Environment Agree/Disagree: How to Write IELTS Essays for Band 9
To write band 9 essays, you need to be a critical thinker.
Band 7 doesn’t require it, so they give you generic advice.
How would you answer this question?
Some people believe that environmental problems are too big for individuals to solve and that only governments and large companies can make a difference. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
For band 7, you can say “I agree that governments have more power, but individuals should still recycle.”
In this logic, you argue that individuals can recycle, but this is what 90% of students say.
Let’s walk through the thinking to a band 9 idea.
The most crucial skill to learn is critical thinking.
You need to take time to ask questions before you plan and write.
So, the first academic skill we use is ‘define your terms’. This means we need to know details.
What kind of environmental problems are we talking about? If we don’t know, we can’t answer in detail.
What kind can you think of?
Water, air and soil pollution right?
Now, the key to this question is one specific word ‘only’.
Can ONLY the governments or companies ‘make a difference’?
Well, ‘make a difference’ doesn’t mean ‘totally solve’, it just means do something to help.
Can individuals do that? Sure! So, the answer is “No. Not only governments and companies can ‘make a difference’.”
A band 7 answer misses this and says ‘governments, companies and individuals can solve the problem’.
You are going to say directly “Individuals can also ‘make a difference’ because they can use fewer products and power”.
Now, you are ahead of 90% of students. You just need to practice thinking through the question with ‘define your terms’ and finding the ‘key word’ of the question.
you can see why people get stuck at 6.5/7 now!
Band 9 Paragraph
“The assertion that environmental preservation is solely the provenance of institutional actors is a compelling but ultimately incomplete argument. While it is true that legislative mandates are required to overhaul industrial energy consumption, dismissing individual agency overlooks the power of market-driven demand. This essay will argue that while the state must provide the regulatory framework, the transition to sustainability is impossible without the collective shift in consumer behavior.”
Notes:
Logic: this first sentence shows that you are not just accepting the ‘common truth’, you are looking at the question deeply. This is band 9 for Task Response.
Vocabulary: provenance: when you have provenance, you can manage or control something.
Vocabulary: legistlative mandates are ‘legislation’ or ‘laws’.
Academic phrases ‘X is the sole provanence of Y’
Sentence Structure: There is nothing more complicated than an ‘SVO subordinator SVO’ structure.
To learn to write Education agree/disagree essays and read about how your idea quality keeps students at .5, click here.
Can you apply this to another prompt?
Some people believe that technological developments can solve environmental problems. Agree/disagree?
I put a model answer at the bottom of the page.
To get feedback on your essay, click here.
IELTS Environment Essays
If you want to jump to band 9, replace band 6 vocabulary.
| Instead of… (Band 6) | Use… (Band 9) |
| Harmful to the earth | Ecological degradation |
| Global warming | Anthropogenic climate change |
| Money for the environment | Financial incentives / Green subsidies |
| Hard to fix | Logistically complex / Systemically entrenched |
| Wasting resources | Inefficient resource allocation |
Key Environment Essay Mistake to Avoid.
Many teachers advise that you write “it is an undeniable fact that”. It sounds academic. It sounds right, but it signals to academics/professors/examiners that you haven’t thought about the details. Thus, your essay is inaccurate and lacks depth.
Compare
“It is an undeniable fact that technology will solve environmental problems.”
You have two issues with this sentence. Firstly, you cannot prove in 250 words that technology can solve all environmental problems. Secondly, there might be problems like let’s say nuclear radiation that we know technology cannot solve.
The fix is to use ‘hedging’, which we go into detail for here.
“While technology can address many issues, it may not be the panacea some claim.” (panacea = cure all problems).
Try to use ‘hedging’ in your essay with this academic structure “X may be able to Y”. Technology may be able to solve some environmental problems.
Health Agree/Disagree essay model and notes.
Technology Agree/Disagree essay model and notes.
Education Agree/Disagree essay model and notes.
See how IDP’s advice is holding you back, and what to do about it here.
IELTS Environment Essay Band 9/ university model
Band 9 Model Essay: The Systemic Perspective
Prompt: Some people believe that technological developments can solve environmental problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The belief that technological innovation serves as the ultimate panacea for ecological degradation is a cornerstone of modern industrial thought. While I acknowledge that advancements in green energy and geo-engineering are indispensable tools for mitigation, I disagree that technology alone can resolve the crisis. I contend that without a fundamental shift in global consumption patterns, technological progress merely treats the symptoms rather than the systemic causes of environmental decline.
Proponents of a technology-led solution argue that human ingenuity has a proven track record of overcoming resource constraints. The rapid development of high-efficiency photovoltaic cells and large-scale wind turbines has already begun to decouple economic growth from carbon intensity in several developed nations. Furthermore, emerging fields such as carbon sequestration—where atmospheric CO2 is captured and stored underground—offer a potential “reset button” for the biosphere. From this perspective, the environmental crisis is a technical puzzle that can be solved through the internalizing of green innovations into the global infrastructure.
However, the “technological fix” argument is undermined by the concept of moral hazard. When the public and policymakers believe that a future invention will inevitably neutralize the effects of pollution, the urgency to curtail unsustainable lifestyles diminishes. This leads to the “Jevons Paradox,” where gains in technological efficiency are often offset by an increase in total consumption. For example, as engines become more fuel-efficient, people tend to drive longer distances, effectively nullifying the environmental benefits. Therefore, technology without behavioral restraint often facilitates continued ecological exploitation rather than preventing it.
Ultimately, the solution to anthropogenic climate change must be a synthesis of innovation and legislative mandate. While we require the “hardware” of renewable energy, we also necessitate the “software” of a circular economy—one that prioritizes resource preservation and reduces the demand for raw materials. Technology can mitigate the damage, but it cannot override the physical limits of a planet with finite resources.
In conclusion, while technological developments are essential to any environmental strategy, they do not constitute a standalone solution. To believe otherwise is to ignore the socioeconomic drivers of pollution. True sustainability will only be achieved when innovative tools are coupled with a global commitment to reduced consumption and robust regulatory frameworks.