Poor countries should become rich first and reduce CO 2 emissions later. Or should they start to deal with it right now? What is your viewpoint on this issue?
Sample Response
While having lifted themselves up from poverty and agrarian economiesagricultural economics, the industrialised nations have caused many environmental problemshave left many environmental issues caused by the increased amount of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) they have produced. From anthe economic perspective, some people are seriously convinced that poor developing countries ought to consider enhancing their economic status first without taking into account the reduction of CO 2 emissions. Nevertheless, this essay will elaborate from both economic and environmental standpoints that developing nations should think about reducing CO 2 emissions now whilst improving their economieseconomics.
First, environmentalenvironment issues are more severe than the economic status. As obviously shown by news on CNN or BBC, there are many terrible skin diseases happening in the developed world due to the drastic increase of Ultraviolet radiation that penetrates the Ozone layers--destroyed by greenhouse gases. Without proper management of the CO 2 emissions, global warmingthe global warming will not only have effects locally but also globallyaffect locally but also globally. Remarkably, it will cause more much national budgets to effectively tackle the problems than to reduce the CO 2 emissions prior to the occurrence of environmental issues, which certainly is not a benefit for the poor countries.
Second, using technologies that are based on the burning of fossil fuels is no better thanis not way better than utilising renewable energy sources. Alternatively, to become richer, poor and developing countries do not necessarily need to useneed use fossil fuels for energy consumption. A case in point is the use of solar energy and hydroelectric power. These two environmentally friendlyenvironmental-friendly options are cheaper than using petroleumusing the petroleum to generate power, which costs much money and, in return, produces CO 2, harming the environment. Furthermore, reducing the emissions of CO 2 will also be a brilliant idea when it comes to developing the tourism sectordeveloping tourism sector. Tourists tend to visitTourists are visiting countries that are pleasantcountries which are refreshing and free from environmental problems. No one wants to breathe polluted airabsorb toxic airs. In this regard, developing nations thatthe developing nations who care much about the reduction of CO 2 emissions will be able to attract more visitorsefficiently attract people to visit, which also gives rise to the economic growth.
Taking everything into consideration, we can come to a conclusion that the reduction of CO 2 emissions is more vital for developing nations to get rich in thea long run than to deal with the far-reaching consequences of the environmental problems later.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response presents a clear position and builds a coherent case that environmental action can support rather than delay economic development. Its main limitation is that several supporting claims, especially the link between carbon dioxide, ozone damage, and skin disease and the assumption that renewable power is cheaper, are insufficiently accurate or qualified. The highest priority is to use sounder, more specific evidence while retaining the strong economic-environmental comparison.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The essay answers the question directly, sustains a clear viewpoint, and develops multiple relevant reasons for immediate action.
Support the position with more accurate and carefully qualified environmental and economic reasoning rather than broad causal claims.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument follows a logical progression from environmental urgency to cleaner development and tourism, with clear paragraphing.
Strengthen links within the body paragraphs so examples follow more explicitly from each central claim instead of relying on mechanical sequencing.
Lexical Resource
The response shows good range in discussing emissions, energy, tourism, and economic development, but awkward collocations recur.
Replace unnatural phrases such as more much national budgets, toxic airs, and environmental-friendly options with precise idiomatic wording.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A variety of complex structures is attempted successfully, although recurring article, verb-pattern, and noun-form errors reduce control.
Review articles and verb complements in phrases such as need to use fossil fuels and in the long run, then edit complex sentences for accuracy.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Poor countries should become rich first and reduce CO 2 emissions later. Or should they start to deal with it right now? What is your viewpoint on this issue?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.