Some people think that instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it.

To
what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, the question of whether to deter global warming or to live with it has been receiving a great
deal of public attention. Although living with climate change appears attractive, the disadvantages will
far more significant.

On the one hand, climate change is largely shaped by human activities rather than the nature itself as
finding ways to co-exist with it are fruitless. First, exhaust fumes from vehicles, gas emission from
factories, and overusing fossil fuel such as gasoline, coal, diesel; leading to leaving carbon footprint
excessively. This accounts for greenhouse effects which causes extreme drought or typhoon, resulting in
threatening people’s habitat. Second, while the planet gets warmer, iceberg is melted, driving sea level
rises. This means that flooding and erosion become more frequent, damaging biodiversity of coastal
areas, therefore directly compounding people’s life.

On the other hand, reaching effective ways for the situation is better than to be endured. First,
governments would enact stricter laws to protect the environment and deter contamination. As a
consequence of giving financial penalties and imprisoning law-breakers, the earth will be cleansed again
and people are lived in a crisp atmosphere. Second, by using renewable energy such as windmill or solar
panel, governments could develop a low carbon economy. In fact, wind and sunlight are inexhaustible
energy which produces no global warming emissions; resulting in protecting the ozone, thus the impacts
of natural catastrophe are diminished.

In conclusion, finding a way to live with climate change should be considered as the ultimate way. By
applying other measures, sush as enact stricter laws or using alternative engergy, goverments can
address this problem.