Vissza a Advanced (Grades 10-12) English (UK) – Discussion of Presentation

Why Climate Responsibility Should Be Shared

Angol beszélő forgatókönyv

Sonia

A composed British English speaker with a professional, reassuring style.

41 years · female

Practise talking about "Why Climate Responsibility Should Be Shared" with Sonia, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your Trinity GESE Grade 10-12 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

Beszélgetés

Summarise the main argument of your presentation on why climate responsibility should be shared.

Jó válasz:

The case I would build is that climate responsibility has to be shared because the causes and effects of climate change are shared unevenly. Individuals make daily choices about energy, travel and consumption, but those choices happen inside systems designed by governments and companies. A person cannot choose affordable public transport if it does not exist, and a family cannot easily change heating systems without support. At the same time, individuals should not use system failure as an excuse for complete passivity. My central claim would be that responsibility should be proportional to power. Those with more influence, money and emissions should carry more of the burden.

What evidence or experience would you use to support that argument?

Jó válasz:

A key source would be evidence about emissions by country, income group and industry, because those figures show that responsibility is not evenly distributed. I would also include examples of flooding, heatwaves or energy prices to show how climate change affects daily life. However, I would be careful with statistics. National emissions can hide differences between rich and poor citizens, and company data may depend on what is counted. I would explain those limits in the presentation. The evidence would support my argument best if it showed both scale and inequality, rather than simply frightening the audience with large numbers. That would keep the evidence connected to justice, not only measurement.

What is the strongest objection someone might make to your position?

Jó válasz:

The most challenging criticism is that shared responsibility can become an excuse for nobody taking responsibility. If everyone says the problem belongs to everyone, then each person or institution can point elsewhere. I would take that criticism seriously because vague moral language is not enough for climate action. My response would be to make responsibility specific. Governments should regulate and invest, companies should reduce emissions across supply chains, wealthy consumers should reduce high-carbon habits, and communities should support practical local change. Shared responsibility only works if duties are named clearly. Otherwise it becomes a polite way of avoiding hard decisions. It should lead to commitments that can actually be checked.

How would your argument change if you looked at it from another country or generation?

Jó válasz:

Seen from another country’s perspective, my argument would change in emphasis. In a wealthy country, I would stress historic emissions, consumption and the duty to fund cleaner technology. In a poorer country, I would be more careful about development needs. People need electricity, transport, housing and jobs, and it would be unjust to demand sacrifice from those who have not benefited from high-carbon growth. A generational perspective also matters. Older generations may focus on economic stability, while younger people may feel they are inheriting the risk. I would keep the idea of shared responsibility, but I would define fairness differently across contexts.

What final question would you want your audience to keep thinking about?

Jó válasz:

The presentation would end by asking who should change first when everyone is connected to the problem. That question remains unresolved because climate responsibility is circular. Individuals want governments to lead, governments want public support, and companies often wait for regulation or market pressure. My answer would be that those with the most power should move first, but that others should not wait passively. I would leave the audience with that question because it avoids both guilt and denial. It asks people to think about their actual influence, not just their feelings about the issue. It also makes responsibility more concrete than blame.