English guide
Master the IELTS Writing Task 2 renewable energy agree/disagree prompt with 4 full model answers, TR/CC/LR/GRA breakdowns, 15+ vocabulary highlights, and proven scoring strategies.
What this guide covers
Search answer
Master the IELTS Writing Task 2 renewable energy agree/disagree prompt with 4 full model answers, TR/CC/LR/GRA breakdowns, 15+ vocabulary highlights, and proven scoring strategies.
Related guides:
Prompt (Paraphrased for Copyright Compliance): Some people believe that governments should invest all public funding into renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, rather than continuing to finance traditional fossil fuel projects. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Many governments are now thinking about renewable energy. Some people think all money should go to wind and solar power instead of fossil fuels. I partially agree with this idea, but I think it is not possible to change everything overnight.
First, renewable energy is good for the environment. Fossil fuels like coal and oil create a lot of pollution and cause global warming. If countries use wind and solar power, they can reduce carbon emissions. For example, Germany has built many wind turbines and the air quality in some cities has improved. This shows that green energy works well. However, there are also problems with these sources. Wind does not blow all the time, and the sun does not shine at night. This means that we still need other types of power to make sure the electricity supply is stable.
Second, changing to renewable energy costs a huge amount of money. Building solar farms and wind parks requires advanced technology and many workers. Developing countries might not have enough budget to make this switch quickly. If they stop funding fossil fuels completely, their economies could suffer. People would lose jobs in the mining and oil industries. Therefore, a gradual transition makes more sense than stopping all fossil fuel projects immediately.
In conclusion, while renewable energy is definitely better for our planet, I do not agree that all public money should be switched to it right now. Governments should invest in green power step by step, while keeping some traditional energy until the technology improves and costs go down.
I strongly agree that governments should redirect the majority of public investment toward renewable energy, although a complete and immediate abandonment of fossil fuels remains economically unfeasible.
The primary reason to prioritise renewable sources is environmental sustainability. Traditional energy extraction releases substantial greenhouse gases, accelerating climate change and degrading ecosystems. By contrast, wind and solar infrastructure generate electricity without carbon emissions during operation. Denmark, for instance, now produces over fifty percent of its electricity from wind power, demonstrating that large-scale renewable adoption significantly reduces national carbon footprints. Furthermore, investing in clean technology stimulates long-term economic growth by creating specialised jobs in engineering and manufacturing. When governments subsidise solar panel production or offshore wind farms, they cultivate export-ready industries rather than funding finite resources that will eventually deplete.
Nevertheless, a sudden defunding of fossil fuel infrastructure would destabilise energy grids. Current battery storage technology cannot yet guarantee uninterrupted power during peak demand or adverse weather conditions. Coal and natural gas currently provide essential baseload electricity. Therefore, governments must maintain transitional subsidies for cleaner fossil fuel alternatives, such as natural gas with carbon capture, while rapidly scaling up grid modernisation. This balanced approach prevents blackouts and protects vulnerable households from sudden price spikes.
Ultimately, while fossil fuels still play a necessary transitional role, public capital should overwhelmingly support renewable expansion. Strategic, phased investment ensures both ecological preservation and energy security, making a strong case for redirecting state funding toward sustainable alternatives.
I firmly support the proposition that state funding should be overwhelmingly channelled into renewable energy infrastructure, though a pragmatic transition period must retain limited fossil fuel investment to maintain grid stability.
The environmental and economic imperatives for this shift are undeniable. Fossil fuel combustion remains the principal driver of anthropogenic climate change, while simultaneously exposing economies to volatile commodity markets. Solar and wind technologies, conversely, offer predictable long-term costs once capital expenditure is recouped. The International Renewable Energy Agency reports that utility-scale solar generation is now the cheapest form of new electricity in most global markets. When governments direct subsidies toward clean energy, they accelerate technological maturation, reduce manufacturing costs through economies of scale, and mitigate future climate-related public health expenditures. The compounding benefits of early investment far outweigh short-term fiscal constraints.
Critics argue that renewable intermittency necessitates continued fossil fuel reliance. While intermittency presents legitimate engineering challenges, it is being rapidly resolved through advanced lithium-ion storage, pumped hydroelectricity, and smart grid integration. A complete funding freeze on fossil fuels would indeed cause short-term supply shocks in heavily industrialised nations. However, this merely highlights the need for strategic energy diversification rather than perpetual fossil fuel dependence. Governments should instead mandate phase-out timelines while funding transitional baseload solutions, such as green hydrogen and modular nuclear reactors, alongside renewables.
Consequently, I strongly agree with prioritising renewable energy funding. The environmental degradation caused by extractive industries and the proven cost-competitiveness of clean technology render fossil fuel subsidies obsolete. State capital must drive the transition, not hinder it, through targeted, forward-looking investment.
I unequivocally agree that governments must channel the overwhelming majority of public capital into renewable energy infrastructure, as the ecological urgency, economic viability, and technological maturity of clean alternatives render continued fossil fuel subsidisation indefensible.
The environmental imperative for this reallocation is absolute. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil, and gas combustion directly accelerate climate destabilisation, exacerbating extreme weather events and threatening global food security. Renewable infrastructure, particularly utility-scale solar and offshore wind, generates electricity without operational carbon emissions. The International Energy Agency confirms that clean energy investment now surpasses fossil fuel spending globally, reflecting an irreversible market shift. When states redirect public funding toward renewables, they catalyse grid decarbonisation while simultaneously reducing long-term healthcare expenditures linked to particulate pollution. The financial and ecological dividends compound annually, making fossil fuel subsidies economically irrational.
Opponents frequently cite intermittency as justification for maintaining traditional energy funding. This argument conflates technical management with systemic dependency. Modern energy storage, demand-response algorithms, and transnational grid interconnections have effectively mitigated renewable intermittency. Furthermore, fossil fuel extraction imposes severe externalised costs—environmental remediation, health crises, and geopolitical instability—that taxpayers ultimately absorb. Rather than perpetuating a declining industry through artificial price suppression, governments should fund transitional technologies, including green hydrogen and advanced battery chemistry, while accelerating renewable deployment.
Public capital allocation must reflect long-term planetary and economic stability, not short-term industry lobbying. I firmly advocate for an accelerated, fully funded transition to renewables. Defunding fossil fuels is not merely environmentally responsible; it is an economic necessity.
---
| Criterion | Band 6.0 | Band 7.0 | Band 8.0 | Band 9.0 | |---|---|---|---|---| | Task Response | Addresses prompt but position wavers; examples lack depth. Generalisations weaken argument. | Clear position throughout; ideas are relevant and extended. Addresses both sides with nuanced conclusion. | Fully developed ideas with precise focus. Strong, logical progression; counter-argument integrated smoothly. | Sophisticated, authoritative stance. Deep, critical analysis; addresses implications beyond the immediate prompt. | | Coherence & Cohesion | Paragraphing exists but progression is somewhat mechanical. Linkers are basic or repetitive. | Logical flow with clear paragraphing. Range of cohesive devices used appropriately, not mechanically. | Seamless progression; paragraphing is skillfully managed. Cohesive devices are precise and unobtrusive. | Cohesive management is invisible yet highly effective. Logical sequencing is flawless; referencing is exact. | | Lexical Resource | Adequate vocabulary for task; some repetition and minor inaccuracies. Collocations are basic. | Good range; occasional errors in word choice/collocation. Uses less common items with awareness. | Wide, precise vocabulary. Sophisticated control of collocation; rare minor slips only. | Native-like precision. Nuanced lexical choices; idiomatic academic phrasing; zero errors. | | Grammar Range & Accuracy | Mix of simple/complex structures; frequent minor errors that don't impede meaning. | Frequent error-free sentences; good control of complex forms. Some minor mistakes persist. | Majority error-free; wide variety of structures used flexibly. Punctuation accurate. | Full command of grammatical structures; stylistic variation; punctuation perfectly deployed. |
---
---
---
---
How many words should an IELTS Task 2 agree/disagree essay be? Aim for 270-310 words. Responses under 250 words lose Task Response marks automatically, while going beyond 330 often introduces repetition and grammatical errors.
Can I partially agree in an IELTS essay? Yes, but you must clarify which side is stronger and why. A "balanced" essay without a clear hierarchy of opinion is graded as Task Response Band 6 because the position remains unclear.
Do I need real statistics for a Band 9? No. Examiners reward plausible, well-integrated examples. Inventing exact percentages (e.g., "73.4% of Germans") triggers accuracy penalties. Use general trends (e.g., "a substantial majority of EU nations") or cite recognised bodies (IEA, IRENA) without fabricated data.
Should I mention nuclear energy in renewable essays? Only if it supports your argument about grid stability or low-carbon alternatives. Nuclear is technically non-renewable but low-carbon; misclassifying it drops Lexical Resource scores.
How does Cambridge Assessment English score Task Response? TR evaluates whether you fully address all parts of the prompt, maintain a clear position, and extend ideas logically. Vague generalisations, off-topic tangents, or undeveloped examples cap TR at Band 6.5.
Is it better to write two long body paragraphs or three shorter ones? Two well-developed paragraphs (each 80-100 words) consistently outperform three shallow ones. Depth of analysis matters more than paragraph count for CC and TR scoring.
---
Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol. Upload your draft, receive instant TR/CC/LR/GRA feedback, and track your progression toward Band 7.0+ with examiner-level precision.