The composition on environmental protection is 500 words.

In my opinion, the world can only be destroyed, not saved. Of course, now I think this view seems to be wrong. Because everything I have seen and what is happening on the earth shows that the situation is not very bad, and there are still many people who struggle for saving this planet all their lives. But unfortunately, a considerable part of these struggles are likely to be in vain. On the one hand, some struggles are superficial, ignorant, even absent-minded and empty-handed. On the other hand, it seems much easier to destroy the world than to save it.

Personally, I would rather say that I am the destroyer of the earth than boast that I have made too much contribution to environmental protection. In my opinion, the birth of anyone on this planet which has become extremely overpopulated is a potential threat to the environment. Growing up, consuming and making garbage can be said that each of us owes a debt to the world, and it is only natural to pay back the debt. Then we have no reason to be proud of environmental protection. We can only say that after suffering in a harsh environment for too long, our conscience was discovered, our brain was perfected, and we got rid of childishness, barbarism and rudeness to pay off this debt.

I am not advocating the so-called "inherent evil at the beginning of life", but that we are heavily in debt-this is a fact, and each of us must deeply realize this, so as to put down our airs and be less complacent, and truly take environmental protection as a responsibility, seriously protect the environment, seriously protect the environment, and even go to environmental protection with tears. In this way, we won't shout environmental protection while throwing plastic bags on the roadside; Or dig the sapling out of one place, then bury it in another place casually, and then watch it die slowly and painfully. Then, our struggle will not be superficial and formal, and our struggle will really be a struggle.

On the other hand, the question is how much damage can be offset by efforts to save the world. Maybe the word "offset" is not appropriate here. If the Siberian tiger is completely dead, then this destruction will be irreversible. Even with millions of lives, it is impossible to get a pair of "Tiger Adam" and "Tiger Eve" from God. I said it was much easier to destroy than to save, at least in terms of numbers. After all, the struggle for salvation is only a part, and the destroyer is all. The word "destruction" may be shocking, but in fact each of us is working hard for destruction. We want to eat, so a large area of forests and grasslands are reclaimed into so-called fertile fields, which are burned and burned, and the more they burn, the more desertification begins. Each of us wants a living space, so our space becomes more and more crowded and dirty.

We should feel the crisis, and the rescue efforts are too fragile in the face of destruction. Trees that have grown for decades or even hundreds of years can be polished with only a few chainsaws. Beautiful countryside, which was finally managed, only needed a few missiles to be blown into a chaotic grave. I think many people have a potential desire for destruction. Once expanded, the consequences are unimaginable-NATO is, at least its behavior is anti-environmental!

This is more significant to punish the saboteurs than to save the world. At the very least, it can destroy unscrupulous saboteurs, make them feel fear, arouse people's awareness and inspire our fighting spirit. In this way, we can preserve more and destroy less.

Everyone knows about environmental protection every day, but I still feel sad: although the world must be irreversible, if we don't really get serious, I'm afraid it will go downhill. However, we still have reason to be happy. As far as today is concerned, I don't think the world will be destroyed-at least not for a hundred years.