The Student Room Group

Could someone look through my practice LNAT essay please?

I completed this essay yesterday but I don't think its any good to be honest. If possible I'd appreciate anyone who could provide any criticism, please be as harsh as possible. My subjects are maths chem and physics so I'm really just basing this off my GCSE knowledge. Thanks.

“Developed countries have a higher obligation to tackle climate change than developing countries” Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement

When one looks upon the issue of climate change and its consequences, a deduction can be easily made to hold the developed countries accountable for the current global situation. After all, the abuse of finite resources (instigating climate change in the process) is what propelled these countries to the status that they currently hold. One could conclude that they must correct their wrongdoings, undertaking a higher obligation than other countries to clean up their own mess. This essay aims to outline why this surface level solution should not be the case.
To justify this standpoint, we must first look at the problem of climate change from an unbiased perspective. Increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere causes rising sea levels, of which could easily engulf major cities in both the developed and developing world, causing irreversible damage to the global economy. This may cause a domino effect where a multitude of other problems arise, such as widespread immigration and overpopulation, worsening the quality of life for all residents of every major city.
A global issue such as climate change has no room for individualistic thinking, as this is nothing but a selfish way of redistributing responsibility without addressing the issue with full attention.
Returning to the argument stated in the introduction, it is argued that the developed countries should account for their own shortcomings with regards to climate change; that they must be held to a higher moral obligation as they effectively started this problem.
This argument rests on the foundation that developed countries are still the main offenders of worsening climate change when this clearly isn’t the case. Cities such as Beijing and Manila (located in “developing” countries) have some of the world’s worst cases of pollution, purely because of their own doing. Despite developed countries being the root cause of the issue, these developing countries are causing an arguably worse effect on the global climate crisis, evident in the issues self-inflicted in their own cities.
Assuming that developing countries simply do not have the means to convert to a cleaner, more renewable lifestyle whilst they are still developing, as resources such as oil and gas are more easily accessible for them, hence causing a more time efficient development scheme, developed countries should account for their lack of renewable resources by leading the industry away from fossil fuels. This is another point brought forth in agreement to the question.
However, can the cause of efficient development outweigh the needs of the dying climate? What will there be to develop once the rivers run dry and the air is insufferable to breathe in? It is clear that in order to prosper as a country, there must first be an environment in which humans can first survive globally.
Can someone please delete this thread due to plagiarism?
Original post by Thisismyunitsr
Can someone please delete this thread due to plagiarism?

huh??? where did any plagiarism take place
Original post by totallynotxian
huh??? where did any plagiarism take place

I’m saying if someone plagiarises your essay

Quick Reply