Please check my essay and thank and have a nice day!

Due to transporting goods and people pollution is rising. Some people think that government should tackle this problem, on the other hand some believe that it is individual's responsibility.

Discuss both view and give your own opinion.

In the modern times, rising pollution which is caused by goods delivery and people going travelling is a somewhat controversial issue. There are those who believe that governments ought to tackle transport pollutions, mainly air ones, however others think that individuals should also do so. In my opinion, governments and individuals ought to bear responsibilities together.

In general, there are two primary reason why people believe that governments ought to naturally assume the pollution responsibilities. The bona fide reason in support of this is that only governments can impose laws on vehicles with high emissions nationally. For example, those cars with higher emissions could be on the national car register list in which transport department officers or transport police could clamp them if founded. A further valid reason is that only governments fiercely ask cars producers to produce zero-emissions cars, with harsh penalties being imposed if cars makers do not follow regulations. If individuals demanded cars plants to make zero-emissions cars, their demands would likely fall on deaf car producers' ears.

From an overall perspective, there are two sound reasons why some think that individuals should take primary responsibilities for reducing transport pollution. The cogent justification in favour of this notion is that individuals can drive cars less frequently. A good illustration of this is that instead of driving cars some people can use public transport, which result in lower carbon prints. Another legitimate reason in support of this is that individuals can choose produces which are harvested locally and goods which are manufactured locally, which could inevitably leads to reduction in food miles, which in turn leads to reduced air pollution.

In conclusion, having considered both views of arguments, I would say that governments and individuals should bear awesome responsibilities for tackling transport pollution according to their own capabilities.

Due to transporting goods and people pollution is rising. [Something like: There are rising levels of pollution caused by increasing transportation of goods and passengers. ]

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=due+to+transporting+good%2Cpollution+is+rising%2Cpo... + _VERB%2Ctransportation+of+%2C*_ADJ+transportation+of&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cpollution%20is%20rising%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2Cpollution%20is%20%2A_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20caused_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20concerned_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20observed_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20reduced_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20being_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20becoming_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20increasing_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20generated_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20considered_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpollution%20is%20produced_VERB%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2Ctransportation%20of%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20the%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20goods%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20passengers%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20a%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20persons%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20oil%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20property%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20intoxicating%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20pupils%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btransportation%20of%20freight%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C%2A_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Binterstate_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsafe_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bfree_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Brapid_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bdistance_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Befficient_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Binternational_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Billegal_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bphysical_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bpublic_ADJ%20transportation%20of%3B%2Cc0

Notice that I have checked that the revised phraseology comes up on Google Books. This is one way to check that the phrases will sound natural to an examiner. By contrast, "due to transporting goods and people" sounds odd, as the reader is left wondering who or what is doing the transporting: grammatically it could be read as if pollution itself were transporting goods and people, which is nonsensical.

I suggest that for IELTS practice you use genuine past questions wherever possible.

In the modern times, rising pollution which is [Better to leave out "which is" as it makes it sound like a non-defining relative clause.] caused by goods delivery ["delivery" does not quite encompass cross-border trade and overseas shipping.] and people going travelling ["going travelling" suggests tourism, whereas commuting, domestic and social errands would be included in the question topic.] is [has become*] a somewhat controversial issue. [Do you really have any evidence for controversy? ] There are those who believe that governments ought to tackle transport pollutions, [usually uncountable] mainly air ones [Do you mean air pollution or air transport? ], however ["However", is an adverb and therefore requires a new, separate sentence.] others think that individuals should also do so. In my opinion, governments and individuals ought to bear responsibilities together.[share responsibility]

*"In modern times" is far more common, and tends to go with present perfect.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=in+modern+times+*%2Cin+the+modern+times%2C+in+modern+times&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2Cin%20modern%20times%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20has%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20is%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20the%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20by%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20and%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20have%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20in%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20as%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bin%20modern%20times%20it%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cin%20the%20modern%20times%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cin%20modern%20times%3B%2Cc0


In general, there are two primary reason [singular/plural?] why people believe that governments ought to naturally assume the pollution responsibilities [This sounds as if government is responsible for creating and generating pollution, not stopping it: take responsibility for curtailing pollution]. The bona fide [Yes, it is tempting to insert flashy phrases just to impress the examiner, but it adds nothing to the meaning here, so an examiner might be underwhelmed. ] reason in support of this is that only governments can impose laws on vehicles with high emissions nationally. For example, those cars with higher emissions could be on the national car register list in which transport department officers or transport police could clamp them if founded [wrong ending]. A further valid reason is that only governments fiercely ask [force/ demand that] cars producers to produce zero-emissions cars, with harsh penalties being imposed if cars makers do not follow regulations. If individuals demanded cars plants to make zero-emissions cars, their demands would likely fall on deaf car producers' ears. ["fall on deaf ears" is the phrase. ] [Check out Nissan Leaf, BMW i3, and other electric cars.]

From an overall perspective [What is this phrase doing here? Are we suddenly stepping back and looking at both sides of the argument? Again, dropping fancy phrases in out of context is not going to positively impress the examiner.], there are two sound reasons why some think that individuals should take primary responsibilities [singular or plural?] for reducing transport pollution. The cogent [How could a justification not be cogent? Also, it is not a common collocation on Google Books.** ] justification in favour of this notion is that individuals can drive cars less frequently. A good illustration of this is that instead of driving cars some people can use public transport, which [would] result in lower carbon prints. [a lower carbon footprint] Another legitimate [superfluous adjective]reason in support of this is that individuals can choose produces which are harvested locally and goods which are manufactured locally, which could inevitably leads to reduction in food miles, which in turn leads to reduced air pollution. [although this depends where one lives, the choices available in the shops, and the particular produce under consideration.]

**Common collocations with "justification":

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*_ADJ+justification%2C+cogent+justification&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2C%2A_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmoral_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Btheoretical_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsufficient_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Blittle_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Beconomic_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bonly_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Blegal_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Brational_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bfurther_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bample_ADJ%20justification%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccogent%20justification%3B%2Cc0


In conclusion, having considered both views of arguments, [superfluous clause] I would say that governments and individuals should bear awesome [Why awesome? "Heavy" is the collocation an examiner would be expecting. *** Or possibly "equal" ? If your position is that both government and individuals share responsibility, then you should explain who does what, or who is responsible for what , or how responsibility is shared; write this as your thesis in the opening, the same into the conclusion, and make sure that the intervening paragraphs support, explain, and develop your position as to how responsibility is to be shared. ]responsibilities for tackling transport pollution according to their own capabilities.

***

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*_ADJ+responsibilites&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t2%3B%2C%2A_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bnew_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bsocial_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bcertain_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Badministrative_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bother_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bheavy_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bdomestic_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bprofessional_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bfinancial_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bspecific_ADJ%20responsibilites%3B%2Cc0

In my view, individuals do indeed have a role to play, but only government has the power to stop pollution at source and ensure compliance. Were more states to follow the example of California in legislating for zero-emission vehicles, or were OPEC countries to restrict oil production drastically, then the effect would be far greater than an one individual could achieve. It would also be fairer, as everyone would have to comply. There seems little point in saving the planet by walking and taking the bus, if one's efforts are undermined by a neighbor regularly using a large diesel SUV pickup just to go three hundred meters to the local shops to buy a liter of milk.

The question would also cover air-transport, and shipping, which I believe are major sources of pollution.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thanks a lot for your crystal clear explanation and fundemental review and have a nice day!