Some people believe that the responsibilities of protecting and reducing environmental damage are for politicians as individuals can do little on this thing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
题目来源：2020年11月14日大陆雅思大作文（重复19年1月12日的亚太题目）
题目大意
有观点称环保主要靠政府，因为个人无能为力。同意反对？
思路解析
环保类话题是雅思写作中非常高频的类型之一，2020年已经考过三次环保类话题了，算上这题是第4次。因为每年的考频都很高，所以建议各位考鸭宝宝可以认真看下情报圈发的历史考题素材。
环保类话题的核心问题一般就是两个方向：谁解决和如何解决。这道题就是“谁解决”的方向：靠政府还是靠个人。那么首先，我们就先梳理下政府和个人分别能做什么。
在环保问题上，政府可以做的主要是制定政策和策略，并且调动各种资源来达成目标。比如，针对空气污染，政府一方面可以制定排放标准，通过禁令和处罚来限制不合格的工厂运作，来达到减少污染的目的。另一方面通过资金投入和制定有利的政策来扶持有利于新能源产业的发展，来替代会造成污染的旧产业，进而达到环保的目的。
而且，因为其中牵扯到非常多的利益分配问题，所以个人确实很难做到。就拿工厂来说，关停工厂或者改造工厂增加环保装置，对于工厂主和工人来说都是直接的经济损失，如果只是以个人身份去要求，是很难成功的，因此需要靠政府力量通过政策等方式来推行。
那么，个人在环保中可以起到什么作用呢？
一是政策的执行是要靠个体来完成的，二是很多环保问题个人都是可以有作为的。
任何一个政策，如果没有个人来执行，那就会变得毫无意义，就比如刚刚提到的工厂问题，工厂主就是一个个人。再像国内很多城市都开始实施垃圾分类的政策，用来应对土地污染的问题，这个政策的头一步就是每个人都需要主动将生活垃圾进行分类投放。所以，个人在这个过程中是非常重要的。
（科普：因为现在处理垃圾的主要方式是进行填埋，但是由于垃圾过多，能够用于填埋的土地越来越少，因此需要通过将垃圾进行分类，提高处理效率，降低污染）
而像空气污染，有一部分原因就是汽车等造成的二氧化碳排放造成的。那么个人层面，就可以通过少开私家车，通过公共交通或者自行车等绿色出行方式来代替，以此起到环保的作用，每一个个体作用虽然渺小，但是汇总起来的作用是非常大的。
回到题目本身，这道题以反对的角度还是很好写的。因为，individuals can do little on this thing 是一个观点，因此可以从这个角度展开反驳，即个人是有能力改善环境。
主体段-1：站在出题者的角度，分析对方为何会这样想；主体段-2：针对对方的理论漏洞予以反驳，再给出我的理论，并予以证明。
提纲
范文示例
Some people assert that there is no justification for individuals in tackling environmental problems, whereas it is a business exclusive to authorities; however, I will disagree with this opinion due to the reckless denial of individuals’ contributions.
Indeed, there are reasons as to why the populace bank on politicians preserving the ecosystem. From this perspective, environmental protection is recognized as a task that goes beyond the capability of individuals. Some ubiquitous conundrums regarding ecology consists of global warming, air pollution and energy exhaustion, none of which are reckoned to be mitigated by individuals’ self-discipline if without administrative measures, whether these be legislation against industrial waste, subsidies to encourage the use of renewable energy. In this respect, many go as far as to assume that individuals have little of a role to play in curbing environmental damage.
However, the problem with the above statement resides in the misinformation in its logical reasoning – the premise on which the devotees of the authority base their claim is not a truth but their presupposition – it is simplistic to presume that the public are incapable of curbing ecology catastrophes. Those ignoring the value of individuals are oblivious to the fact that many ecological problems are actually the result of individuals’ behaviors and therefore can be constrained without the intervention from the government. Back to the problem of global warming, it could be prevented to a large extent if households lived an eco-friendly lifestyle, such as reducing unnecessary use of private cars or air conditioners. By the same token, let’s not forget that any policies or regulations may end up vain without the participation of local residents. One convincing example can be seen in the governmental appeal for waste recycle – had it not been the substantial action from the citizenry, the scheme would have been only existed in politician’s utopian prospect.
From what has been discussed, it is my conclusion therefore, it is illogical to venerate politicians over the general public in the environmental protection.
