Take a pencil and write them all (in very brief) on the end of the answer sheet, see if there is any chance of adding some diagram or table in it? Do you remember any? Current events, people, historical events, laws / Administrative polices related to it *Related to that topic, What are the. Positive, negative sides obstacles, reforms you suggest? Once youre done adding everything that you can think about, regarding the essay- then give those topics, order of preference. The order is very important, just like in wedding parties you start with soupdal-roti andIce cream in the end. The order should be Introduction Background / History related main concept / theory / what the subject is about Current scenario related. Good sides Negative sides / obstacles Suggested reforms Conclusion everything has to be written in its place.
Essay on, women, empowerment for Students
After 1 hour of writing, i realize that I forgot mention about Champarans Indigo Struggle when Gandhi got actively involved in Indian Freedom struggle for the first time! Now I cant add. Because there is no space in initial pages. However I can still try to add it in the conclusion like in 1947 Gandhi won the fight he started with Champaran. But when Examiner doesnt find the mention of Champaran in the initial pages, then he gets an impression you forgot it less marks. Hence everything has to be written in its students place. Thats why you must. Think for 30-45 minutes before you start the Essay writing. Youve 3 hours to write the essay. Dont immediately start 1st try to recall everything that you can remember / want to say about the essay.
In the Essay paper, they give you 4-5 essays and youve to write only one. Time limit -3 essay hours, max-marks200. In a 2 marker question, upsc specifically mentions that answer it in 20 words. So with that logic, youre expected to write an essay containing around 2000 words for the 200 marks. Before you start the Essay writing. They asked an essay on Gandhi, i start writing. I write something like. Gandhi was born in Porbandar then he went to me backfreedom ndhi-Irwin.2nd round rtitionetc.
And where talk of population control is rarely popular (for good reason female empowerment and greater equality are a) goals shared by powerful preexisting coalitions, b) replete with ancillary benefits beyond mini the environmental, and c) unquestionably righteous. So why focus on the former when the latter gets you all the same advantages with none of the blowback? Thats how I figure it anyway. Think for Thirty minutes, what *NOT* to write in an Essay? Provokative essays, dont get Personal (Cong. quot;ng the famous"s, padding with Fodder Material, lined suggested reading. Reading books as a hobby, related articles, this is what I learned from my seniors and toppers. There are plenty of articles on internet on how to prepare the essay (read editorials daily etc.) Im writing one about how to actually write it inside the exam hall.
If you approached the problem that way, under the banner of reducing global income inequality, you would find many allies. Income inequality is a top-line concern of people and organizations all over the world, even some conservatives these days. Reducing high-end consumption could have an enormous short-term impact on carbon emissions, as climate scientist kevin Anderson is always saying. Shifting wealth within populations — reducing the number of very wealthy and the number in poverty — can have as much carbon impact as reducing overall population. So maybe, at the next environmental event, you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question. Theres much downside and not much upside to talking about population so that, for the record, is why i hardly ever talk or write about population. (I will now send all future askers of the population question to this post.) It is high risk — very, very easy to step on moral landmines in that territory — with little reward.
Women empowerment, free short, essays assignments
When paul Hawken and his team investigated and ranked carbon-reduction solutions for their Drawdown project, they found that the combination of the two (call it the female-empowerment package) carried the most potential to reduce greenhouse gases later this century, out of any solution. (Together they could prevent 120 gigatons of ghgs by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind combined.) Family planning: fewer, and better cared for.( Drawdown ) so if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the. You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem without any of the moral baggage. And next time youre at an environmental event, maybe instead of asking the population question, ask the female empowerment question. Why arent climate hawks talking about it more? Some population units consume and emit more than others If your concern is the creation of new consumers and emitters, your gaze should be drawn to those who will consume and emit the most,.
( Oxfam ) One way to prevent the creation of new high-consumers would be to persuade the wealthy to have fewer babies and to close off the borders of wealthy countries, preventing low-consumers from immigrating and becoming high-consumers. You could try, in short, to engineer population decline in wealthy countries. For one thing, fertility tends to decline with wealth anyway. For another, any targeted attempt to engineer population decline is going to run into an unholy thicket of moral and political resistance. Another way to approach the problem would be, rather than prevent the birth of extremely wealthy people, prevent the creation of extremely wealthy people. In other words, prevent the accumulation of massive wealth. You could do that by, for instance, taxing the shit out of wealthy people.
Even the ones that have population in the name focus on family planning rather than population as such. Theyve figured out something important — something not all greens have figured out — which is that the best ways to address population dont necessarily involve talking about it at all. So what are those ways? There are two ways of looking at the problem of growing population on a finite planet. Depending on which you think is most important, there are different ways to address it, none of which require discussing population.
Female empowerment is the most effective carbon mitigation strategy The first way to look at population is as a pure numbers game. More people means more consumers and more emitters, so the thing to do is slow the rise of population. Specifically, since most of the new people are going to come from poor or developing countries, the question is specifically how to slow population growth there. Luckily, we know the answer. It is family planning that enables women to have only children they want and choose, and education of girls, giving them access to income opportunities outside the home. We know that women, given the resources and the choice, will opt for smaller families. Those are the two most powerful levers to bend the population curve. They are also, in and of themselves, an enormously powerful climate policy.
Essay on, women, empowerment
Their contention is that the countrys open immigration policies are hurting the environment by bringing in poor immigrants and making them richer, thus increasing their environmental impact. Of course, they swore up and down that xenophobia had nothing to do with. The sierra Club won that fight, and the green anti-immigrant movement has mostly been driven to the fringes, but conservative media is still getting ratings out. If you can stomach it, watch this entire segment with essay Tucker Carlson of Fox News — it hits all the usual notes, culminating in an interview with some professor who wrote a book about reducing immigration for environmental reasons. I dont doubt that its possible to be concerned about the environmental stresses population brings without any racism or xenophobia — ive met many people who fit that description, and there were well-meaning (if quite mistaken ) population-focused groups in the 70s and 80s —. The mere mention of population raises all sorts of ugly historical associations. Public health groups have largely cottoned to this.
Lets just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over population, you very often find racism, xenophobia, or statement eugenics lurking in the wings. Its almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing. Eugenical Sterilization Map of the us, 1935(. Pbs history is replete with examples, but perhaps the most germane recent episode was less than 20 years ago, at the sierra Club, which was riven by divisions over immigration. A group of grassroots members, with some help from powerful funders, attempted to take over the national organization. These members advocated sharply restricting immigration, saying the us should be reducing rather than increasing its population.
the United States of America. Most of those people will be fairly poor (by western standards, though hopefully less so than their forbearers which means their per-capita consumption of resources will be fairly low. Nonetheless, cumulatively, adding.3 billion people by 2050 amounts to enormous additional resource use and pollution (including greenhouse gases). Mitigating some substantial percentage of that population growth would be one way to better environmental conditions in 2050. It would also have more impact than virtually any other climate policy. (More on that later.). That human numbers are, axiomatically, part of the story of human impact does not mean that human numbers have to take center stage. Talking about population growth is morally and politically fraught, but the best ways of tackling it (like, say, educating girls) dont necessitate talking about it at all. Tackling population growth can be done without the enormous, unnecessary risks involved in talking about population growth. Populations unsavory associations, when political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern.
I used to get asked about it constantly when I wrote for Grist — less now, but still fairly regularly. I thought I would explain, once and for all, why i hardly ever talk about population, and why Im unlikely to in the future. worldometers math confirms that population is indeed a factor in environmental impact. Human impact on the natural environment is summed up in a simple formula : Impact population x Affluence x Technology. (Bill Gates has a slightly more complicated formula related to carbon dioxide, but p is a variable in his too.). The current global population has crossed.5 billion and is heading upward. The latest un projections have it hitting.6 billion by 2030,.8 billion by 2050, and.2 billion by 2100. Average fertility rate will decrease, but that effect will be overwhelmed by the absolute numbers. (There margaret are many arguments out there that un is overestimating population growth, but lets stick with their numbers for this post.).
1328 Words, essay on, women 's, empowerment in India
This piece was originally published in September 2017. It has been lightly updated. I did an thesis event with environmental journalist (and personal hero). Elizabeth Kolbert in September 2017, in which we discussed various matters related to journalism and climate change. Subsequently, one of the attendees wrote and asked why i hadnt talked about population. Isnt overpopulation the real root of our environmental ills? Anyone whos ever given a talk on an environmental subject knows that the population question is a near-inevitability (second only to the nuclear question).