Hi Nick and thanks for your essay, which I almost overlooked (it was also in another post).
Environmental problems are always a controversial debate for the human race, because the government and scientists are trying so hard to make life better then explore the natural resources and fulfill their policies which cause an amount of unpredicted feedback to people. In this essay, I will look up some negative effects from environment and give some ideas to protect our Earth. (62 words, 2 sentences, 31 words per sentence on average.)
I will rewrite this to remove the tired word ‘controversial’ but mainly to remove or break up the 43-word monster first sentence
Environmental problems are a major concern today. Rising populations and better living standards mean that we are consuming precious resources such as land, water, oil, and minerals. At the same time, are also creating more and more pollution. This essay will look at the causes of environmental damage and at some possible ways to improve people’s lives without destroying the planet. (61 words, 4 sentences, 15.2 average)
It is undeniable the government explore the natural resources which better our life satisfaction and accelerate the pace of life. This is sharply destroying our world. Take the government policy for example. Scientists exploit the outer spaces and expand the world’s demand. It boosts the speed of the global warming and also exhausts the world’s energy. Technically, these adverse effects are considerably threatening our life.
Let’s edit it to make it clearer and more specific. Let’s remove the tired clause ‘it is undeniable’ - almost anything can be denied. Let’s also remove the reference to space exploration (‘outer spaces’?) which is not really a major cause.
Government policies are a major cause of this problem. Most governments try to meet the needs of their citizens by allowing unlimited use of resources and energy and unlimited consumption. Restrictions are rarely placed on industry and governments often support companies to find new oil or minerals or to produce more food. Many governments fight plans to limit carbon emissions, forest clearance or water use, for example.
Your third paragraph is much better. It’s focused and has some examples. You wrote:
However, addressing the problems which have existed is not difficult for the government and people. In my opinion, to do this, allocating resources is the first priority. For instance, strategies should promote to be a sustainable development which preserve energy and raise citizen’s awareness of ecological balance. In fact, it is the most important that the government heighten citizen’s awareness of recycling so that environment would be safeguarded in a stable condition. In addition, the scientists should treasure the value of natural resources instead of wasting them.
Here’s a minor rewrite:
However, addressing these problems is not difficult for the government and people. Allocating resources is the first priority. For instance, government strategies should promote sustainable development to preserve energy and raise citizens’ awareness of ecological balance. Strictly-enforced recycling programs should be introduced, and people should be encouraged to reduce and to reuse by a mix of taxes and subsidies. Governments can also fund research into alternative energy and renewable resources.
Your conclusion is OK, if a bit woolly:
To conclude, although environment has been destroying, we still have a variety of solutions and policy that compensate shortages. Consequently, because of this, the government can figure what they should improve in the future.
Here’s a small rewrite
To conclude, although we are all responsible for damaging the environment, we still have a variety of solutions that can compensate for this. We need to put pressure on our leaders to introduce policies that can improve our planet, not impoverish it.