IN MOST COUNNTRIES PLANT AND ANIMALS ARE DECLINING ,TELL REASON AND SOLUTIONS

IN ALL OVER THE WORLD POPULATION IS INCREASING DAY BY DAY AND PEOPLE NEED MORE SPACE TO LIVE , SO FOR LIVING HUMANS ARE CUTTING TREES IN THE JUNGLE AND MAKING PLACE TO LIVE AND ESTABLISH INDUSTRIES. CUTTING OF TREES LEAD TO DECLINE OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.ANOTHER REASON BEHIND IT THAT CHANGE OF ATMOSPHERE ALSO LEAD TO DECLINING OF ANIMALS, TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF FROGS, TORTOISE, IN OLDER TIMES WE FIND MANY FROGS NEAR THE POND BUT NOWADAYS WE CANT SEE THEM .

THE CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERE ARE DUE TO INDUSTRIAL GASES AND CREATING POLLUTION IN AIR AND WATER LEAD TO DECLINING OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS, AS SOME ANIMALS CANT RESIST THESE GASES.

SECONDLY HUMANS ARE KILLING ANIMALS , THIS ALSO LEAD TO DECLINE FOR INSTANCE WE SEE DAILY IN NEWSPAPER THAT TIGERS ARE BEING KILLED BY HUMANS FOR THEIR SKINS , SO RATIO IN INDIA IS DECLINING . NOW WE FIND FEW TIGERS IN INDIA.

THE MAIN SOLUTION ARE FOR SOLVING THIS PROBLEM ARE AS FOLLOWS.
FIRSTLY,POPULATION SHOULD BE CONTROLLED ALL OVER THE WORLD, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THEIR CITIZEN TO USE MORE BIRTH CONTROL, CONDOMS AND BIRTH CONTROL TABLETS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FREE.THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PENALIZE TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN.

SECONDLY,THE EMISSION OF GASES FROM INDUSTRIES SHOULD BE CONTROL BY STORING THESE GASES OR MAKE INDUSTRIES MORE ECHO FRIENDLY SO IT DOES NOT EFFECT ATMOSPHERE.

TO CONCLUDE, THE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS DECLINE ARE HUMANS AND MAIN SOLUTION ARE BIRTH CONTROL AND STOP KILLING ANIMALS AND STOP POLLUTIONS FROM INDUSTRIES.

Right, and when we kill off a "keystone species" like the tiger, the changes end up reverberating throughout the ecosystem. But, please, DON'T SHOUT.

You mention birth control. You're onto something there but must be careful in your phrasing and to offer support. What we know from extensive research is that access to birth control for women in impoverished and despoiled regions leads to the seemingly paradoxical results of increased development and decreased pollution. In brief, the women in such regions tend to be responsible for food, firewood, and water for their families. Given control over their own bodies via birth control, they not only limit the number of children to those they can afford to feed but also are more likely to engage in sustainable development (and less likely to do environmentally destructive things out of desperation.)

But, of course, giving women access to birth control is quite a different thing than strongly discouraging women in such regions from having children or in any way trying to forcibly limit their reproduction. And, of course, it's the children in high-income regions (where everybody has access to birth control) who use up more than their fair share of world resources. That's why it's essential to be precise and careful when making claims about birth control as a means of limiting environmental damage caused by people.

And in most countries where birth control is freely available, birth rates tend to be below the level needed to sustain the population. Most Western nations, for instance, continue to experience population growth only as a result of immigration.

However, your overall thesis is correct -- if in fact the world's population has reached (or already exceeded) its sustainable peak, then the logical solution is to impose limitations on who can have children when. Indeed, we practice population control on a host of other species precisely to keep their numbers at a sustainable level. Simone is right, though -- even the most radical environmentalists tend not to be this honest about matters, especially given the concern on the left with reproductive rights. Depending upon your audience, you may or may not wish to revise your essay to avoid such brutal truth-telling.