Plan this opinion essay about environment with the ideas and outline below, write it on a 40-minute timer, then compare it with a band-8 model answer.
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Companies that pollute the environment should be heavily taxed, and the money used to protect nature.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
GoPrep wrote this practice question in the style of the exam. It is not an official IELTS question.
Pick two or three points from one or both columns. You do not need all of them, and your own examples score better than memorised ones.
Spend the first few minutes planning, then write.
0 words of 250 minimum
Your answer stays on this page only. Copy it before you leave.
Write your own answer first, then compare: how it answers the exact question, what each paragraph does, and which phrases you could borrow.
Some people argue that companies that pollute the environment should be heavily taxed, with the money used to protect nature. I largely agree with this proposal, although taxes should be combined with other policies.
The main reason for supporting it is that pollution is a cost that businesses currently impose on society without paying for. Factories and airlines release greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals that harm health and the climate, but the expense of dealing with the damage falls on the public. A heavy tax makes polluting more expensive, which gives firms a financial reason to adopt cleaner technology, and the revenue can be spent on planting forests, restoring wetlands, cleaning rivers and supporting renewable energy. Sweden introduced a carbon tax in the 1990s, and its emissions have fallen while its economy has continued to grow. The principle that the polluter should pay is also widely seen as fair.
Nevertheless, taxes have drawbacks. Companies may simply pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices, which hurts poorer households most, or relocate production to countries with weaker rules, moving the pollution elsewhere instead of reducing it. Some industries have no clean alternatives yet, so a tax might only reduce their profits and cause job losses. Governments could also use the money for other purposes than environmental protection unless it is strictly reserved for that goal.
For this reason, tax should be part of a wider strategy. Governments can set legal limits on emissions, provide subsidies for research into clean technology, support workers in affected industries and apply the same standards to imported goods. Transparent reporting would ensure the revenue is spent as promised.
In conclusion, heavy taxes on polluters can change behaviour and fund conservation, and I agree with them, as long as they are supported by regulation and fair management.
| Phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| polluter pays principle | those who pollute cover the cost |
| green tax | tax to protect nature |
| industrial pollution | harm from factories |
| environmental regulation | rules protecting nature |
| corporate profits | company earnings |
| clean-up costs | expense of repairing damage |
Answer random Part 1, 2 and 3 questions on an exam timer.
Average your four skill bands, rounded the way IELTS rounds them.
Compare an IELTS band with TOEFL, Duolingo and PTE scores and CEFR levels.
Look up the IELTS score a university asks for.