돌아가기 ISE IV English (UK) – Interactive task

Climate Relocation and Local Consent

영어 말하기 시나리오

Ollie

A friendly British English speaker with a clear, encouraging manner.

36 years · male

Practise talking about "Climate Relocation and Local Consent" with Ollie, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your ISE IV English – Interactive task speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

대화

I am going to give you a situation. A coastal town may need partial relocation because flood defences are failing. You need to ask questions and then tell me what you think should happen. What do you need to know first?

좋은 답변:

I would need to know where the power sits before giving a view. In this case, a coastal town may need partial relocation because flood defences are failing. I would ask who benefits immediately, who bears the risk if the judgement is wrong, and whether affected people can appeal or demand reasons. Without those answers, the proposal may sound efficient while concealing the risk of local consent being treated as an administrative obstacle.

The main options are planned relocation with compensation or continued defence while residents decide gradually. What assumption behind these options would you challenge?

좋은 답변:

The assumption I would question is that planned relocation with compensation and continued defence while residents decide gradually are the only realistic moral choices. They may be useful starting points, but the real decision may require a narrower pilot, a stronger appeal route or a different definition of success. Otherwise we may choose between two polished versions of the same blind spot.

Suppose someone says your approach is too cautious and that urgent action is needed. How would you respond?

좋은 답변:

I would not dismiss that objection, because delay can also be harmful. I would allow action where the current harm is clear, but I would limit scale, publish reasons and set a review date. That responds to pressure without pretending the risk has disappeared, especially when the policy could lead to the risk of local consent being treated as an administrative obstacle.

What long-term consequence worries you most if this decision is handled badly?

좋은 답변:

The long-term risk that worries me most is institutional habit. Once organisations build procedures around a decision, reversing it becomes expensive, embarrassing and politically difficult. In climate relocation and local consent, the risk of local consent being treated as an administrative obstacle could start to feel normal rather than exceptional, which is more damaging than a single poor decision.

Where should responsibility sit: individuals, institutions, markets or government?

좋은 답변:

I would not put responsibility in one place. Government should set enforceable limits, institutions should explain and monitor decisions, and private actors should not profit from risks they do not carry. Individuals need voice, but voice is not a substitute for power or an appeal mechanism.

After hearing the objections, what final position would you take?

좋은 답변:

After hearing the objections, I would support only a reversible version. I would not give a pure yes or no answer. I would allow the least irreversible action that addresses the immediate harm, but only with published reasons, independent review and a real route for people to challenge outcomes that affect them.