There is an argument over whether
alternative sources of energy will
soon replace fossil fuels. Some people might believe that it is possible to change renewable sources of energy as world
leaders are more and more interested in environment problems. My view, however,
is that fossil fuels (renewable energy) would cause problems more than
ever. This is largely because there are no common criteria. (You need to clarify what this means – you introduce you idea
briefly, but at least a reader should be able to understand) Moreover,
rapid change leads to the country’s economic recession.
To begin with, many leaders in all over the
world have no norms collectively (do not agree – to what?). The country that used
fossil fuels is different from their situation. Some country consumed more
fossil fuels, whereas other countries might be well-developed in alternative
energy. (This idea is hard to understand.) However,
in this regard, many rules, norms, and criteria
(They mean the same. It’s like “bags, backpacks, and baggage”)
would be made by a stronger state, or well-developed country, such as the
United States. As a result, these rules were simply to
temporary methods. Suppose your country is the one of the strongest nation.
Also, the nation used a large percent of renewable sources. In this sense, you
can make the rule have priority. As a result, these forced method were not
effective solution. Therefore, had it not been for collective and cooperative
method, the world would have not improved on environmental problems. (The idea in this paragraph is hard to grasp. Each sentence
seems to make sense grammatically, but they seem completely irrelevant. There
should be clearer links.)
Furthermore, fast transition caused(s) the nation to get
severe problems. If some nations have a higher percentage of fossil fuels (usage), the nation would put in more efforts (for conversion) when
compared the other nation. And therefore, civilian
of the country should unnecessary activities, (its people will have suffer from inconvenience) such
as taking transportation instead of taking personal
cars. These situations gives the people
unbalanced life. According to a study conducted by a group of
researcher(s) at Harvard University, if the
policy that the nations should (to) reduce fossil fuels (is) implemented,
more than two-third of the countries is harmful
(are exposed) to economic recession. Also, this
policy can be (a) burden to people’s (already) overwhelming load. As the study shows,
changes (can) lead to economic recession.
To summarize, the adverse effect(s) of rapid change far outweighs the benefit(s) of renewable sources
of energy considering the facts that there is no collective rules
and alternative resources gives the
more detrimental problems (This one is NOT a fact).
Of course, replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources is beneficial to
environmental aspects, such as reducing of air pollution, but it caused unfair norms.