Writing Feedback / Writing task2: taxing industries as a good way to protect environment [3]

taxation and pollution

SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT INCREASING TAX ON VARIOUS INDUSTRIES WILL REDUCE POLLUTION, WHEREAS OTHERS BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVE WAYS. DISCUSS BOTH THE VIEW AND GIVE YOUR OPINION.

Nowadays, many argue that increasing tax can be a good way to protect environment, while some alternative methods are thought to be better. In my opinion, taxation is the better solution than others due to its effectiveness.

The case for that there are still better ways is related to the growth of using green energy such as wind, water, solar. These renewable resources make quite impact on the industry especially production facilities so that they encourage the business to become a green industry. Tesla, for instance, with the government sponsorship tends to become an eco-friendly business. However, this is a limited solution when developed nations with high technological level have method of producing energy from these resources, but not for developing countries and others.

On the other hand, heavy taxing on the industries prevent enterprises from dumping waste into nature. This solution seems to make the companies change their product method from current practices to cleaner energy practices. In European Union, this approach is useful when enterprises are taxed at higher rates, which reduces how much carbon footprints come. Additionally, that industries are greener gain the support from government and public and also friendly environment.

In conclusion, taxation is an effective solution for current situation; moreover, both approaches can consider to be mixed together to become a greater way in the future. In addition to, environment should be a government priority along with the attention from residents.

Writing Feedback / Writing task2: rails or roads - what government should concentrate on? [NEW]

SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SPEND MONEY ON BUILDING TRAIN AND SUBWAY LINES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
OTHERS THINK THAT BUILDING MORE AND WIDER ROADS IS THE BETTER WAY TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OPINION.

People today argue that government should concentrate on train lines in order to reduce traffic congestion, while others believe that building more wide roads make sense. In my opinion, though building more roads is an effective way, spending on rail and subway systems seems to solve the problem.

On the one hand, the case for building more roads is that it will meet transportation need in a country. Firstly, the transportation industry plays an important role in the development of a country, if the transport sector makes progress, the country will quickly develop into a modern industrial city. Secondly, this method is likely to a permanent solution in terms of adapting the number of transportations in both urban cities and countrysides. For instance, when people incomes have been improved, they tend to acquire personal vehicles such as cars and motorbikes so that they can go to work more easily instead of waiting for a bus or a taxi, which lead to a higher volume of traffic and numerous vehicles; consequently, government take responsibility for building highways to fix this issue.

On the other hand, I would side with those who think that increasing investment in rail and subway lines is more practical. The trains are faster, cheaper and more convenient in terms of encouraging citizens to give up their private means so that traffic jam is not enlarged. Japan, for example, has one of the best metro network over the world; as a result, the traffic congestion does not happen much in this country.

In conclusion, government should prioritize expenditure on rail and metro networks rather than constructing more roads to see decline in high-traffic areas.