Writing — Task 1 & Task 2

The line graph illustrates the energy consumption from three sources — fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear power — in Country X between 1990 and 2020.

Overall, the most striking trend is the significant rise in renewable energy, which contrasted sharply with a gradual decline in fossil fuel use over the period. Nuclear power remained comparatively stable throughout.

In 1990, fossil fuels dominated at approximately 70 EJ and remained the leading source until around 2015, after which consumption fell noticeably to 60 EJ by 2020. Renewable energy, by contrast, began at a modest 5 EJ in 1990 but grew consistently, reaching 50 EJ in 2020 — a tenfold increase. By the end of the period, the gap between fossil fuels and renewables had narrowed considerably.

Nuclear energy showed little variation, hovering between 10 and 13 EJ throughout, with a slight peak around 2010 before stabilising at around 12 EJ in 2020.

In summary, the data suggests a clear energy transition in Country X, with renewables on a steep upward trajectory while fossil fuel reliance gradually diminished. (≈170 words)

The idea of banning private cars from cities has gained traction as urban pollution and congestion reach critical levels. While I understand the appeal of such a policy, I believe a complete ban would be impractical and that alternative measures would be more effective.

Proponents of car bans argue that private vehicles are the primary source of urban air pollution, contributing to respiratory diseases and climate change. Cities such as Oslo and Amsterdam have already made significant progress by restricting cars in their centres, reporting measurable improvements in air quality and pedestrian safety. Furthermore, reducing car dependency encourages walking and cycling, which have well-documented health benefits for residents.

However, an outright ban presents considerable challenges. Many people rely on private cars for work, particularly those living in suburban or rural areas without adequate public transport links. Imposing a blanket ban without first developing robust alternative infrastructure would disproportionately affect lower-income residents who cannot afford frequent taxis or who live beyond cycling distance. Moreover, small businesses that depend on vehicle deliveries could face serious economic hardship.

Rather than an absolute prohibition, I would advocate for graduated restrictions: congestion charges in peak hours, expanded cycling lanes, investment in affordable and reliable public transport, and incentives for electric vehicle adoption. These measures address the root problem — emissions and congestion — while preserving necessary mobility.

In conclusion, although the environmental benefits of car bans are clear, a complete prohibition is likely to cause more harm than good without adequate alternatives in place. A phased, infrastructure-led approach would be both fairer and more effective in the long term. (≈265 words)