No-car Days
Some people believe that car-free days are effective ways to reduce air pollution. However, others argue that there are other ways that are more effective.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some reformers concede that banning cars on selected days represents a sensible policy geared towards alleviating extreme levels of air pollution. In my opinion, though this method can be effective to a certain degree, there are other, more feasible measures to tackle air pollution.
Proponents of car-free reforms rightly point to the immediate effects of this approach. If private vehicles were completely banned on certain days of the week, city inhabitants would likely see tangible improvements in air quality. This is because the majority of automobiles operate on combustion engines, which results in the emission of carbon dioxides directly into the atmosphere. Since cars are the most pervasive means of transport in all major cities, no-car days would almost certainly lead to fewer CO2 emissions and, therefore, cleaner air for urban residents. However, many research studies done in the last decade have concluded that automobiles emit lower amounts of CO2 compared to other sources, such as those from the manufacturing sector. Moreover, a strict no-car policy would require a significant change in people’s habits and could be challenged fiercely in court as it might be interpreted as infringing on individual rights.
On the other hand, I believe air pollution is best solved through a concerted effort by governments and members of the public. The average person can reduce their carbon footprint by opting to take advantage of reusable containers instead of plastic bags since the burning of the latter contributes considerably to the amount of CO2 released into the air. In addition, individuals have the power to encourage great reform by boycotting companies advocating non-environmentally-friendly practices while at the same time supporting other more environmentally-conscious ones through purchases of their products. Governments can also play a crucial role in incentivising the use of public transport by subsidizing fares and raising the public’s environmental awareness. An example of the latter would be incorporating lessons on biodiversity into curricula at schools and universities.
In conclusion, restricting cars on certain days does not appear to be practical and I would, instead, argue for the combined efforts of individuals and governments as a more effective solution to improve air quality in cities. Governments should provide incentives for individuals to use public transport and adopt greener practices.
Essay Breakdown
Structure:
Introduction:
[1] Some reformers concede that banning cars on selected days represents a sensible policy geared towards alleviating extreme levels of air pollution. [2] In my opinion, though this method can be effective to a certain degree, [2.1] there are other, more feasible measures to tackle air pollution.
1. General statement to rephrase the overall essay topic
2. Write a clear statement addressing the main question
2.1. Assert a clear personal opinion
Body 1:
[1] Proponents of car-free reforms rightly point to the immediate effects of this approach. [2] If private vehicles were completely banned on certain days of the week, city inhabitants would likely see tangible improvements in air quality. [3] This is because the majority of automobiles operate on combustion engines, which results in the emission of carbon dioxides directly into the atmosphere. [4] Since cars are the most pervasive means of transport in all major cities, no-car days would almost certainly lead to fewer CO2 emissions and, therefore, cleaner air for urban residents. [5] However, many research studies done in the last decade have concluded that automobiles emit lower amounts of CO2 compared to other sources, such as those from the manufacturing sector. [6] Moreover, a strict no-car policy would require a significant change in people’s habits and could be challenged fiercely in court as it might be interpreted as infringing on individual rights.
1. Write a topic sentence with a clear general idea to support the first viewpoint of the topic.
2. Explain the main idea in a conditional sentence with a particular hypothetical circumstance.
3. Develop it with a supporting point.
4. Conclude it with a tangible outcome.
5. [Counter-argument] add the first counterpoint to negate the mentioned idea.
6. [Counter-argument] add the second counterpoint to negate the mentioned idea.
Body 2:
[1] On the other hand, I believe air pollution is best solved through a concerted effort by governments [1.1] and members of the public [1.2]. [2] The average person can reduce their carbon footprint by opting to take advantage of reusable containers instead of plastic bags since the burning of the latter contributes considerably to the amount of CO2 released into the air. [3] In addition, individuals have the power to encourage great reform by boycotting companies advocating non-environmentally-friendly practices while at the same time supporting other more environmentally-conscious ones through purchases of their products. [4] Governments can also play a crucial role in incentivising the use of public transport by subsidizing fares and raising the public’s environmental awareness. [5] An example of the latter would be incorporating lessons on biodiversity into curricula at schools and universities.
1. Write a new topic sentence with your own main opinion
1.1. the first targeted subject
1.2. the second targeted subject
2. Explain your main idea that is related to the second targeted subject
3. Develop it with a supporting point.
4. Explain your new main idea that is related to the first targeted subject
5. Conclude with specific details or examples (this example is related to the first subject)
Conclusion:
[1] In conclusion, restricting cars on certain days does not appear to be practical and I would, instead, argue for the combined efforts of individuals and governments as a more effective solution to improve air quality in cities. [2] Governments should provide incentives for individuals to use public transport and adopt greener practices.
1. Conclude and state personal opinions one more time
2. Extend the viewpoints and link them with relative social phenomenons
Vocabulary:
Some reformers concede that banning cars on selected days represents a sensible policy geared towards alleviating extreme levels of air pollution. In my opinion, though this method can be effective to a certain degree, there are other, more feasible measures to tackle air pollution.
Proponents of car-free reforms rightly point to the immediate effects of this approach. If private vehicles were completely banned on certain days of the week, city inhabitants would likely see tangible improvements in air quality. This is because the majority of automobiles operate on combustion engines, which results in the emission of carbon dioxides directly into the atmosphere. Since cars are the most pervasive means of transport in all major cities, no-car days would almost certainly lead to fewer CO2 emissions and, therefore, cleaner air for urban residents. However, many research studies done in the last decade have concluded that automobiles emit lower amounts of CO2 compared to other sources, such as those from the manufacturing sector. Moreover, a strict no-car policy would require a significant change in people’s habits and could be challenged fiercely in court as it might be interpreted as infringing on individual rights.
On the other hand, I believe air pollution is best solved through a concerted effort by governments and members of the public. The average person can reduce their carbon footprint by opting to take advantage of reusable containers instead of plastic bags since the burning of the latter contributes considerably to the amount of CO2 released into the air. In addition, individuals have the power to encourage great reform by boycotting companies advocating non-environmentally-friendly practices while at the same time supporting other more environmentally-conscious ones through purchases of their products. Governments can also play a crucial role in incentivising the use of public transport by subsidizing fares and raising the public’s environmental awareness. An example of the latter would be incorporating lessons on biodiversity into curricula at schools and universities.
In conclusion, restricting cars on certain days does not appear to be practical and I would, instead, argue for the combined efforts of individuals and governments as a more effective solution to improve air quality in cities. Governments should provide incentives for individuals to use public transport and adopt greener practices.
Vocabulary highlight:
- geared towards something: to make something so that it is suitable for a particular purpose
- to a certain degree: to a certain extent
- feasible measures: practicable solutions
- tangible improvements: improvements that can be clearly seen
- combustion engines: to exist an engine that derives its motive force from the energy of combustion.
- pervasive (adj): existing in all parts of a place or thing; spreading gradually to affect all parts of a place or thing
- infringe (v) + on: to limit somebody’s legal rights
- carbon footprint: A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas emissions caused by an individual, event, organization, service, place, or product, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent
- boycotting (v): to refuse to buy, use or take part in something as a way of protesting
- non-environmentally-friendly practices: actions that harm the environment
- environmentally- conscious: aware of the importance of the environment
- incentivise (v): to encourage somebody to behave in a particular way by offering them a reward
Reading:
Further reading about this topic can be found here:
Listening:
Further listening about this topic can be found here:
