A clump of legislative proposals and directives provided for steep increases in wind and solar power, improved energy efficiency, and higher costs for polluters to meet a challenge outlined last year and dubbed "triple 20."
The aim is to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent, boost renewable energy to 20 percent of supply, and improve energy efficiency by 20 percent – all by 2020.
The broader aspiration is to show the world that jobs and growth are not dependent on carbon. The challenge to the likes of China, India, and the United States is to join the effort, in which case the EU would raise its emissions-reduction target to 30 percent by 2020.
But there was skepticism and disappointment in equal measure. Industrial leaders warned that slapping a high cost on carbon would make Europe less competitive compared with countries that do not face such constraints. Green advocates expressed disappointment that the measures did not go far enough, particularly in light of commitments made at global talks in Bali last month.
"It's insufficient," says Stephan Singer of the WWF environmental group. "Europe was in favor at Bali of the declaration that in the future developed countries should cut by 25-40 percent," he says. "Now the ink of Bali is not even dry and they come out with a proposal for 20 percent."
"The key thing is for targets to be delivered on," said Antony Froggatt, a senior research fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, noting that emissions are actually rising in some EU countries. "Unless we reverse this trend, the rest of the world will say 'good policy but you're not delivering on it.' "
"It's a pretty important, concrete package with some pretty tough demands," says Tom Burke, founding director of the sustainable development organization E3G. "The clear message from this is the seriousness of the EU's intent to do something about climate change."
"The reason Europe is doing this is that there is a really deep understanding of how important it is to the security and prosperity of ... Europeans," he says. Other countries, he added, may face different economic circumstances, "but they all face the same problem of climate change."
The overall impact on the average European consumer will be palpable, but not punitive. Electricity prices are expected to rise as much as 15 percent, while travelers could pay an extra ¤40 for a long-haul flight, and a premium for gasoline, which will have to contain a 10-percent biofuel contingency by 2020.
EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said it would cost each of the EU's 500 million people an average of ¤3 a week to implement the plan – a total of around ¤75 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of GDP.
But failure to act, he said, would cost "at least 10 times that and could even approach 20 percent of GDP." And the longer-term benefits of a low-carbon economy with prodigious supplies of renewable energy, efficient buildings, greener driving fuel, and industries that must factor a carbon cost into their bottom line would be enormous.
"Europe can be the first economy for the low-carbon age," said Mr. Barroso. "There is a cost, but it is manageable," he told the European Parliament, which has to vote on the plans. "And every day the price of oil and gas goes up, the real cost of the package falls."
The EU plan sets a framework that will be closely studied in Beijing, Washington, New Delhi, and elsewhere. Part of it revolves around targets for renewable energy imposed by Brussels on member states. To reach the overall goal of 20 percent across the EU, individual countries have been assigned their own goals.
Britain, for example, will have to implement a sevenfold increase in its renewable energy supplies, from about 2 percent currently to 15 percent. France must move from 10 percent to 23 percent; Sweden, from 40 percent to almost 50 percent.
The EU is also fortifying its market-based mechanism for getting industries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been criticized since it came into force three years ago for being ineffectual. It was meant to work by making polluters pay for permits to emit greenhouse gases; in fact, too many permits were handed out free of charge.
But under a revamped ETS, more permits will be auctioned, costing polluters more. Power companies will, for example, have to pay for all carbon emissions by 2013. Airlines will also be brought in for the first time. This, say experts, will set a higher "carbon price" that industry will have to factor in. The total cost to polluters by 2020 would be ¤50 billion a year – money governments could use to develop green technologies.
"It is clear that in some shape or form emissions must have a financial value," says Mr. Froggatt.
But industrial leaders have complained that the additional cost would place them at a disadvantage to rivals in the developing world, who face no such constraints.
The EU indicated that some industries may remain exempt, disappointing some environmental activists. It also said it would consider import tariffs on countries that do not match the EU's climate change efforts, a threat that has met with consternation from trading partners. One way of imposing this "carbon fee," Barroso said, would be to require importers to obtain the same permits that Europe companies must acquire under the ETS.
By Mark Rice-Oxley
The venue for the 88th annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society could not have been more conducive to the discussion: The Ernest N. Morial Convention Center is where thousands of people waited for days during the storm to be evacuated from a city drowning in water and misery.
Although weather experts generally agree that the planet is warming, they hardly express consensus on what that may mean for future hurricanes. Debate has simmered in hallway chats and panel discussions.
A study released Wednesday by government scientists was the latest point of contention.
The study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Miami Lab and the University of Miami postulated that global warming may actually decrease the number of hurricanes that strike the United States. Warming waters may increase vertical wind speed, or wind shear, cutting into a hurricane's strength.
The study focused on observations rather than computer models, which often form the backbone of global warming studies, and on the records of hurricanes over the past century, researchers said.
"I think it was a seminal paper," Richard Spinrad, NOAA's assistant administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, said Wednesday.
"There's a lot of uncertainty in the models," Spinrad said. "There's a lot of uncertainty in what drives the development of tropical cyclones, or hurricanes. What the study says to us is that we need a higher resolution" of data.
Greg Holland, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the new paper was anything but seminal. He said "the results of the study just don't hold together."
Holland is among scientists who say there is a link between global warming and an upswing in catastrophic storms. He said other factors far outweigh the influence of wind shear on how a storm will behave.
"This is the problem with going in and focusing on one point, a really small change," Holland said.
He had a sharp exchange Monday with Christopher Landsea, a NOAA scientist, during the AMS meeting.
While Holland sees a connection between global warming and increased hurricanes, Landsea believes storms only seem to be getting bigger because people are paying closer attention. Big storms that would have gone unnoticed in past decades are now carefully tracked by satellites and airplanes, even if they pose no threat to land.
The exchange, captured by National Public Radio, illustrates how emotional the global warming debate has become for hurricane experts.
"Can you answer the question?" Landsea demanded.
"I'm not going to answer the question because it's a stupid question," Holland shot back.
"OK, let's move on," a moderator intervened.
The passion was no surprise to the TV weather forecasters, academic climatologists, government oceanographers and tornado chasers attending the meeting.
"One thing I've learned about coming to this conference over the years is that very few people agree on anything," said Bill Massey, a former hurricane program manager at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"There's a legitimate scientific debate going on and a healthy one, and scientists right now are trying to defuse the emotion and focus on the research," said Robert Henson, the author of "The Rough Guide to Climate Change."
Whether global warming is increasing the frequency of major storms or reducing it, Henson said, lives are at stake.
"Let's say you have a drunk driver once an hour going 100 miles an hour in the middle of the night on an interstate," Henson said. "Say you're going to have an increase from once an hour to once every 30 minutes; that's scary and important. But you've got to worry about that drunk driver if it's even once an hour."
Massey agreed. "In 1992 we had one major storm. It was Hurricane Andrew. It was a very slow year. But one storm can ruin your day."
By CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer
These so-called microbial fuel cells can turn almost any biodegradable organic material into zero-emission hydrogen gas fuel, says Professor Bruce Logan of Penn State University.
This would be an environmental advantage over the current generation of hydrogen-powered cars, where the hydrogen is most commonly made from fossil fuels.
Even though the cars themselves emit no greenhouse gases, the manufacture of their fuel does.
"This is a method of using renewable organic matter, using anything that's biodegradable and being able to generate hydrogen from that material," Logan says.
In research published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Logan and colleague Dr Shaoan Cheng used naturally-occurring bacteria in an electrolysis cell with acetic acid, the acid found in vinegar.
The bacteria slurp up the acetic acid and release electrons and protons creating up to 0.3 volts of electricity.
When a bit more electricity is added from an outside source, hydrogen gas bubbles up from the liquid.
Water is the only emission
This is far more efficient than water hydrolysis, where an electric charge is run through water to break it down into its constituent parts of oxygen and hydrogen.
"It uses about a 10th as much energy as water electrolysis," Logan says.
That is because the bacteria do most of the work, breaking the organic material into subatomic particles, so all the electricity does is juice these particles to form hydrogen.
The resulting fuel is a gas, not a liquid, but could still be used to power vehicles.
This microbial fuel cell generated 0.3 volts of electricity when the bugs fed on the acetic acid. Adding electricity from an external source generated bubbles of hydrogen (Image: Shaoan Cheng)
This process could be used with cellulose, glucose, acetate or other volatile acids, Logan says. The only emission is water.
Although it sounds futuristic, microbial fuel cell technology is available now. The researchers have filed for a patent on this work.
These cells are too large to be put into cars, so the gaseous hydrogen fuel they produce must be made in a factory.
"You could put one of these reactors at a food processing plant and take the waste water and make hydrogen out of it," Logan says.
"Or you could go to a farm, where there's lot of cellulose or ... agricultural cellulosic residues, take that and make hydrogen there."
This would be unlikely to work in big cities but might well be effective in rural areas.
"The first step is just to start using locations where we have waste waters that were spending money on treating, and turning those water treatment plants into hydrogen production plants," Logan says.
"Liquid coal, for example, can produce 80% more global warming pollution than [petrol]," says the US non-profit environmental group, the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Some people have billed liquid coal, the name for petrol or diesel derived from coal, as a potential replacement to the oil on which countries rely heavily to fuel vehicles.
Likewise another alternative fuel, petrol from tar sands, is estimated to have 14% more global warming potential compared with standard petrol, says the union in its latest report Biofuels: an important part of a low-carbon diet.
"Corn ethanol, conversely, could be either more polluting or less than [petrol], depending on how the corn is grown and the ethanol is produced," the report says.
The analysis is based on replacing a fifth of all petrol used in the US with alternative fuels by 2030.
If most of these alternatives consist of liquid coal, the change could pump pollution into the atmosphere equivalent to 34 million more cars on the road, the report says.
But favouring cleaner "advanced biofuels" could cut harmful gases by a similar amount.
The cleanest alternative, the report says, is cellulosic ethanol, made from grass or wood chips. It could cut greenhouse emissions compared with petrol by more than 85%.
"We need to wean ourselves off oil, but we should replace it with the cleanest alternatives possible," says study author Patricia Monahan.
"Let's not trade one bad habit for another."
The State Council, China’s cabinet, ordered strict regulation of the release of wastewater, the closing of heavily polluting factories near lakes, the improvement of sewage treatment facilities and strict limits on fish farms, according to the official Xinhua news agency.
The council also banned the use of pesticides with highly toxic residue near large lakes as well as detergents containing phosphorus.
While national leaders in Beijing have shown greater interest in recent months in cleaning up the environment, their efforts have frequently met resistance from provincial and local officials more interested in maximizing economic growth.
China’s three main lakes, Tai, Chaohu and Dianchi, have all had algae blooms in recent years. Stimulated by high levels of phosphorus and other chemicals, algae has blanketed large areas of water, killing fish and making the water undrinkable for large numbers of people living nearby.
An algae bloom that covered a large area of Lake Tai last spring was particularly severe and received national attention. The toxic cyanobacteria produced a choking odor up to a mile from the lake’s shores and prevented two million people nearby from drinking or cooking with the water.
Wastewater from fish farms has become another serious problem, and one that the State Council tried to address on Tuesday, ordering that all fish farms be removed from the three main lakes by the end of this year. Fish farms elsewhere are to be more tightly limited to certain designated areas within three years, Xinhua said.
The water cleanup effort will also include the lake behind the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Environmentalists warned before the dam was built that it would be hard to prevent toxic pollution from building up in the lake once the river was no longer carrying pollution out to the ocean.
The NY times
European nations dominate the top places in the ranking, which evaluates sanitation, greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural policies, air pollution and 20 other measures to formulate an overall score, with 100 the best possible.
January 23, 2008
At least 50 critically endangered reptiles known as gharials have been found dead recently in a river sanctuary in central India, officials announced this week.
Conservationists and scientists are now scrambling to figure out what killed the crocodilelike animals.
The bodies, measuring between 5 and 10 feet (meters) long, have been found on the banks of the Chambal River, one of the few unpolluted Indian rivers.
In early December officials found the bodies of at least 21 gharials over three days. The bodies continued washing ashore in subsequent weeks.
The precise number of gharials that have died remains unclear, with the nonprofit Gharial Conservation Alliance saying 81 bodies have washed up so far.
D.N.S. Suman, chief wildlife warden for the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, puts the number of dead animals at 50.
Parasite or Pollution
The gharial, one of the largest of the crocodilians, was on the verge of extinction in the 1970s.
An Indian government breeding program met moderate success by releasing several hundred into the wild.
But conservationists believe only about 1,500 gharials remain.
Many of the reptiles live in a sanctuary based along the Chambal, which contains the largest of three breeding populations in the world.
The latest possible clue to what's killing the gharials is an unknown parasite that scientists found in the dead animals' livers and kidneys, according to A.K. Sharma of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute.
"We can say that [the] liver and kidney of these gharials were badly damaged," Sharma said. "They were swollen and bigger than their usual size."
Other experts believe the gharials may have gotten sick and died after eating contaminated fish from the polluted Yamuna River, which joins the Chambal.
Pathological tests confirmed lead and cadmium in the bodies of the dead gharials, said Suman, the wildlife official.
"The Chambal River has clear water free from heavy metals," Suman said.
"The only possibility seems that these gharials might have migrated from heavily polluted Yamuna River, where they might have eaten fish."
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
I think that the question about whether a zoo has no useful purpose is the one that is open for debate. It is a topical question nowadays. Some people believe that a zoo has an essential and cognitive purpose. However, other people believe that a zoo has no useful purpose and people should observe wild animals in their nature. Personally, I think that both options have their advantages. In the following paragraphs I will analyze these points and present my own view in favor of people who think that animals should not be kept in a zoo.
From the one side, a zoo has many benefits for people. First of all, children can learn about animals not only from books and TV programs but from actually watching them alive. They can see animals, touch them and even feed them. I think it is an amazing experience for a child. He gains more knowledge and experience from this "communication" with an animal. Second of all, a zoo is a perfect place for adults to see many animals that people are not able to see in their lives.
However, from the other side, I keep asking myself "What kind of benefits wild animals have from a zoo?". Unfortunately, I can not find any of them. I think that wild animals should live in their nature environment. Moreover, I think that we should observe them through TV programs sitting in our favorite chairs, or people who like danger should try to observe them in the native environment. I think that animals are not toys. I know that most zoos try to keep their animals in the environment which is close to their native, but they can not give them as much freedom as animals want to.
To sum up, I think that wild animals should not be kept in a zoo. Personally, I enjoy more watching "Discovery Channel" then watching a black bear who does not know where to hide from the scorching sun in a Texas zoo.
I have to totally disagree with the statement that there is nothing that young people can teach older people. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that young people can teach older people many things.
From my everyday experience and observation I can state several factors, which defend the statement that with the help of technology, students nowadays can learn more information and learn it more quickly.
First of all, the latest inventions of humankind dramatically improved our life. Nowadays we can move from one place to another more quickly, we do not spend much time cooking, we have many different recourses of information and means of communication. So, our life now is more dynamic and changeable. During our day we receive a huge amount of information and process it. Students at the same time have more resources to get information they need. They can go to a library, the nearest bookstore, or borrow it from a friend or even download it from an Internet. I think It is great. Instead of waiting for one's turn to get a book in a library, one can print it from a file downloaded earlier. The great thing about it that one can print only those pages he is interested in and also make marks on the pages to mark important ideas.
Another important aspect of this is the advantages of using computer the greatest invention of the last century. Students do not have to spend their time by writing and re-writing many papers. It is really time-consuming. They just type information in and may use many useful features such as "copy", "past", "delete", "save", etc. Also, sometimes students do not have to write down lectures because they already have them on their computers.
Internet plays an important role in our life now. We can communicate with the people who are on another part of the planet. We also can get the latest news very quickly. People can ask for a piece of advice or find different kinds of information on the Internet. Students can get their degree on-line, register for classes, communicate with professors, take tests and even listen to a lecture.
I think the great part in it that students may more effectively arrange their time. They can get their task by e-mail and stay home to do it. It really saves time and make studying more fun especially if a person has to work in order to pay his or her tuition.
To summarize, I think that many last inventions improved students' life and allowed them to concentrate more on studying.
Receiving gifts is always very exciting. I think that all people like to receive presents from their relatives, friends, co-workers, etc. Personally, I am sure that a person does not remember all gifts he has received because it is impossible. However, I know that all people remember a few gifts that were special. Why people remember those special gifts?
First of all, I believe that people remember special gifts because they were from very close and dear people. For example, I remember my parents presented me a ring when I was sixteen years old. It was not an expensive ring but it was very valuable for me and when I left my home and moved to another city I often looked at that ring and felt like my parents were somewhere near me. I felt their support and understanding. It is like people who are close to us give their small parts of their sole with that gift. They want us to remember them and they want to make us happy. These gifts are very valuable for people of all countries and nationalities.
Another reason why people remember special gifts because they were exactly what people wanted to have for a long time, but for some reasons, for example, they just could not afford those things, they did not buy them. So, when they receive those things as gifts it makes them very happy and they remember those moments for a long time. When I was a child my mother could not buy me a bicycle because we did not have enough money at that time. So, when my grandfather bought me my first bicycle it was the happiest moment in my life. Moreover, he personally taught me how to ride and I spent all my spare time after that event cycling.
To sum up, I think that people remember special gifts because they presented with love
I think there are two types of people. The first type is people who work for money, another type is people who work for self-realization. I state my position on the following points.
First of all, people who work for self-realization like their job. Money is not important for them, they need satisfaction. I believe that this kind of people makes our evolution and history. They aspire after new inventions and discoveries overcoming all obstacles on their ways. I think that these people are very interesting because they know a lot, read many books and have their own life experience. Of course they need money for some essential needs such as food and cloth, but they do not need them for luxury houses or expensive furnishings. Many scientists are people who devote their lives to new knowledge and discoveries.
Second of all, I believe that people need self-realization. It gives them opportunity to contribute in world's history and share their knowledge and experience with other people. I think it helps them to realize that they are needed by humankind and will not be forgotten. This is priceless.
To sum up, I think that people's aspiration after self-realization is the main reason why we have now good medicine, different means of communications, many devices to make our lives easier, etc.
It seems like world is becoming smaller and smaller almost by the minutes. When I was a child I could not imagine to meet someone from another part of the planet. However, now I have a few friends from Africa, I can meet many Chinese people on the streets, have dinner at a Mexican restaurant, buy some delicious cookies at a cafe run by the French. It is really wonderful and amazing to see people from all over the world, communicate and work with them. I agree with those people who move a number of times throughout their lives. However, I believe that people who spend their entire lives in one place have many advantages too. First of all, I will focus on the reasons why I support the idea about moving and then I will move on to analyzing the opportunities that people have staying at one place.
Personally, I think that the first and most obvious reason to move from one place to another is to see the world. Of cause, this can be obtained by traveling. Nevertheless, traveling does not give the opportunity to immersed into traditions, customs and just the way of life of the country. It is like seeing beautiful looking boots on a show-window and does not try them on to see if they are comfortable.
The second reason for moving is the opportunity to gain new experience and knowledge. One can meet new people and new friends, extend one's range on interests. Also, one can find a better job, life conditions and even climate. For example, my husband like warm and sunny weather. So his dream is to live here in Texas a half of the year and move to Australia for another half of the year to catch warm months. One more example, my aunt does not feel good in sultry and humid weather. So she had to move several times to find a place where she feels comfortable.
From the other side, this way of life has some disadvantages. For instance, it is difficult to make a good career if one is constantly moving. Of cause, it does not concern celebrities on their tours. Also, it is not good for children because they will have to change their schools a few times.
Staying in one place has a plenty of advantages too. I must confess that I am closer to the people who do not move much. I prefer to have a permanent home with my old and favorite things, have a dog and a beautiful view from the window.
In conclusion, I think that every person is always looking for something better than he already has. So, if people live in one place through their entire lives it means that they are looking for something else.
College is a place where people go to increase their knowledge, to prepare for a future career, to get a new experience, to meet new people. Of cause, different people have different reasons to attend college, but all of them want to change their life for better. In this essay I will give the basic reasons and explain why people go to college.
First of all, every person wants to improve his or her life. So, college is one of the places that helps one get more from his life, to meet more opportunities. Knowledge is a power that can be gotten through studding. After graduation people may get better job and completely change their career and life.
Second of all, people go to a college to get a new life experience, which is very important because students learn to take care of themselves. Many of them work during their college years and earn their first money. It is really great and exiting. They learn how to save money and keep house, how to arrange their time in order to get all things done etc.
Additionally, students learn how to co-operate and communicate with each other. Many of them have to live with a roommate. From the first sight, it may seem difficult to live with a completely strange person, but it helps one to be friendlier, more supportive and it helps you save some money.
In summary, I would like to add that graduation is one of the major goals people try to accomplish in their life, because after that many beautiful, exciting changes will happen. That changes will make a person proud of himself.
I am from Saint-Petersburg, Russia. It is a very beautiful city that attract many people every year. My close friend is going to move here after her graduation. She already found a job and she asked me to help her with an apartment. Knowing her very well I think I can enumerate the majority of things she will like and dislike about my city.
First of all, I believe she will like a huge amount of museums, theatres, movie theatres, etc. My friend is from a small town, so, she can not enjoy all these benefits at her native town. Second of all, it seems to me that she will like the way people live here. The pace of life is much faster here then in a small town. People are always in a hurry, they try to catch a bus, then they run to the nearest subway station, go to an office, meet new people, etc. Also, I think my friend will like people here. They are very friendly and ready to offer a help to those in need.
Unfortunately, my friend will not surely like some things. As a result of a huge amount of cars and factories the air is polluted here. One more thing she will definitely not like is the weather. It is quite humid here.
However, I think she will also like the public transport here. The bus service are run by the Government and it is quite regular. If one in a hurry he can take a taxi, which also is quite cheap and provide a good transport.
In conclusion, I believe that in spite of all mentioned above disadvantages she will like this city.
I am a person who likes to travel. I think traveling is a great opportunity to meet new people, gain more knowledge and experience, learn new customs and traditions. I did not travel a lot yet, but I am sure I will have a chance to do it. So, if I had the opportunity to visit a foreign country I would visit Egypt. I think it is a great and very interesting country with marvellous history. In the following paragraphs I will give some reasons to support my choice.
First of all, I always dreamed to visit Egypt pyramids. My aunt visited Egypt a few years ago. She was very excited after that trip and said that she would return there one more time at any cost. She said that Egypt had impressed her very much with its glorious pyramids and ancient buildings. Second of all, I think that in that country one can touch history, feel the hard breath of workers building a pyramid under the parching sun, see the chain of camels walking in the desert with the huge trunks full of presents for Cleopatra on their humps. Finally, I want to see a real dessert and ride the camel. All my friends who rode the camel say that it is an unforgettable experience.
I believe that I will have a chance to visit this beautiful country someday. Unfortunately, now I have plenty of plans and things to do, so, I am afraid that I will not be able to travel for the next two years. I want to finish my education and then find a job, and these things have higher priority then traveling. My husband wants to visit this country too and we made an agreement to make our trip to Egypt on our five years anniversary which is in two years.
In conclusion, I want to add that after my trip to Egypt I will definitely visit Australia. This country is the second one on my list the most wanted to see.
I think the issue about what is better to specialize in many subjects or choose the one is a controversial one. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some people prefer to specialize in one subject and know it very well. However, others prefer to extend their range of interests and specialize in many subjects but not in detail. Bellow I will give reasons to support my position.
From the one side, learning something in detail brings many benefits. First of all, people gain more knowledge and experience in this area. So, after graduation they are well prepared for their further career in this field. Second of all, they do not spend their precious time on other subjects. This gives them the opportunity to focus on one subject.
From the other side, people who specialize in many subjects have more options to choose from. For example, if a person does not make a decision about what he is going to do after graduation it is a very good chance for him to try many fields of study and make the right decision. In addition to this practical benefit a person have the opportunity to extend his range of interests, his communication skills and have better conceptions of things around. Also, a person has a better chance to choose what he really likes to do and make self-realization.
To sup up, I think that every person should have a chance to choose. Does he want to specialize in one subject or he wants to take classes in many subjects.
Friends are people who support us through our lives. Some people prefer to have one or two close friends. However, others prefer to spent their time with many friends. I think that the number of friends depends on one's personality. Personally, I prefer to have a couple of close friends. In this essay I will analyze both cases and present my view in favor of having a few close friends.
First of all, a person can establish closer relationships with a few friends. They can spend their time together, relax, watch a movie in a silence that does not feel awkward. Second of all, close friends have more familiar atmosphere. They can share many beautiful moments and thoughts. For example, I have only two close friends - my husband and my class-mate. I can share my worries and great news and can tell everything to them.
From the other side, having many friends can be hard and stressful. One has to spend his or her time with each of them. I think it is not healthy because a person does not have time to relax and contemplate about his/her own life. I know this type of people. They like to be in the center of everyone's attention. They talk a lot, make jokes, tell stories and rumors. Unfortunately, they basically do not have true friends. They just play and pretend to be friends with other people. There is no doubt they succeed in it, but they spend so much time listening to other's worries and troubles and entertaining them that they practically do not have time for themselves. In addition, it is difficult and almost impossible to relax, discuss interesting issues and just be oneself.
To sum up, I am totally agree with the statement that "a friend in need is a friend indeed". I am sure that my close friends will always help me and never betray or turn me down. However, a large number of friends does not allow to establish close and deep relationships.
The invention of television is undoubtedly one of humankind's greatest inventions. It is a way of communication among people of one country and different countries and nations. People watch TV to find out about the latest news, weather, sports, etc. It is a great way to learn new and extend one's range of interests. Scientists say that children spend the same amount of hours in front of TV as they do in school. I think that this can be said about many grown people too. Also, television is a great means of eliminating stress and tension. One can relax and leave one's troubles behind lying on one's favorite sofa and watching a comedy. However, some people believe that television has destroyed communication among friends and family.
Personally, I do not agree with this statement. A couple centuries ago people spent their time gambling, reading, gossiping or playing chess. I do not think that television is a cause of destroyed communication among family members and friends. First of all, if members of a family have common interests and they want to make each other happy they will always find many ways to spend their time together and be close. Otherwise, if people avoid each other and they do not have anything to share with each other they will find television a great way to escape from this miserable existence. I believe that many people chose family and their friends over some soap operas or a movie.
Second of all, I think that television can be a great resource of subjects to discuss. Many people watch different educational programs to find out more about their environment, nature, wild life animals, economic situations, etc. So, when they gather with their friends they discuss important issues and arque with each other in looking for the truth.
My husband and I often watch the news channel to keep abreast of the latest news. After that we always discuss some issues we concerned about. Also, we like to watch a TV show "the funniest animals". We like this program because it makes us laugh. I can not imagine how these programs can prevent our communication and be harmful to our relations.
To summarize, I would like to add that if people want to communicate with each other they will find a way to do it. Otherwise, if television were not existent, people would find other escapes and reasons not to be with each other such as drugs, gambling, etc.
Some people prefer to travel with a companion. However, other people like to travel alone. Personally, I think these two options have their advantages and disadvantages. I state my opinion on the following points.
From the one side, traveling with a companion can bring many benefits. First of all, traveling with a companion is safer for several reasons. If travelers got lost in a strange city it is easier to find a way back. They can support and help each other if something happened and one of them is hurt. As for me I prefer to travel with a companion if we travel by car. I think it is very dangerous to be on a strange road by one's self. One more reason to have a companion in a car is that they can change each other if one of them is tired. Second of all, traveling with a companion is more exciting and interesting. They can share all beautiful moments and new experiences. Finally, it helps to save some money because companions can share all expenses on gas, hotels, etc.
From the other side, traveling alone can bring many benefits too. For example, one does not have to do things he does not want to. If one is tired he does not have to go to a bar with his friend only because he does not want to leave him alone. Moreover, sometimes I personally want to be alone and enjoy all beauty around me. I can relax and contemplate about my life sitting on a beautiful cliff.
To sum up, I think traveling with a companion is better. However, sometimes I prefer to be alone by my self in a strange city. It gives me the feeling of adventure and I like that.
Traveling is the best way to relax, leave one's troubles behind and enjoy the beautiful moments. Some people prefer to travel alone. However, other people prefer to take a tour. I think that these options have their own benefits. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my answer.
First of all, traveling in a group led by a tour guide gives one the opportunity to meet new people, communicate, have a great time in the company. Second of all, one does not have to spend his time looking for historical places that he wants to visit. A professional guide leads group from one place to another. Also, it is very interesting to hear from a guide about historical events that took places there. In addition to these benefits a group led by a tour guide does not feel uncomfortable because of a foreign language. All the tourists need they can ask their tour guide. So, this allows to avoid difficulties to communicate with dwellers of that country.
From the other hand, sometimes people like to explore countries without the help of a guide. They like to make their own discoveries, be independent, feel freedom and stay in one town as long as they need. Personally, I think it is a great feeling. Sometimes I want to be alone to contemplate about my life, to forget all troubles that bother me and just relax.
To sum up, I believe that it is really up to a person how he or she prefers to travel. Some people even like to alternate traveling alone with traveling in a group led by a tour guide.
The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest inventions. It had a great impact on people's lives. For several reasons that will be mentioned bellow I think that the invention of the automobile dramatically changed the way people lived before.
First of all, automobile allowed people to move faster from one place to another. This in one's turn dramatically increased people's life pace. Distance was no longer of that importance. It was a new means of communication.
Second of all, nowadays it is rather difficult to imagine life without a car. People can not do virtually anything without a car. Just imagine for a moment that one does not have a car. One needs to go an office, get a haircut, buy some food, watch a movie, meet one's friend, etc. To get all these done he uses a car to move fast from one place to another.
In addition, people can travel using their own vehicle. It is great because one can travel independently, without any train schedules.
Finally, I think that the invention of the automobile was inescapable. People could not continue using trains and horses to meet their life requirements. Moreover, just imagine for a moment how many horses people would need nowadays. I think we would talk about horse overpopulation as well as human overpopulation.
Unfortunately, the invention of the automobile has some negative aspects. The most obvious aspect of this is road accident. Many people every day suffer from different injuries. Also, with the invention of the automobile humankind came across with a problem of air pollution. A huge amount of cars every day throw out many poisonous matters in the air. I believe that soon we all will be able to exchange our cars for those, which use sun energy instead of fuel.
I absolutely agree with the statement that sometimes people should do things they do not injoy doing. Take me for example.
I hate to get up early. It is so relaxing to wake up without the help of an alarm clock and to lie fifteen minutes more recalling your dreams. Nevertheless I get up at 6 o'clock every morning, put on my T-shirt and shorts and go jogging. Sometimes when I hear the sound of my alarm clock I have a strong wish to put my head under the pillow and fall asleep. Now and then I wake up at night and look at my wrist watch to check how many hours I have left. And I am the happiest person in the whole world because I have a few more hours to sleep. You may ask me "Why do I do it every morning?". Because more than I hate to get up early I love to feel freshness of the morning air. I love to feel a little bit tired and at the same time to be so full of energy. It helps me to feel better all day long.
Moreover, I hate shopping. It is my opinion that shopping takes too much time which I can spend doing things I enjoy doing. Nevertheless every week I go to the nearest supermarket because otherwise my refrigerator will be empty and I can not afford to have dinner at the restaurant every day. Besides I like to cook. So, a few hours spent on shopping makes me happy for the whole week. Is not it great?
From my point of view when a man has to do things he does not like to he becomes stronger, more responsible and can injoy life.
I am from Russia. From my opinion the most beneficial discovery for people in our country has been the discovery of the outer space. Russia is the first country that launched a spacecraft with a man on the board into the space. This event was a big step towards the new discoveries and brought many benefits not only for people in my country. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.
First of all, all humankind made a huge step towards the mystery of our creation. Scientists had the opportunity to do the new research and experiments. Many new discoveries were made on the boards of the spacecrafts in the outer space. People from all over the world watched these events. Many books with real colorful photos were written about the beginning of the space exploration. Nowadays we have a big station called "Mir" in the outer space created on the base of collaboration USA and Russia. Many people work there doing amazing experiments.
Second of all, the world became "smaller". People learnt how to exchange information very quickly by use of satellites. Television is broadcasted all over the world by use of satellites. Here in Houston I can watch Russian programs. People got the opportunity to exchange news very quickly.
To sum up, I believe that space exploration will bring much more benefits in the future and someday we will learn what is beyond our current galaxy.
I live in a small community. From my everyday experience and observation I can say that the idea about building a new theatre in my neighborhood has some advantages as well as disadvantages. In this essay I will first focus on the reasons why I support this idea and then move on to analyzing why I oppose it.
First of all, I like movies and my husband and I sometimes go to the movie theatre to watch premieres. Unfortunately, it is time-consuming for us. We have to drive about 50 minutes to the nearest movies theatre. So, the idea of having a movie theatre in our neighborhood seems very attractive. It would save us an hour just to get there and another hour to get back home. Another important aspect of it is that in this case we will be able to get to the movie theatre by foot. I must to confess that we always have parking troubles in the parking space near the movie theatre.
Second of all, new movie theatre is a very good place for students who want to earn some money. My husband and I live near a student community, so I think it would be a great news for them. In addition to this practical benefit students will be able to watch all movies free of charge. I suppose it is a great way to save some money.
Finally, there are usually many restaurants and entertaining centers around a movie theatre. There people can have dinner or play game machines.
In contrast, I think that the building of a new movie theatre will destroy the silence and beauty of out community. Such entertaining centers are often noisy. Moreover, traffic jams will probably be the result of it.
In conclusion, I think that if the question was about building a new movie theatre in the next neighborhood I would completely agree.
Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted mammoth herds on the walls of a cave to nowadays when he works on a computer with a large amount of information. From my everyday experience and observation I can state several factors, which defend the statement that the ability to read and write is very important today.
At old times people did not depend on information that much. They did not have to fill out many application forms, write a lot, read news from a newspaper about an economic situation, etc. Now situation has changed. Knowledge and the ability to analyze information are more important now than man's physical strength.
First of all, it is essential for a person to be literate in Informational Age. Everyday one needs to withdraw money from cash machines, to pay a bill, to write out a check, to fill some forms, to read instructions, ads, job requirements and applications. It is almost impossible to survive in modern society without these basic abilities. Almost every job requires these important skills. Imagine that one does not have them and one has a family to care about. So, one's first step is to find a job. One can do it either through newspapers or asking for help from one's friends. One can not read, so one chooses the second way. Second step is to pass a job interview and fill out some forms. Moreover, one has to sign a job contract - an important document that concludes all one's rights and terms. So, basically, it is almost impossible to get a job for a literate person in modern world especially in developed countries.
Second of all, the amount of jobs that do not require the ability to read and write, is dramatically decreasing. Almost every employer wants to have an employee with basic communication and computer skills. In fact, more jobs on the labor market are for literate persons. A lot of primitive jobs are done by machines nowadays. So, it is a very good chance for illiterate people to be constantly on unemployment lists.
In conclusion, I think that every country must have strong programs against illiteracy.
I think that I have to disagree with the statement above that teachers should be paid according to how much their students learn. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my opinion.
First of all, all people are different and they have different abilities to learn and understand the given subjects. Some students have to spend many hours studding a subject. At the same time, other students need half an hour to deeply understand the given lecture. Second of all, we all have different goals in attending schools. Some students want to gain more knowledge and experience that will help them in the future to succeed and make a great career. Others are forced to go to a school by their parents, so, basically, they do not care about their grades and studding.
I think that lowing or rewarding teachers depending on how much their students have learn is not fair.
However, I believe that evaluation of teachers by their students is make sense. Teachers who get high grades from their students deserve to be rewarded financially or otherwise. Otherwise, teachers who get low grades must be sanctioned. This will forced teachers to constantly improve their knowledge to get higher salary and simultaneously will improve the learning process. Students will have the opportunity to have the best teachers and get more interesting and comprehensive lectures.
To sum up, I think that teachers should be paid according to the quantity of hours given and the grades received from the students. From my everyday experience and observation the quality of the lectures given by the teacher often does not reflect how much a student learn or wants to learn.
I think the idea about evaluation teachers by their students is very good. This kind of evaluation can bring many benefits to teachers, students as well as to school. In the following paragraphs O will give my reasons to support my answer.
First of all, teachers have the opportunity to find out from this kind of test how good and clearly their students understand the lectures. It will help them to improve and perfect their knowledge and experience. Also, teachers who get high grades must be rewarded financially or otherwise. On the other hand, the teachers who receive low grades must be sanctioned, for example by lowing their salary. So, this can help to uplift the level of professionalism among the teachers.
Second of all, students will more often attend lectures because they will be asked to evaluate their teachers. Students will have the opportunity to choose the best teachers because if a teacher gets a low grade he or she may be fired and replaced with the better one.
Finally, the quality of education will increase dramatically. Students will be getting more interesting and professional lectures. Also, they will constantly attend classes in order to listen to an amazing lecture and make an evaluation of the current teacher. In addition to those practical benefits, a school will be better funded by it is sponsors and appreciated in the community. This, in its turn, will attract more students because it will be an honor to study in such a school.
To sup up, I think that evaluation of teachers by their students will bring many benefits and allow students as well as teachers to gain more knowledge and experience.
Man, through the ages, has undergone many changes from the time when he depicted a herd of mammoths on the walls of the cave to nowadays when the arts are more complicated. Our attitude towards the environment is changed too. A few centuries ago people did not care about pollution, erosion, animal extinction, etc. However, nowadays people again and again talk about this and try to make a difference. I think that money donation for environment protection must take priority over the support of the arts. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.
The invention of the automobile is undoubtedly one of the humankind's greatest inventions. However, the automobile brought us many disadvantages as well. The air nowadays is polluted by millions of cars every day. Every day clouds of exhaust are rising from the ground contaminating all around. So, I think that money from a company can be used to make our air fresher and cleaner.
Another important aspect of this is the contamination of water. Water is an essential recourse of all living creatures. Nothing will survive without it. Unfortunately, we spend fresh water sometimes very carelessly. Also, many factories wash away their used resources in the nearest river poisoning everything alive there. I think that money donations would be helpful for cleaning our water resources from oil, garbage and chemical matters.
Finally, I think that now humankind faced the problem of overpopulation. The population is dramatically rising. We need more food, shelters, clothes, construction materials and space. So, many animals are extinguishing. So, I believe that this money could be spent on conducting a campaign against overpopulation.
To sum up, I think that in order to make our children happy we should be more careful with the resources that we take from the nature and if it is possible restore them.
Some people think that taking risks and chances will lead them to success. From my everyday experience and observation I believe that success results from careful planning. I base my position on the following points.
First of all, I believe that careful planning help a person to analyze his goal more deeply and make realistic goals. He knows exactly what he wants. Taking chances, from the other hand, does not give the opportunity to clearly understand a goal. A person just wants to do something to move forward and he takes risk when there is no need in it.
Second of all, careful planning teaches people to arrange their time more carefully in order to reach their goals. They become more patient and calm. They plan every step. This allows people to find easier way to reach their goals and faster move forward. From the other hand, people who prefer to take risks without planning may spend more time without any improvements waiting for a chance to take. Take sportsmen for example. They exercise a lot before their performance to be in shape, do all their best and improve their previous results.
Finally, careful planning teaches them not to give up, try to find other ways to reach their goals in the case of failure.
To sum up, personally, I think that all people who succeeded in life would agree with me that their success came with the hard work and careful planning.
I think that the question whether money is a main indicator of people's success is a controversial one. Some people believe that only one who earns a lot of money is successful. However, other people think one who does not earn a lot of money can be successful too. For several reasons, which I will list bellow, I agree with those people who think that money is an indicator of success.
First of all, if a person earns a lot of money it means he or she has unique knowledge and experience and people want to pay for these. For example, a good lawyer is often paid a very high salary, because he or she has won many cases and people are ready to pay big money for his knowledge.
A second example is that a salary of a surgeon simpliciter depends on his experience and knowledge and on how many surgeries he has completed successfully. In this case surgeon's salary simpliciter depends on surgeon's success.
Second of all, a high salary is in an indicator of a prosperous career and profession. People change their jobs, move from one place to another looking for a more interesting and better paid job. Of cause, some people do not care about salary as long as they like their job, but from my everyday experience and observation I can state that the majority of people who are not satisfied with their revenue would exchange their current job for another one with higher salary.
Finally, money plays, may be unfortunately, a very essential role in our modern life. So, people who earn a lot of money by working hard are considered to be successful.
May be it sounds a little mercenary but I think that success must be encouraged financially otherwise it is not a success.
The issue about whether all students should be required to study art and music in secondary school is the one that is open for debate. Some people believe that students should take these classes. However, others think that it must be up to a student. In this essay I will analyze both these positions and present my opinion in favor of the people who think that studying art and music should not be required in secondary school.
From the one side, studying art and music brings many benefits to the students. First of all, it extends their range of interests. Second of all, studying art and music helps to reveal hidden talents and possibilities. In addition to these benefits, it helps a growing child develop his or her perception of the real world.
However, from the other side, studying art and music also has some negative aspects. Personally, I think that a person who is interested in mathematics should not spend his or her precious time taking classes in art or music. For example, when I was a student a couple years ago I did not like to attend some of the art classes because it was too boring for me. I wasted my time and money because I was required to pay for these classes and attend them. So, my point is that students should have the right to make a decision for themselves whether they should take classes in art and music or they should not. For instance, there were a couple of optional classes in music in my university. Many students took those classes and every one was satisfied.
To sum up, I think that studying art and music is very essential for a person. However, I think that classes in art and music must be optional, because if a student is dreaming about a career of dentist and spends all his spare time reading about the new technologies and inventions in this field I think it is not fair to make him attend classes when he does not want to. It is like making a person sing when he is good at swimming.
Some students prefer to live in university dormitories. However, other students choose to live in apartments in the community. I think both of these options have advantages. Bellow I will give my reasons to support my answer.
From the one side, living in a dormitory have many benefits. First of all, for a foreign student it is a good chance to improve his or her communication skills and find new friends. Second of all, a dormitory has many useful facilities such as libraries, a canteen, Internet access, etc. In addition to these practical benefits living in a dormitory is often cheaper. So, it helps students save some money what is important at the beginning of their independent life. Finally, living in a dormitory gives students the opportunity to ask for help each other if something was not clear on the lecture presented in a class. This, in it's turn, lead to higher grades. Also, students have many common subject and interests to discuss with each other. So, basically, living in a dormitory helps students to become more sociable and good team-players and gain new knowledge and experience by use of labraries and group discussion.
From the other side, living in apartments in the community also have a few benefits. Students can have more privacy and, also, they can choose a community according to its convenience and location. It is sometimes may be an essential because of a person's job.
In conclusion, I think that living in a dormitory brings students more benefits then it does living in a community. Students learn to get along with each other, be ready to help and make friends.
There are two points of view to this question. Some people believe that students are adults and they have their own responsibilities. So, they should have freedom in arranging their time. Other people think that optional attendance has a corruption effect on the educational system as a whole. Personally, I think that this question is more complicated.
First of all, many students have already children. So, they sometimes have to skip a class or two in order to perform their responsibilities. Second of all, many students do not have enough money for their needs and they have to work more than other students. In this case, optional attendance is well-taken.
Another important aspect of this subject that sometimes lectures of a particular teacher may be dry and uninteresting. I believe that it is reasonably to skip those classes and learn all by one's self. It can save time, so a person can spend it on a research or preparation for a coming test.
From the other side, I think that some students who does not have any responsibilities may skip classes without any reason. They can have more time to attend clubs and parties. It has a negative affect on their grades. So, it can result in a waste of money and time. Students may take the same classes more than one time to meet the requirements of their program. It is a waste of money for both a government and a family. A government will lose money because they are spent on education and it means they are tax free. At the same time, parents will have to pay for education of their child one more time. Another important aspect of this that students will not learn how to arrange their time in order to have all things done on time.
To summarize, I think that students must attend classes. However, some students with children or who have excellent grades and already work in the field of their major should be allowed to skip a particular amount of classes.
Some people think that teenagers need to work while they are students. However, Other people believe that young people should not combine their education with a job. These two options are controversial ones. In my opinion, they both have disadvantages and advantages. I base my opinion on the following points.
From one side, a working student has many benefits. First of all, a person learns how to arrange time to be able to combine his studding and earning money. Personally, I think it is a very important benefit a person can get from this. Second of all, a student learns how to save money and keep his budget. A person gains new experience and knowledge working with the new people. He feels more independently and spends his or her money more careful.
From the other side, a person can have not enough time to meet his or her course requirements. Sometimes it may result in a failure on an exam and a waste of money and time. From my everyday experience and observation some people require more time to study new materials and prepare for an exam. Others, at the same, can easy understand new materials. So, my point is that a person should decide for himself whether he will be able to combine his studding and his working.
Another important aspect of getting a job is that a student most likely will have no time for parties, movies and his friends. I think that he or she should understand this fact.
To summarize, I believe that a working experience will give a student more benefits in the future than it takes from him or her in the present.
I am from Ekaterinburg, Russia. Recently, my city has decided to build a statue to honor a famous doctor Michail Belui. I totally support this idea. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my answer.
First of all, Michail Belui was a great surgeon. He saved many people during his life. During the Wourld War II he was one of the most famous surgeons. After 25 years from his death many people still bring a lot of flowers to the place where he was buried. I think he was a great man who liked his job and sacrificed everything to it. Michail Belui had many sleepless nights because the stream of wounded soldiers was endless. He did not care about himself, he cared about people and always was ready to help. Also, he was a great father. He had two sons who inherited his talent for surgery and became great doctors.
Second of all, Michail Belui was a very kind and attentive person. My grandma remembers him as a strong, tall and charming man who had a very good sense of humor.
I am sure that our modern generation has many things to learn from this man. Moreover, I believe that our country needs to remember such great people and be proud of them.
To sup up, I think that humankind must know its history and pass down all its knowledge and experience to the next generations. A statue or monument is a a simple and good way to remember and value our history and people who played an essential role in it.
The question about whether people should be allowed to smoke in public places is the one that is open for debate. All people can be devided on two groups: smokers and not smokers. Smokers agree that they do not benefit the society by smoking, but think that they should have some special places in office buildings or public places where they can smoke. However, others believe that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in any places except their own apartments. Personally, I completely agree with the last opinion. For the following reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that smokers should not contaminate the air other people breathe.
The first reason for this is that smokers not only damage their own health but actually cause damage to the health of others. Scientists say that people who do not smoke, but regulary breathe in the smoke of cigarettes, so-called "passive smokers", poison their health more then smokers themselves. For example, when I was a student I lived with the roommate who was a chain smoker. First I did not know what to do, I smelled that smoke everywhere and I could not breathe freely, but in a few weeks I got used to it. Now I think that I was a real smoker because of the fact that I regulary breathed in so much smoke.
Second of all, I think that people should not be allowed to smoke in public places and in office buildings because this rule will force them to quit. Smokers will have to quit smoking or at least will do it less often and this benefits all people smokers as well as not smokers.
Finally, smoking in public places contributes to the growth of number of smokers because many people seeing smokers may feel a desire to take a cigarette and join them. The advertisement of cigarettes is already prohibited by the law and I think it is a good sign because many people become smokers only because they see other people do it.
In conclusion, I think that this rule will benefit the society of every country and our world on the whole.
Some people believe that in order to succeed in today's world one needs luck. However, I agree with those people who think that luck has nothing to do with the success, only hard work and belief in one's self can get one through all obstacles and overcome difficulties. There is a word for such a skill it is persistent. I believe that people who are persistent can do everything they want because can not give up and go with the tide.
Of cause, there is a bunch of different skills that people need to succeed. However, my point is that persistent is the most obviously important characteristic of successful persons. Take for example a famous actress W. Goldberg. She had many refusals at the beginning of her career. But she always believed in herself and did not stop looking for the new opportunities. Now she is one of highly paid actress in the movie business.
Or take for example Disney. I do not remember his first name. He was a poor guy who liked to draw fairy heroes. Before his success he got through many failures but did not stop doing what he liked and enjoyed. His success came with a little mouse called Mikky.
I belief that people who overcame many obstacles become stronger and wiser. So, basicly, persistent teach people believe in themselves, analyze their previous mistakes and learn to avoid them next time, be patient, curious and optimistic.
I think that the issue about whether all students must be required to wear school uniform is the one that is open for debate. Some people think that all students must wear the school uniform. However, others think that students should decide what to wear to school themselves. Personally, I believe that students should wear what they like. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that school uniforms should not be required to wear at high school.
First of all, if students do not have school uniforms they can wear what they like to school. Personally, I like to wear cloth that is comfortable. Also, I am a female and I like to wear jeans and shorts, and as far as I know girls must wear skirts as a part of their uniform. I think many female students will agree with me that jeans much more comfortable then skirts.
Second of all, I believe that school uniforms must not cause any discomfort. For example, some international students will find unacceptable wearing some of the uniform's parts.
I am from Russia. When I was a student of the elementary school I was required to wear the school uniform that included a dark blue skirt and a white or light blue shirt. I did not like it very much, because I did not like the fact that all students were dressed in the same color. We dressed the same way and we were permitted to wear any adornments. Personally, I did not like the fact that girls always had to wear skirts and it was not convenient especially in cold weather.
In short, I think that students should wear to school what they want. Otherwise, if a high school requires students to wear school uniforms, I think that uniforms must be comfortable for all students.
Whether boys and girls should attend separate schools is a controversial issue. Some people believe that it brings many benefits. However, others believe that it is not good for the future of our children. I agree with those people who think that children should attend the same schools. In the following paragraphs I will give my reasons to support my opinion.
First of all, children from the very beginning should learn how to communicate with each other. They need to learn social skills, be supportive and understand each other. Second of all, I believe that now women and men should be treated in the same way. A woman nowadays has the same rights as a man. She also wants to make a good career and succeed. So, it is essential in the modern world to understand that knowledge has nothing to do with a sex. Every one has the same access to the knowledge and experience and it is only up to a person how hard he or she wants to work to reach his or her goals.
Another important aspect of this is that if children attend separate schools they do not have common interests. They do not know what a person of an opposite sex likes, how he or she spends her or his spare time, etc. I think that it is not good for a long run. Some of them will create a family someday and they most likely will not have anything to share. They will not have common interests. They will have different friends and opinions about things. We had such experience a few centuries ago. Women grow up their children and men worked and gathered in the men' clubs in the evenings. I think it is not the way it should be. A family has many beautiful moments to share together.
To sup up, I think that children should attend the same schools because it will help them to become great, attentive and kind persons. Moreover, they will learn how to respect each other's interests.
As human population is significantly rising every year, people's requirements are increasing too. We need more food, more machines, more place to live. As a result of this people need more land to satisfy their requirements. We cultivate and irrigate more and more land to plant vegetables, build new buildings, airports, roads, etc. I think sometimes we forget that we are not alone on this planet. I have to disagree with those people who think that human needs are more important than saving land for endangered animals. I base my opinion on the following points.
First of all, as I already mentioned, we are not alone on this planet. A few centuries ago we were the part of wild nature. I think we need to remember this fact and respect all creatures around us.
Second of all, I believe that we all need to think of the problem of overpopulation. The human population is dramatically increasing and we have to do something about it. From my opinion, every family should have no more than two children. It will help to stop the growth of population, decrease human needs for farmland, housing and industry.
In conclusion, I think it is a very topical question nowadays. My point is that all people should answer this question and find the solution.
Some people do not have any pets in their house, except for unwanted ones such as a raccoon or mouse. These people think that there is no place for animals in their places. However, other people have animals such as dogs, cats, and birds in their families and they have a close relationship with their pets. Personally, I belong to the people who treat their pets as members of their family. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think that such relationships between a man and an animal bring many benefits.
First of all, when people treat their pets as members of their families it means that they feel responsibilities for their little ones. As a result of this people care about their pets' health, their diet and shape, and I think both sides benefit from this kind of relationships. People do not feel alone and pets are in good hands. Personally, I think that pets give people a great opportunity to feel they are needed by these little but at the same time very courageous animals. Second of all, pets teach people, especially children, kindness and devotion. Children grow up kinder, more attentive and friendlier. Finally, often pets are the closest and most devoted friends of people and I am sure that we return them the same feelings. I think it is great and makes everyone a little bit happier. For example, when I was a child my family had a beautiful cat named "Nikola". We loved him very much and treat him as a member of our family. So, when he died we could not get used to the fact that he was not home. It was the feeling like we lost some of our family. Since then we did not have the cat. Now my parents have a bird and a couple of golden fish.
In conclusion, I think that pets play a very important role in our everyday life. There are plenty of examples when animals saved people's lives and helped us in out fight with evil such as drugs and violence. So, I believe that our pets deserve the best we can offer them our love and devotion.
Some people prefer to read fiction. However, others like to watch movies. Personally, I think that the question whether reading fiction is more enjoyable than watching movies is a controversial one. For several reasons, which I will mention bellow, I think each of these options has its advantages.
From the one side, reading fiction brings many benefits. First of all, a book can be taken anywhere one goes. For example, while traveling or just taking a bus one can read a book. When I was a student a couple years ago I used to read books while taking a boring lecture. Second of all, reading extends one's vocabulary, improves reading and even writing skills. Reading is essential for children. It extends their range of interests, improve their imagination and helps them gain more knowledge and experience through books. When I was a child my mom always made me read a lot of books. Thanks to her I did not have a problem with writing different kind of essay in the school and I got only high grades.
From the other side, watching movies has many benefits too. Firstly, movies usually have more influence on people, their behavior and mood. In addition, watching a movie in a movie theatre gives many advantages such as sound effects, a large screen, etc. Secondly, it is a good way to relax with one's friends, eliminate stress and tension and just have a good time. My husband and I like to watch a movie on Sunday evenings. We drink coffee, eat grapes or apples and make comments while watching the movie. In addition to these benefits, watching movie usually takes less time then reading the whole book.
In conclusion, I think that there is no doubt that watching a movie is more enjoyable and impressive then reading a book. However, reading a book brings more benefits for people in general. Moreover, children should spend more time reading books then watching different kinds of movies because scientists say that watching movies has much less use for the growing child.
Many people like to know different things about the celebrities. For example, what pets do they have, what is their favorite meal or color and how did they lose some weight, etc. However, I think that these types of questions do not allow people to learn more about a famous person, his or her personality. I believe that if I would be given a chance to ask a famous person one question I would ask him or her about the meaning of life.
Some people live without thinking about why they are here. Others contemplate about the life and think about the meaning of it. I think that the answer to the question about the meaning of life for a famous person would satisfied people more then just his or her pets and habits. First of all, famous people often are not honest about their private lives and only want to look good in front of the audience. However, the single question about the meaning of the live could give the audience more things to think of and reveal more about the speaker's personality.
Second of all, in addition to those benefits, mentioned above, from the answer to this question people can learn about the speaker's points of view, his or her attutude towards life. I think that this information could help many people to reconsider their attitudes and be more positive about their present and future.
To sum up, I think that the answer to the question "Why am I here and what the meaning of my life" can reveal many interesting thoughts to share with the audience. Also, people would be less material. I mean that from my position it is not important how many carats a famous person has in his/her watch, or what is his or her preferences in food. What important is what he or she think about her/his destiny and the meaning of life.
When I was a student at a Russian University I lived with my friend Tonia. Frankly speaking, she was not my friend at first. I mean that we meat when we were in our first year at university. She was looking for a place to live and I offered her to stay at my place because I lived alone and it was quite expensive for me at that time. I must confess that I never felt regret about my decision because Tonia turned out to be a great roommate. Moreover, we became friends and now after two years from my graduation we still call each other, care about each other and chart through the Internet. Unfortunately, now we live in different cities even in different countries, but I hope our friendship will continue.
In this essay I will list the main qualities of a good roommate which from my point of view are essential. Furthermore, I must inform that Tonia possesses all these qualities and I am proud to have such a great friend.
First of all, a roommate must be kind and generous. It is easier to deal with a person who is kind and ready to offer a hand. For example, kindness and understanding are very essential qualities if one of them got ill. Second of all, roommates must have common interests because it will help them to find more subjects to discuss. I think that when people have nothing to talk about they should not live together because it will be difficult for both of them. In addition, a roommate must be funny but at the same time she or he must be attentive and understanding. Selfishness is not a good quality for a roommate because people who live together should be attentive to each other's feelings and be ready to sacrifice their time to each other.
In short, I think that roommates must be friends because friendship means understanding and sympathy.
The main idea of progress is perfection. A man who is making progress in studying, a child who is speaking his/her first words, a scientist who has made a discovery, or an economy of some country is making progress, all of them are aspects of huge human progress. There is no doubt that progress is good for the humanity as a whole but whether it is good for the world.
For example, being anxious for success mankind often forgets about the environment. Every country has numerous fabrics with smoke rising form them. Needless to say, the amount of cars is increasing every day. World economy is making progress in creating different types of machines, vehicles that make easier our conditions of life. As a result we have many devices that make our life easier and at the same time we have acid rains, polluted lakes and rivers, our food does not have as many important vitamins as it used to, but it has nitrates, preservatives and unnatural components and ingredients.
As a result of human progress, now humanity has to deal with the problem of overpopulation.
It is my opinion that now it is time for humanity to think more about the making progress in solving the problems of air pollution, overpopulation and water contamination.
When a student moves to a new school he or she can face some problems. I think that almost all people had to move from one place to another in their lives and I am not an exception. My family moved twice during my childhood. My father is an architect, so, my family had to move from one place to another when the old construction was over and my father was offered to develop a new project. Two major problems I had to face in a new school were "no friends" and "a huge amount of new people". In the following paragraphs I will analyze these problems and make suggestions about how a school can help a student in this situation.
The first difficulty I had to face in a new school was a huge amount of new people such as teachers and classmates, who have no idea who I am. It was easy with the teachers, I usually stayed after the class, introduced myself to him or her and asked about their curriculum. However, with my new classmates it was a little more difficult. I had to stand up for myself a few times because this is the way students get to know each other. However, I believe that there is a better way to get to know each other. I think that schools should participate in this process. For example, they can organize some kind of welcome class, where new students will have the opportunity to meet their new classmates and introduce themselves.
The second problem I had to face in a new school was that I had no friends. I could not meet my old friends because they were too far away and I did not have a chance to make new friends. Nowadays, I think it is much easier, because almost every student has an Internet access, so, he can chart with his old friends. Unfortunately, I did not have such an opportunity when I was a student. I believe that schools can help newcomers by helping them to merge faster with their new classes. For example, a school can attach someone to a newcomer and the first one will help a new student to accustom himself to a new environment.
In conclusion, I would like to add, that moving from one school to another brings not only problems but also many benefits. For example, I learnt how to make new friends fast and how to overcome obstacles. I think that it made me stronger as a person and I am glad that I had this experience in my life.