EnvironmentOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Are Environmental Problems Too Big for Nations? (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
Environmental problems such as climate change are too big for individual countries to solve. It has now reached the stage where only international cooperation can make a real difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
How to approach a Opinion (Agree / Disagree) question
For an agree/disagree question, decide your position before you write and make it unmistakable in the introduction. You can fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree — all are fine — but you must then defend that single position consistently across both body paragraphs. The most common Task Response error here is sitting on the fence: giving arguments for both sides without ever committing to a view.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the claim and state a largely-agree position — global problems need global coordination, though national action remains essential.
- 02Body 1: agree — emissions cross borders, unilateral action is undermined by free-riding, and only treaties can bind all major polluters.
- 03Body 2: qualify — international agreements are empty without national enforcement; countries acting first prove solutions and drive technology down in cost.
- 04Conclusion: cooperation sets the framework, nations supply the action — both are indispensable, but neither works alone.
Band 9 model answer
It is often claimed that problems such as climate change have outgrown the nation state, and that only coordinated international action can now avert disaster. I largely agree: the defining environmental threats of our era are borderless by nature. Nevertheless, I would add an important qualification — international agreements achieve nothing unless individual countries act on them.
The core argument for cooperation is that the atmosphere does not recognise frontiers. Carbon emitted in one country warms every other, so a state that decarbonises alone gains little if its neighbours continue polluting; worse, its industries may simply relocate to laxer jurisdictions, moving emissions rather than cutting them. This free-rider problem is precisely why unilateral efforts stall and why binding frameworks matter: only a treaty that commits every major economy can ensure that one nation's sacrifice is not another's competitive gift.
That said, casting international bodies as the sole meaningful actors misreads how progress actually happens. Treaties set targets, but it is national governments that tax carbon, ban deforestation and build railways — and citizens who feel those policies. Moreover, pioneering countries do far more than their share of emissions suggest: when a handful of states subsidised solar power at scale, they drove its price down for the entire world, making ambitious targets achievable everywhere. Individual action, far from being futile, is often what makes cooperation credible.
In conclusion, I agree that environmental crises of planetary scale can only be resolved through international cooperation, since no country can insulate itself from its neighbours' emissions. Yet cooperation is a framework, not a substitute for action: it succeeds only when individual nations lead, legislate and deliver within it.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, environmental problems like climate change and pollution are becoming more and more serious. Some people believe that these problems are too big for one country and only international cooperation can solve them. I agree with this opinion to a large extent.
Firstly, environmental problems do not stay in one country. For example, if one country makes a lot of pollution, the wind and the rivers will carry it to other countries. Climate change is the same, because the temperature is rising in the whole planet, not only in one place. So if only one country tries to reduce the pollution and other countries do nothing, the problem will not be solved. This is why all the countries need to work together and make agreements, like the Paris agreement.
Secondly, some countries are poor and they do not have enough money and technology to protect the environment. Rich countries can help them with money and new technology, and this is only possible with international cooperation. However, I think individual countries also have some responsibility. Every government can make laws about recycling and clean energy in their own country, and every person can also do small things like using public transport. These small actions are also helpful for the environment.
In conclusion, I mostly agree that international cooperation is the most important way to solve big environmental problems, because these problems affect all the world. But at the same time, each country and each person should also try their best to protect our planet.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Agrees with a precise qualification and sustains it: the free-rider argument is fully developed, and the counter-case is argued with a concrete mechanism (solar subsidies cutting global prices). | A clear, consistent position with relevant support, but arguments stay at the level of general statements ('the wind and the rivers will carry it') and the qualification is brief. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | The concession-then-rebuttal architecture ('That said…', 'far from being futile') gives the essay a single unfolding argument rather than separate points. | Well paragraphed and easy to follow, but glued together with 'Firstly', 'Secondly', 'However', and the second paragraph mixes two ideas (helping poor countries; national responsibility). |
| Lexical Resource | Precise topic language used naturally: 'borderless by nature', 'laxer jurisdictions', 'free-rider problem', 'insulate itself from'. | Adequate range with some topic terms ('reduce the pollution', 'clean energy') but heavy repetition of 'country', 'problem', 'pollution'. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Long multi-clause sentences remain fully controlled; conditionals, concessives and cleft-like emphasis ('it is national governments that…') are all accurate. | Simple and compound sentences are mostly accurate; complex forms are attempted but limited, with minor slips ('affect all the world'). |
Examiner's note
Both writers sensibly choose 'agree with a qualification', which fits this question well. The Band 9 earns its score by explaining mechanisms — why unilateral action fails (free-riding, relocation) and how national pioneers still change the world (technology costs) — where the Band 6.5 offers observations. That difference between explaining why and stating that is the single most useful thing a 6.5 candidate can absorb from this pair.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| borderless by nature | inherently unable to be contained within one country |
| to decarbonise | to remove carbon emissions from an economy or activity |
| the free-rider problem | when some benefit from others' efforts without contributing |
| laxer jurisdictions | places where rules are weaker or less enforced |
| a binding framework | an agreement that legally obliges its members to act |
| unilateral efforts | actions taken by one country alone |
| pioneering countries | nations that act first and show others the way |
| to subsidise at scale | to support something financially in very large amounts |
| to insulate oneself from | to protect oneself from an outside effect |
Frequently asked questions
The statement has two sentences — do I respond to both?
Yes. Treat them as one claim with two parts: the problems are too big for single countries, and only cooperation works. The strongest answers, like the Band 9 here, agree or disagree with each part precisely rather than reacting to the topic in general.
Can I mention real agreements like the Paris Agreement?
Yes, brief real-world references are fine and can strengthen support — the Band 6.5 does exactly this. Just avoid depending on detailed facts you may get wrong; the argument, not the citation, earns the marks.
Is 'I largely agree' a strong enough position?
Yes, provided you define the limit of your agreement clearly and keep it consistent. 'Cooperation is essential but useless without national action' is a precise, defensible position — far stronger than unqualified agreement padded with repetition.