Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitat. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and healthcare. To what extent do you agree or disagree? |

🎯 Master IELTS with Real Computer-Based Practice!

Prepare smarter with ieltsonestopcbt.com — India’s most trusted platform for IELTS Computer-Based Tests.
✅ Practice Reading and Listening in real exam format
✅ Instant results with detailed feedback
✅ Authentic test interface just like the official CBT exam
🚀 Start your free practice now at ieltsonestopcbt.com and experience the real IELTS test environment before your exam day!

Both governments and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitat. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and healthcare. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

---

Sample Answer

In recent years, both governments and individuals have invested significant financial resources in protecting wildlife and conserving natural habitats. While some argue that this money should instead be directed towards more pressing social issues such as poverty alleviation and healthcare, I firmly believe that wildlife protection is equally essential and should continue to receive substantial funding.

To begin with, protecting animals and their habitats plays a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance. Wildlife contributes to essential environmental processes such as pollination, seed dispersal, water purification, and climate regulation. If ecosystems collapse due to a lack of protection, the long-term consequences for human life—including increased natural disasters, food shortages, and health risks—would be far more costly than the money currently invested in conservation. Therefore, spending on wildlife protection is not a luxury but a long-term safeguard for human survival.

Furthermore, many communities around the world rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods. Ecotourism, forestry, and sustainable agriculture generate millions of jobs, especially in developing countries. Neglecting animal protection would undermine these industries and worsen poverty—ironically increasing the very problem critics think the money should solve. Well-managed conservation programmes can simultaneously protect wildlife and support local economies, demonstrating that environmental and social goals are not mutually exclusive.

Admittedly, addressing poverty and improving healthcare are urgent and necessary priorities. Governments must ensure that adequate funds are allocated to hospitals, medical research, and welfare programmes. However, redirecting money away from environmental conservation is not the solution. Instead, a balanced approach is needed where both sectors receive sufficient investment. Ignoring environmental protection would only create larger social problems in the future.

In conclusion, although poverty reduction and healthcare improvement are vital, I disagree that money spent on protecting animals and their habitats is wasted. Environmental conservation should continue to be funded because it directly supports human wellbeing, economic stability, and the long-term sustainability of the planet.

---