Individuals can do little to reduce pollution, and only governments and large companies can make a real difference.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Individuals can do little to reduce pollution, and only governments and large companies can make a real difference.
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.
How to read this question
The statement contains two claims joined together — that individuals can do little, and that only governments and companies matter. Because of the word "only", you do not have to prove individuals are powerful; you only have to show they are not powerless. That is a much easier argument to win, and noticing it is the difference between a Band 6 and a Band 8 response here.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase the claim, then disagree in a qualified way: institutions matter more, but 'only' is wrong.
Body 1 — Concede the strong part — the scale of industrial and policy-level emissions genuinely dwarfs household choices.
Body 2 — Refute the absolute — individual behaviour aggregates, shifts markets, and produces the political permission governments need to act.
Conclusion — Restate: institutions lead, but individual action is what makes institutional action possible.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
325 words
According to some, ordinary citizens have minimal capacity to curb pollution, and meaningful progress can only be achieved through the actions of governments and large corporations. In my view, while institutional action is indeed the primary driver of environmental improvement, individual choices remain a necessary complement rather than an irrelevant contribution.
To begin, governments and corporations possess the scale and authority to produce substantial environmental outcomes. To clarify, a single manufacturing plant can emit as much pollution as millions of households combined, meaning that regulatory intervention, such as emission caps or mandatory filtration systems, yields far greater results than any number of individual efforts. Moreover, only governments can enact binding legislation, such as banning single-use plastics or subsidising renewable energy, which reshapes entire industries rather than isolated behaviours. Additionally, international agreements negotiated between governments, such as commitments to phase out coal-fired power plants, can reduce emissions on a scale that no individual behaviour could ever replicate, regardless of how widely it is adopted. Hence, without institutional commitment, pollution reduction on a national or global scale remains unattainable.
Nevertheless, individual actions retain considerable value, both directly and indirectly. To illustrate, when millions of households collectively reduce car use or recycle consistently, the cumulative effect on emissions becomes non-negligible, particularly in densely populated cities. Furthermore, public demand for environmentally responsible products often pressures companies to adopt greener practices, as businesses ultimately respond to consumer preferences to protect their profitability. Similarly, when individuals actively campaign for stronger environmental legislation or vote for candidates who prioritise sustainability, they exert influence over the very governments capable of implementing large-scale change, thereby amplifying their otherwise limited personal impact. In this sense, individual choices can indirectly accelerate corporate and governmental action rather than remaining inconsequential.
To conclude, although governments and large companies bear the greater share of responsibility for reducing pollution given their scale and regulatory power, individual contributions should not be dismissed, as they can meaningfully reinforce and accelerate institutional efforts.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is an opinion (agree / disagree) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase the claim that individuals can barely affect pollution and only governments/companies matter, taking a balanced position that institutions lead but individual choices remain a useful complement.
Body 1: Argue that governments and corporations have the scale and legal power to cut pollution most effectively, through tools like emission caps, binding legislation banning plastics, subsidising renewable energy, and international agreements to phase out coal.
Body 2: Argue that individual actions still matter because they add up cumulatively across millions of households, and because consumer demand and voting can pressure companies and governments into stronger environmental action.
Conclusion: Restate that institutions carry the greater share of responsibility, but individual contributions should not be dismissed since they reinforce and accelerate institutional efforts.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
curb
to restrict or hold back
ordinary citizens have minimal capacity to curb pollution
regulatory intervention
government action to control or restrict an industry or behaviour
regulatory intervention, such as emission caps or mandatory filtration systems, yields far greater results
binding legislation
laws that must legally be obeyed
only governments can enact binding legislation, such as banning single-use plastics
subsidising
financially supporting an activity or industry
banning single-use plastics or subsidising renewable energy
cumulative effect
the combined impact of many small actions added together
the cumulative effect on emissions becomes non-negligible, particularly in densely populated cities
non-negligible
significant enough to be worth considering, not able to be ignored
the cumulative effect on emissions becomes non-negligible
consumer preferences
the choices and tastes that buyers show when purchasing goods
businesses ultimately respond to consumer preferences to protect their profitability
inconsequential
of little importance or significance
individual choices can indirectly accelerate corporate and governmental action rather than remaining inconsequential
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Should I agree or disagree with this statement to get a higher band?
Neither position scores higher than the other. Examiners mark how well you argue, not what you argue. What does raise the band is noticing the absolute word — here, "only" — and dealing with it explicitly, because that shows you answered the exact question rather than the general topic.
Can I concede the other side without weakening my answer?
Conceding is what strong essays do. Arguing the opposing case properly before answering it makes your refutation more convincing, and it demonstrates the range of Task Response the higher bands describe. What weakens an answer is conceding so much that your own position disappears.
Do I need statistics about pollution?
No, and inventing them is risky. IELTS does not check facts. A clear causal explanation — why voluntary restraint fails, how demand reaches companies — is worth more than an unverifiable number, and is easier to keep grammatically accurate.
Is it acceptable to write four body paragraphs?
Yes, provided each has a clear function and you still have time to finish. Two well-developed body paragraphs are safer under exam conditions than four thin ones; the higher-band models here use an extra paragraph only where it carries a genuinely separate step in the argument.