Cadet College | Bangladesh
    01 Nov 2021

    For question that asked would you rather help your country pay for better healthcare or help your country pay for solutions to climate change.

    I said that I would rather help my country pay for solutions to climate change.

    My main reason was the fact that healthcare is also somewhat dependent on a healthy climate i,e if a country manages to cope with the climatic changes and thus reduce carbon emission rate and plant enough trees, many diseases will be eliminated automatically situating the country as a country with better healthcare system.

    Reply to this comment
    1. British Council.jpg healthy_antelope | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
      phenomenal_orange's comment 03 Nov 2021

      What about the economic aspect and how will it play a role in balancing health and climate?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg magical_revolution | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    01 Nov 2021

    You chose a question: Would you rather help your country pay for health care or help your country pay for climate change solutions?

    I chose to help my country pay for climate change solutions when I was surprised and said why didn't you choose to help the country in exchange for health care?! When you read my reason, you will know why I chose it and I hope you will be convinced of it

    My reason is that if we work to find solutions to climate change, we will live a healthy life and also there will be no diseases for children such as malaria, dengue fever, fever and diarrhea.
    The climate helps to live in peace and a clean environment, as well as the lack of spread of diseases and pollution, and there are also children and families who live in areas characterized by desertification, and this we must also help them and reduce it for this I chose

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg lovely_groundhog | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    01 Nov 2021

    for the question" rather you destroy habitat for fuel to produce electricity or protect habitat and live without electricity"
    my answer for that is to protect the habitat and live without electricity
    If we try to live without electricity, we will not be able to turn on central heating in our home, use the toilet, store food in the refrigerator or freezer, or use clean running water. We lived without it long ago, and now we can. Biodiversity must be considered before investing time and money in a fuel energy project. We have to invest money in renewable energy that is not harmful to the environment

    Reply to this comment
  • Ormiston-Bushfield-logo-250x250.jpg warm_drum | Ormiston Bushfield Academy B | United Kingdom
    01 Nov 2021

    Out of Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change.
    I chose to pay for solutions to climate change because if we pay for good healthcare it will only last until we survive and that might not be so long because of climate change but if we try to stop climate change we would live longer and when we solve climate change then we can work on the current situations.

    Reply to this comment
  • Graveney-logo-250x250.jpg encouraging_elderberry | Graveney School | United Kingdom
    01 Nov 2021

    For a question that asked: Would you rather: Pay for better healthcare or Help your country find solutions to climate change . I said 'help find solutions to climate change'.
    My main reason was that despite the obvious advantages which come with better medication, lots of serious illnesses care caused by climate linked causes and could therefore be solved in the long run rather than better medication which is already increasing all around the world. This medication and technology and can be produced in another country kind enough to help those in need but climate change in an area can only be solved there.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg smart_theory | Start-Rite Schools | Nigeria
    01 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked would you rather help your country pay for better healthcare or help your country pay for solutions to climate change.

    I said that I would rather help my country pay for solutions to climate change.

    My main reason is the fact that good health goes hand-in-hand with a good climate. Here is an example: If I am the president of Nigeria and I fund for better healthcare but every day thousands of megajoules of smoke and other harmful gases are released into the environment, the so-called "good health" worsens and the whole point of funding health is ruined.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg philosophical_weasel | Rajshahi Cadet College | Bangladesh
    01 Nov 2021

    For question that asked “would you rather help your country pay for better healthcare or help your country pay for solutions to climate change?”
    I said I would help my country to pay for better healthcare.
    My main reason is everyday hundreds of people are dying due to lack of proper healthcare services in my country.Climate change is surely a big threat but to solve it we need awareness more than money. So, I would save my people’s lives by helping them get proper and good healthcare rather than helping my country to invest on climate change.

    Reply to this comment
  • Cheam Fields logo alert_writer | Cheam Fields Primary Academy A | United Kingdom
    01 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked 'Would you rather help your country pay for better healthcare or for solutions to climate change?'.
    I said help your country pay for solutions to climate change.
    My main reason was that we should think about what kind of a world we are leaving behind to future generations, and how we would expect them to take care of this lovely Blue Planet.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg entrepreneurial_song | Mymensingh Girls Cadet College | Bangladesh
    02 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked would you rather Destroy a habitat for fuel to produce electricity or Protect the habitat and live without electricity.

    I said I would Protect the habitat and live without electricity.

    The main reason why I chose this is, that I don't want to destroy a habitat just to make my life a BIT easier and modern and if this question pops in your mind that how can we live without electricity in this 21st century, we must keep in mind Fossil Fuels are not the only way we can produce electricity rather we have solar panels and wind turbines and these methods won't destroy the habitat.

    Reply to this comment
    1. British Council.jpg healthy_antelope | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
      entrepreneurial_song's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Yes, there are many sources of environmentally friendly energy, but is your country able to provide it to all members of the people?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg smart_glacier | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    02 Nov 2021

    For question I asked I said that protect a habitat and live with out electricity my main reason was no one can deny that electricity has become an essential thing in our lives and that its production greatly destroys the climate, and despite the existence of alternatives such as solar energy, it is not dealt with as strongly as electricity. Instead of wasting money in areas that do not benefit humanity and nature, it must be used to reconcile with the environment and spend on developing and exploiting the environment, especially solar energy. Continuing to use electricity and destroying nature will eventually lead to the end of life on Earth’s surface in destruction

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg majestic_moon | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    02 Nov 2021

    For me my question is would you rather help your country pay for healthcare or help your country pay for climate change solutions. I chose to help my country pay costs to find solutions to climate change. The main reason was that the climate issue worsened. If it increased, and for health care, if we solve the climate change crisis, there will be fewer diseases because climate change increases the number of diseases.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg sympathetic_sparrow | Asmaa Prep School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    02 Nov 2021

    On the question posed, would you prefer destroying a habitat for fuel to produce electricity or protecti the habitat and living without electricity?
    Maybe my answer is a bit selfish, but it will be for everyone's benefit, and my answer is "Habitat Destruction to Produce Electricity". This is because we have reached a stage where electricity has taken over our lives, now everything needs electricity, and in any case if we do not make use of the fuel in the electricity it may remain useless, but someone may want to preserve the habitat for future generations who may have found alternative energy For electricity, who knows, the world is constantly evolving, so I will answer it here neither you nor me can live without electricity and also if he is very keen on a better future it is possible to secure new inventions and discoveries for them, and electricity may contribute to these discoveries that they will benefit from. But if the reason for choosing this answer is that electricity pollutes the environment and we can live without it and our ancestors lived without it and lived longer than us, then I have no objection to that, but I want to make it clear. This fuel also pollutes the environment, and it is impossible to live without electricity, on the other hand, the answer of some people would be that the habitat of the fuel should be preserved and replaced with clean energy such as wind, sun and hydro..... This is a reasonable solution and I would answer it if it were The phrase "living without electricity"
    In the end, all these hypotheses do not exist, and if we had the opportunity to find other solutions, we would have been creative in finding them.

    Reply to this comment
    1. katie.jpg Katie @ Topical Talk
      sympathetic_sparrow's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Thank you for sharing, sympathetic_sparrow! This is very well thought-through and honest.

      Reply to this comment
    2. British Council.jpg healthy_antelope | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
      sympathetic_sparrow's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Should we look to the future while making decisions for the present?
      Of course not, our present is the one who prepares for us a comfortable future. Also, I do not agree with you in most of what you say. Of course, electricity is important in our lives, but you also have to make assumptions, if we destroy the home for the sake of electricity, In your opinion, does this not increase the proportion of carbon emissions and the risk of climate change? , Even another possibility after the rise in carbon emissions and the death of large proportions due to climate change and day after day. Will this not lead to humanity living in weakness and fear, and famines that will fill the poor and perhaps also the rich countries? Thus, scientists and inventors will not be able to find the budget to invent their inventions? Also, maybe even if they find the budget, they may have problems due to the change in temperature

      Also, I think that whether we dispense with fossil fuels in the production of electricity or not, this does not matter, as there are other clean and environmentally friendly sources, we will not have to destroy the habitat to produce electricity, That is, the right choice is in our hands, so why not take advantage of it instead of destroying the country?

      Reply to this comment
      1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
        healthy_antelope's comment 03 Nov 2021

        Well done for sharing your opinion and giving reasons why you disagree.

        Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg aware_painting | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    03 Nov 2021

    To my question, would you rather control predators or let nature take its course? Of course, I said let nature take its course. I have a question, whether predators may have a role in climate change, but I am referring to a broader and broader view of the links between different parts of ecosystems, which They often have an indirect impact on human development but are not fully appreciated.
    In many parts of the world, habitat conversion and fragmentation, prey deprivation, and hunting have reduced the ranges of wolves, lions, bears, tigers, sea otters, and other large predators to less than half their original range. And when their numbers drastically decrease, not only do we lose famous species, ecosystems also lose major species that thrive on eating smaller carnivores and herbivores. And when fewer animals in the food chain are eaten, ecosystems change - and these changes affect us humans, too. A recent article by Science magazine systematically sheds light on this, and its important lessons for development.
    On land, large predators can help ensure that ecosystems continue to function. Let us consider the case of West Africa, where the numbers of lions and tigers decreased dramatically and suddenly. Both species of these creatures hunt baboons called "olive baboons", which in turn like to eat young antelopes, livestock, and food crops that are also used by humans. The decline in the numbers of lions and tigers has resulted in an increase in the numbers of these baboons and more competition for food with humans. In some areas, baboon attacks on the fields have forced families to keep their children at home and not send them to school until they can protect the families' crops. Also, because predators often chase sick prey, it reduces the spread of disease among these prey. This can reduce the spread of disease among wild and domesticated animals, and also reduce the associated costs of grazing and animal husbandry.
    Large predators also help regulate ecosystem services, such as storing carbon, reducing soil erosion, and maintaining water quality. By keeping herbivores in check, this allows plants - which absorb and store carbon dioxide - to thrive. For example, the flooding of a large predatory habitat and the formation of a reservoir for Gori Lake in Venezuela led to the formation of a group of very small islands. This fragmented the habitat of spotted tigers, mountain lions, and smaller predators, leading to their eventual extinction from the region. As a result, the density of rodents, howler monkeys, iguanas - a species of herbivorous lizard, and leaf-biting ants increased, which led to a sharp decrease in the density of tree and shrubs seedlings, and thus the amounts of carbon dioxide stored in the area are currently less than It was the case before.
    In northern North America, wolves limit the growing population of moose, a species of elk. Since moose have a great appetite for tree seedlings, reducing their numbers leads to more trees, increased carbon uptake and increased net productivity, all of which help mitigate the effects of climate change. By preying on herbivores that live on stream banks, larger predators also indirectly help reduce soil erosion and improve water quality.
    Large predators are also important for the oceans. For example, sea otters feed on sea urchins. When you don't, more sea urchins are eating more kelp, a large underwater plant that softens coastal waves and currents and reduces coastal erosion. Kelp also absorbs and stores carbon. Restoring sea otter populations in North America to reduce sea urchin populations could result in between 4.4 and 8.7 million tons of carbon being stored in kelp forests.
    Of course, none of these examples mean that large predators are not a burden in terms of costs. It has its costs, which are sometimes in the form of loss of livestock or human life. But this happens less often than previously thought. Consider sharks, for example, which carried out 116 attacks recorded in 2013, 13 of which caused casualties. In the same period of time, nearly 100 million sharks were killed, most of them for their fins, resulting in the loss of a very important predator that supports the health and productivity of the oceans.

    The extermination of these animals represents one of the most significant human impacts on nature. To put it simply, we need to prevent the extinction of large predators because ultimately everything is connected to each other.

    Reply to this comment
    1. katie.jpg Katie @ Topical Talk
      aware_painting's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Well done for explaining the issue using lots of different examples from around the world.

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg healthy_antelope | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    03 Nov 2021

    For question that asked " Would you rather help your country pay for better healthcare or help your country pay for solutions to climate change"

    I said I want to help my country pay for solutions to climate change

    My main reason was climate change is already threatening the health sector, according to Google, “University of Washington researchers examined 64.9 million death records from nine different countries, and determined that at least 1.69 million of those deaths could be attributed to extreme temperatures in 2019 alone,” meaning that it If we want to pay for better health care, what about the victims dying because of the impact of climate change, if we don't look at their suffering, who will look?Knowing if we're going to pay for health progress, this is something that will go with time, that is, it will come back,the situation is the same,as for climate change, if we support the state to solve it, we will be relieved for a long time from the costs and inventions and the danger to the environment, health, and economic activities , If they connect it positively with climate change solutions, it will increase and thus we will get better health care

    Reply to this comment
    1. British Council.jpg versatile_satsuma | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
      healthy_antelope's comment 03 Nov 2021

      You're saying that if we pay for healthcare it's good but it's going to increase over time and come back again, but I don't agree with you here because even climate change won't be able to stop it completely, so come back with me a little bit. Have you forgotten all those achievements, research and discoveries about climate change since its appearance, but the problem is that people did not complete the path that started before them and actions began to decrease and awareness decreases about this issue and this made climate change It increases significantly, so in both cases we need to start the solution path, but complete it to the end so that we can solve the problem and set correct rules to be taken for the future

      Reply to this comment
      1. British Council.jpg healthy_antelope | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
        versatile_satsuma's comment 03 Nov 2021

        You will not be able to stop climate change completely, but you will reduce its danger, and also these research and inventions have not forgotten and I will not forget it, it is a wonderful imprint that saved humanity, but now we have to complete the way ,This will cost a lot and a lot if we do not help pay for it, the state will start to be negligent with the matter and this is how we are the ones who will have the dire consequences, As for health care, if we want to support it, we will support it for a short period. As for the climate, if we transform our lifestyle and environment to greener, it will remain for the long term.

        Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg excellent_snow | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    03 Nov 2021

    To the question that was asked: Do animals feel like us????? Yes, they feel like us. People do not know this and they torture them and do not ask and I will talk about a situation that happened to me: One day I was walking home and found a dog sitting on the dirt on the farm, so I went towards him and he looked at me with a look of sadness and blame. A person went to the dirt softer than his heart. The dog was loyal in his home, happy in his joys and sad in his sorrows, but when he grew old and aged, he expelled him from his home and put him to the street children who beat him. Then he fell asleep and I didn't want to disturb him, so I went. The point of my words is that animals feel as we feel, and how a beautiful person responds to a dog with abuse, responding to charity with abuse

    Reply to this comment
  • Bruntcliffe-logo-250x250.jpg diplomatic_avocado | Bruntcliffe Academy | United Kingdom
    03 Nov 2021

    I said we should live without electricity to protect a habitat because at first hard because we surround ourself with technology day to day but we would learn to live without and besides, want your home smashed to the ground?

    Reply to this comment
  • Graveney-logo-250x250.jpg openminded_vegetable | Graveney School | United Kingdom
    03 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked if I would destroy the habitat but have electricity or if I would keep a habitat but live without electricity. I said that I would keep habitats and not use them for electricity. My main reason for this choice is that you wouldn't need to remove habitats and destroy for electricity as there are many ways to produce this such as wind turbines and solar panels.

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
      openminded_vegetable's comment 03 Nov 2021

      Ah! Interesting. Have you answered the question, or have you just worked around it?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg enchanted_turkey | School of Excellence Sector-23 Rohini | India
    03 Nov 2021

    For questions that asked 'Would you rather Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change?'

    I would choose to help my country with investment in better health care.

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
      enchanted_turkey's comment 04 Nov 2021

      Can you say why?

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg enchanted_turkey | School of Excellence Sector-23 Rohini | India
    03 Nov 2021

    For questions that asked 'Would you rather Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change?'

    I would choose to help my country with investment in better health care

    My main reason for choosing betterment in healthcare is that this ensures healthier manpower, efficient brains, creates an optimistic environment in any country and prevents the country from crashing in any kind of crisis. A country with poor healthcare wouldn't be able to cope with the slightest direct effect of climate change. The need for better health care is ubiquitous, it's required in times of war, pandemics, natural calamities and technology. Fact told, to fight a prolonged problem such as climate change we need to strengthen rudimentary services which in this scenario are Healthcare and Education. A healthy mind and body is worth more than 10 unhealthy version of same

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ Topical Talk
      enchanted_turkey's comment 04 Nov 2021

      Good reasons given to support your point of view. Well done!

      Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg determined_deer | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    03 Nov 2021

    To the question posed: Would you rather control the numbers of animals or predatory species, or let nature take its course? Of course, I will choose the second option, which is to let nature take its course, although this choice contradicts many of those who persecute animals in various ways, especially predators, because there is an old concept that predators pose harm and threat to wildlife, but this belief is wrong because there are studies that have proven that these animals have an environmental value By absorbing carbon, and contributing to biodiversity, fighting diseases and maintaining ecological balance, for example, when predators such as wolves were returned to the Williston American Reserve, the ecosystem there responded very quickly, so we always have to let the environment take its course because it will be much kinder of humans on itself.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg secure_cymbals | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    03 Nov 2021

    The question I liked was: What do you prefer?!
    1) Destroying a home for fuel to produce electricity
    2) Protecting the homeland and living without electricity
    I chose to protect the homeland and live without electricity because: because humanity is not to sacrifice a person for the sake of an end and in the light of a healthy environment, a person will enjoy a better life than destroying his homeland to produce electricity. We must go towards sustainable, environmentally friendly energy such as solar energy and wind energy. This is how we protect the environment and do not harm humans.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg blissful_flight | Mirzapur Cadet College | Bangladesh
    04 Nov 2021

    For question that asked what do I choose among destroying habitat for Phil to produce electricity or protect it and live without electricity.
    I said I would rather choose to protect a habitat than destroying it for electricity. Misuse of energy and deforestation are the main reasons behind climate crisis. Climate crisis is a threat to our planet as it can also cause the destruction of earth. When there comes a question about saving it we can't give priority to our personal comfortness and satisfaction. Many kilometers of rain forests is being destroyed in a second. One day there might not remain any forest to be destroyed, There might not be any habitats for the animals to live. All because of our failure to protect the planet.To fight against climate change we have to contribute in saving it by doing even if a tiny work like protecting a single habitat. It's not like that we have to struggle without electricity because we can use new renewable energies like sunlight, water stream, biogas etc to produce electricity. By using this kind of energy, we are benefited in two ways. We can protect habitats of animals and fossil fuel that used to make electricity. At the same time we can get electricity for our daily life through renewable energy. I know, renewable energy has its limits like we can't get sufficient electricity from it and it's quite expensive. But we don't have to live all day without electricity at least. So I think I will choose the second option to protect a habitat.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg bright_conversation | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    04 Nov 2021

    'Would you rather Help your country pay for better healthcare or Help your country pay for solutions to climate change?' my answer for this question is to help my country with investment in better health care
    My reasons are :
    First, spending on improving health outcomes creates human capital. Healthy adults need less leisure time and are more productive at work. Healthier children are more likely to graduate and perform better in school.
    Second, health affects economic growth in many ways. For example, reducing production losses due to worker illness, increasing adult productivity through better nutrition, reducing absenteeism, and improving student learning.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg faithful_aspect | Shouka Prep Girls School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    04 Nov 2021

    For question that asked
    Destroy a habitat for fuel to produce electricity

    I said yes I agree
    My main reasons was
    I say yes and I feel sorry for that Because I am between two things, the sweetest of them is bitter We live in a time when it is difficult to get away from electricity, and if we think of living without it, you have to think of alternative sources to supply your home with energy without relying on the electricity company. Examples of alternative energy solutions include installing solar panels, building wind turbines, or powering your home with hydropower. You can also rely on an electric generator to operate specific devices in the home, and this is difficult. Because electricity has become important in our lives, people are now dependent on electricity mainly, and its interruption undoubtedly paralyzes people's lives, because life without electricity is dark and tasteless. We have tasted the scourge of electricity cuts in Gaza and we do not wish to live without it, even if it cost us a lot.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg reserved_atmosphere | Asmaa Prep School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    04 Nov 2021

    Regarding the question that was asked, “Do you prefer controlling the number of animals or predators, or let nature take its course?” My answer is to control the number of animals, because in our reality, pets are exposed to predation by animals. Predators and also by some children and also there are predators that endanger humanity and cause harm to humans, so if I can control their number, I will prevent such things from happening in our society.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg affable_opinion | Pabna Cadet College | Bangladesh
    04 Nov 2021

    For questions that asked 'Would you rather Help your nation pay for better medical care or Help your nation pay for solutions for environmental change?'

    I said I need to help my nation pay for solutions for environmental change.

    My fundamental justification behind picking improvement in medical care is that this guarantees better labor, proficient cerebrums, establishes a hopeful climate in any nation and keeps the country from smashing in any sort of emergency. A country with helpless medical services wouldn't have the option to adapt to the smallest direct impact of environmental change. The requirement for better medical services is universal, it's needed in the midst of war, pandemics, normal cataclysms and innovation. Truth told, to battle a drawn out issue, for example, environmental change we really want to fortify simple administrations which in this situation are Healthcare and Education.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg trustworthy_planet | Lake Bank Pioneer Preparatory | Tunisia
    04 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked : Would you rather help your country for better health care or solutions for climate? I said that I would choose the health care. How could we stop climate change, when people in the poorest countries still die because of ebola, tetanus and cancert?

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg unassuming_tamarillo | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    04 Nov 2021

    For the question asked “Would you rather help your country pay for better health care or help your country pay for solutions to climate change?”
    I will choose to help my country pay the costs of solutions to climate change because climate change also has a negative impact on the health of many people and causes a large number of deaths, so this problem must be solved to get rid of many epidemics because as long as climate change exists, human health problems exist and if costs are paid Health care will not benefit greatly, for example, lung and heart patients, when the temperature rises, air pollution increases, which negatively affects the lungs. Fossil fuel pollution is also associated with an increase in the incidence of various diseases and deaths from cardiovascular diseases, and is linked to more asthma attacks and breathing problems. the other.
    Therefore, I think that the problem of climate change must be eliminated first, and then solve the health problems, which will be very few and easy to treat because we will be in a healthy environment.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg open_drum | Asmaa Prep School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    04 Nov 2021

    To the question: Do you prefer (to be a house for fuel to produce electricity, or to protect the homeland and live without electricity)? I say according to my opinion: the second option is to protect the house without electricity .. I do not know what will be the opinion of many people, but I say that nature in general needs great protection and everyone who lives in it. This house must be protected by rebuilding that house that has not been destroyed. As we certainly know that electricity has many benefits, including lighting, and yes we realize that, but nature is more important than destroying the house. If you destroy it, we will have nowhere to live. Among the ways of protecting and reconstructing the habitat: 1- Planting trees, data and roses with a beautiful smell 2- Increasing the awareness of school students in all subjects
    And I hope that anyone who has seen this comment may give me his personal opinion regarding this question because for me I want to know the extent of the responsibility of the people! Thank you

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg versatile_satsuma | Beit Hanoun Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    05 Nov 2021

    In the question asked would you rather pay for health care than pay for climate change
    This question I answered thoughtlessly, and my answer was, "Paying for Climate Change."
    We on this big planet are like a small room surrounded by damages, and these damages are present in the issue of climate change.
    Health care should also be kept in the ears of heads of state, because it is a big problem that needs to be solved, because if we leave it, we will face dire consequences.
    But before we think about solving the health care problem, why did we not think about solving the larger and more comprehensive problem, which is the issue of climate change.
    Everything that harms the environment in contact with humans causes harm to the person himself as well, which becomes a complete damage to the state, and thus this problem becomes a global problem that needs a collective solution.
    Although the link between health care and climate change is unclear, the two issues are considered among the most important challenges facing the world. In fact, the two issues are more connected than expected, with every second more than a hundred trees disappear from tropical forests around the world. This forest is one of the world's most important carbon reservoirs and is essential to slowing climate change and extinction and reducing heat-related diseases.
    Today, I decided to tell you about my own plan to solve two global problems at the same time and with the same plan. What I said earlier is that I see the world as a small room surrounded by damages, and our duty is to get rid of these damages so that our future and our planet can be bright.
    Well, if the solution is in my hands and I plan the issue of climate change and health care, then I will be fair among the countries and I will make each country accept the solution for the benefit of its country, as you know that it is possible that the heads of state will not accept to enter into the solution with me, but if this is the voice that wants the solution It stems from the people themselves, they will accept and will not be able to refuse.
    By this I mean that I want to make a large organization that allows the registration of individuals from all over the world, I am now 13 years old and I think that I have become fully aware of the issue of climate change and of course there are a good number of people of different ages who are interested in the issue of climate change and this will be sufficient to form the organization A large workforce, and I could also have needed the help of a strong personality at the beginning and to have the ability to raise our voice to be a globally reliable organization.
    After the formation of the organization and arranging our ideas in it, we begin to raise our voice through revolutions so that the heads of state make our voice heard, and we invite them to hear our solutions to eliminate the phenomenon of climate change.
    And then we will have sorted each country with the greatest harm it faces from the issue of climate change, and it will have to start solving it, as each head of state will start working on reducing the issue of climate change in his country only, but collectively, and also this will be beneficial to him, given that the costs will become less when Work collectively.
    From here the revolution against climate change begins, and the whole world turns to get rid of this heinous phenomenon, and countries will encourage each other to make the best progress in the problem of climate change. from him in the future.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg entrepreneurial_guitar | Mirzapur Cadet College | Bangladesh
    08 Nov 2021

    Would it be advisable for us to plan ahead while settling on choices for the present?

    Obviously not, our present is the person who gets ready for us an agreeable future. Additionally, I disagree with you in the vast majority of what you say. Obviously, power is significant in our lives, however you additionally need to make suppositions, if we annihilate the home for power, In your perspective, does this not increment the extent of fossil fuel byproducts and the danger of environmental change? , Even one more chance after the ascent in fossil fuel byproducts and the demise of huge extents because of environmental change and for a long time. Will this not prompt humankind living in shortcoming and dread, and starvations that will fill poor people and maybe likewise the rich nations? In this manner, researchers and designers can not track down the financial plan to concoct their developments? Additionally, perhaps regardless of whether they track down the financial plan, they might have issues because of the adjustment of temperature

    Additionally, I imagine that whether we abstain from petroleum derivatives in the creation of power or not, this doesn't make any difference, as there are other clean and harmless to the ecosystem sources, we won't need to annihilate the territory to deliver power, That is, the best decision is in our grasp, so why not exploit it as opposed to obliterating the country?

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg entrepreneurial_guitar | Mirzapur Cadet College | Bangladesh
    09 Nov 2021

    In the inquiry posed would you preferably pay for medical care over pay for environmental change

    This inquiry I responded to neglectfully, and my answer was, "Paying for Climate Change."

    We on this enormous planet resemble a little room encompassed by harms, and these harms are available in the issue of environmental change.

    Medical services ought to likewise be kept in the ears of heads of state, since it is a major issue that should be addressed, since, supposing that we leave it, we will confront desperate outcomes.

    Be that as it may, before we contemplate taking care of the medical services issue, for what reason did we not think about addressing the bigger and more extensive issue, which is the issue of environmental change.

    All that hurts the climate in touch with people makes hurt the individual himself too, which turns into a total harm to the state, and along these lines this issue turns into a worldwide issue that needs an aggregate arrangement.

    Albeit the connection between medical care and environmental change is muddled, the two issues are considered among the main difficulties confronting the world. Truth be told, the two issues are more associated than anticipated, with consistently in excess of 100 trees vanish from tropical woods all throughout the planet. This woods is one of the world's most significant carbon supplies and is crucial for easing back environmental change and eradication and decreasing hotness related illnesses.

    Today, I chose to inform you concerning my own arrangement to take care of two worldwide issues simultaneously and with a similar arrangement. What I said before is that I consider the world to be a little room encompassed by harms, and our obligation is to dispose of these harms so our future and our planet can be brilliant.

    All things considered, if the arrangement is in my grasp and I plan the issue of environmental change and medical care, then, at that point, I will be reasonable among the nations and I will make every nation acknowledge the answer to support its nation, as you realize that it is conceivable that the heads of state won't acknowledge to go into the arrangement with me, however in case this is the voice that needs the arrangement It comes from individuals themselves, they can acknowledge and won't deny.

    By this I imply that I need to make a huge association that permits the enrollment of people from everywhere the world, I am presently 13 years of age and I believe that I have become completely mindful of the issue of environmental shift and of direction there are a lot of individuals of various ages who are keen on the issue of environmental change and this will be adequate to shape the association An enormous labor force, and I could likewise have required the assistance of a solid character toward the start and to can speak more loudly to be a worldwide dependable association.

    After the arrangement of the association and orchestrating our thoughts in it, we start to speak loudly through upsets with the goal that the heads of state make our voice heard, and we welcome them to hear our answers for kill the peculiarity of environmental change.

    And afterward we will have arranged every country with the best damage it faces from the issue of environmental change, and it should begin addressing it, as each head of state will begin chipping away at diminishing the issue of environmental change in his nation just, however aggregately, and furthermore this will be gainful to him, considering that the costs will turn out to be less when Work by and large.

    From here the transformation against environmental change starts, and the entire world goes to dispose of this intolerable peculiarity, and nations will urge each other to gain the best headway in the issue of environmental change from him later on.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg glad_camel | Islamabad Model School for Girls (VI-X), I-10/4 | Pakistan
    11 Nov 2021

    For the question that asked Would you rather destroy habitat for fuel to produce electricity OR protect habitat and live without electricity?
    I said that we should destroy habitat for fuel to produce electricity.
    My main reason was that we destroy habitat for fuel to produce electricity because Electricity is a form of energy and we need it for just about everything! Almost all of our modern conveniences are electrically powered. Electricity is what lights up our classrooms, heats our homes, and lets us listen to our favorite music. You are using electricity right now by using your computer to read this. Starting with your house, electricity is important for operating all appliances, entertainment, lighting and of course, all technology. Without electricity, hospitals and medicine would not be able to be advanced and cure illnesses, which would also result in more casualties.
    Habitat destruction by human activity is mainly for the purpose of harvesting natural resources for industry production and urbanization. Clearing habitats for agriculture is the principal cause of habitat destruction. Other important causes of habitat destruction include mining, logging, trawling, and urban sprawl.
    Like our country, we are living off of energy sources produced in the age of the dinosaurs. Fossil fuels are dirty. They’re dangerous. And, they’ve taken an incredible toll on our country in many ways. Our nation’s threatened and endangered wildlife, plants, birds and fish are among those that suffer from the impacts of our fossil fuel addiction in our country. This report highlights ten species that are particularly vulnerable to the pursuit of oil, gas, and coal. Our outsized reliance on fossil fuels and the impacts that result from their development, storage, and
    transportation is making it even more difficult to keep our vow to protect our country"s wildlife.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg affable_opinion | Pabna Cadet College | Bangladesh
    13 Nov 2021

    In the inquiry posed would you preferably pay for medical care over pay for environmental change

    This inquiry I responded to neglectfully, and my answer was, "Paying for Climate Change."

    We on this enormous planet resemble a little room encompassed by harms, and these harms are available in the issue of environmental change.

    Medical services ought to likewise be kept in the ears of heads of state, since it is a major issue that should be addressed, since, supposing that we leave it, we will confront desperate outcomes.

    Be that as it may, before we contemplate taking care of the medical services issue, for what reason did we not think about addressing the bigger and more extensive issue, which is the issue of environmental change.

    All that hurts the climate in touch with people makes hurt the individual himself too, which turns into a total harm to the state, and along these lines this issue turns into a worldwide issue that needs an aggregate arrangement.

    Albeit the connection between medical care and environmental change is muddled, the two issues are considered among the main difficulties confronting the world. Truth be told, the two issues are more associated than anticipated, with consistently in excess of 100 trees vanish from tropical woods all throughout the planet. This woods is one of the world's most significant carbon supplies and is crucial for easing back environmental change and eradication and decreasing hotness related illnesses.

    Today, I chose to inform you concerning my own arrangement to take care of two worldwide issues simultaneously and with a similar arrangement. What I said before is that I consider the world to be a little room encompassed by harms, and our obligation is to dispose of these harms so our future and our planet can be brilliant.

    All things considered, if the arrangement is in my grasp and I plan the issue of environmental change and medical care, then, at that point, I will be reasonable among the nations and I will make every nation acknowledge the answer to support its nation, as you realize that it is conceivable that the heads of state won't acknowledge to go into the arrangement with me, however in case this is the voice that needs the arrangement It comes from individuals themselves, they can acknowledge and won't deny.

    By this I imply that I need to make a huge association that permits the enrollment of people from everywhere the world, I am presently 13 years of age and I believe that I have become completely mindful of the issue of environmental shift and of direction there are a lot of individuals of various ages who are keen on the issue of environmental change and this will be adequate to shape the association An enormous labor force, and I could likewise have required the assistance of a solid character toward the start and to can speak more loudly to be a worldwide dependable association.

    After the arrangement of the association and orchestrating our thoughts in it, we start to speak loudly through upsets with the goal that the heads of state make our voice heard, and we welcome them to hear our answers for kill the peculiarity of environmental change.

    And afterward we will have arranged every country with the best damage it faces from the issue of environmental change, and it should begin addressing it, as each head of state will begin chipping away at diminishing the issue of environmental change in his nation just, however aggregately, and furthermore this will be gainful to him, considering that the costs will turn out to be less when Work by and large.

    From here the transformation against environmental change starts, and the entire world goes to dispose of this intolerable peculiarity, and nations will urge each other to gain the best headway in the issue of environmental change from him later on.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg entrepreneurial_guitar | Mirzapur Cadet College | Bangladesh
    14 Nov 2021

    For questions that asked 'Would you rather Help your nation pay for better medical care or Help your nation pay for answers for environmental change?'

    I would decide to assist my country with interest in better medical care

    My primary justification for picking advancement in medical care is that this guarantees better labor, productive minds, establishes a hopeful climate in any nation and keeps the country from slamming in any sort of emergency. A country with helpless medical services wouldn't have the option to adapt to the smallest direct impact of environmental change. The requirement for better medical services is omnipresent, it's needed in the midst of war, pandemics, normal catastrophes and innovation. Reality told, to battle a drawn out issue, for example, environmental change we want to fortify simple administrations which in this situation are Healthcare and Education. A solid psyche and body is worth in excess of 10 undesirable rendition of same.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg entrepreneurial_guitar | Mirzapur Cadet College | Bangladesh
    14 Nov 2021

    For question that asked " Would you rather help your nation pay for better medical services or help your nation pay for answers for environmental change"

    I said I need to help my nation pay for answers for environmental change

    My fundamental explanation was environmental change is as of now compromising the wellbeing area, as indicated by Google, University of Washington scientists analyzed 64.9 million passing records from nine distinct, still up in the air that basically 1.69 million of those passings could be credited to outrageous temperatures in 2019 alone, implying that it If we need to pay for better medical services, what might be said about the casualties kicking the bucket due to the effect of environmental change, if we don't take a gander at their anguish, who will look?Knowing in case we will pay for wellbeing progress, this is the sort of thing that will go with time, that is, it will come back,the circumstance is the same,as for environmental change, if we support the state to settle it, we will be assuaged for quite a while from the expenses and innovations and the risk to the climate, wellbeing, and monetary exercises , If they interface it decidedly with environmental change arrangements, it will increment and consequently we will improve medical care.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg helpful_beaver | Pabna Cadet College | Bangladesh
    15 Nov 2021

    To my question, would you rather control predators or let nature take its course? Of course, I said let nature take its course. I have a question, if predators can play a role in climate change, but I am referring to an increasingly broad view of the links between different parts of ecosystems, which often have an indirect impact on human development but are not fully appreciated. In many parts of the world, habitat conversion and fragmentation, prey deprivation, and hunting have reduced the ranges of wolves, lions, bears, tigers, sea otters, and others. large predators within half of their original range. And when their numbers drop dramatically, not only do we lose famous species, but ecosystems also lose important species that thrive on eating smaller carnivores and herbivores. And when fewer animals are consumed in the food chain, ecosystems change and those changes affect us humans too. . . A recent article in the journal Science systematically highlights this point and its important law of development. On land, large predators can help keep ecosystems functioning. Take the case of West Africa, where the number of lions and tigers has dropped dramatically and suddenly. Both species of these creatures hunt baboons called "olive baboons," which in turn like to eat young antelopes, livestock, and food crops also used by humans. Since moose have a great appetite for tree seedlings, reducing their numbers results in more trees, higher carbon uptake, and higher net productivity, which helps mitigate the effects of climate change. . By preying on herbivores living on the banks of streams, even the largest predators indirectly help reduce soil erosion and improve water quality. Large predators are also important to the oceans. For example, sea otters feed on sea urchins. When you don't, more sea urchins eat more algae, a large underwater plant that softens shores, waves and currents and reduces coastal erosion. Kelp also absorbs and stores carbon. Restoring sea otter populations in North America to reduce sea urchin populations could result in between 4.4 and 8.7 million tons of carbon stored in kelp forests. Of course, none of these examples mean that top predators do not represent a financial burden. It has its costs, which sometimes take the form of loss of livestock or loss of life. But this happens less often than previously thought. For example, consider sharks, which carried out 116 attacks recorded in 2013, of which 13 resulted in casualties. During the same period, nearly 100 million sharks have been killed, most of them for their fins, resulting in the loss of a very important predator that supports the health and productivity of the oceans. The extermination of these animals represents one of the most important human impacts on nature. To put it simply, we must avoid the extinction of large predators because ultimately everything is linked to each other.

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg pioneering_wilddog | Jabalia Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    09 Jan 2022

    In one of the questions I chose to, help the country pay the costs of addressing climate change, and not to help the country pay for better health care, because, without a clean environment, there will be no good health care,
    protection the climate , a life or death story, if we do not protect the climate we will not We can find the sources of medicines, we have already been taking medicine from nature, how will we take it when there is no nature at all, and on the other hand, the use of primitive methods of treatment is a hundred times better than the one we are currently using, because what we are currently using has significant negative effects, and serious complications, either Previously, the complications of the drug were not that dangerous, were they??

    Reply to this comment
  • British Council.jpg jolly_honeyberry | Jabalia Prep Girls A School | Occupied Palestinian Territory
    10 Jan 2022

    For question that asked... 2» Would you rather..? * A Help your country pay for better healthcare B Help your country pay for solutions to climate change

    I said... ( help your country pay for solutions to climate change)

    My main reason was... When helping the country pay the costs of climate change, and thus fewer diseases and fewer people who need health care, it is also better for the country in its moderate or (appropriate) climate.

    For question that asked... 2» Would you rather..? * A Help your country pay for better healthcare B Help your country pay for solutions to climate change

    I said... ( help your country pay for solutions to climate change)

    My main reason was... When helping the country pay the costs of climate change, and thus fewer diseases and fewer people who need health care, it is also better for the country in its moderate or (appropriate) climate.

    For question that asked... 2» Would you rather..? * A Help your country pay for better healthcare B Help your country pay for solutions to climate change

    I said... ( help your country pay for solutions to climate change)

    My main reason was... When helping the country pay the costs of climate change, and thus fewer diseases and fewer people who need health care, it is also better for the country in its moderate or (appropriate) climate.

    For question that asked... 2» Would you rather..? * A Help your country pay for better healthcare B Help your country pay for solutions to climate change

    I said... ( help your country pay for solutions to climate change)

    My main reason was... When helping the country pay the costs of climate change, and thus fewer diseases and fewer people who need health care, it is also better for the country in its moderate or (appropriate) climate

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!