Essay Question:
Many people believe that companies and individuals should pay to clean up the environment in proportion to the amount of pollution they have produced. Do you agree or disagree? Give your own opinion and examples.
My attempt:
Over the past decades of ecological history, various environmental problems that the world faced, some may due to natural catastrophe, but most of them are human caused. As a result, many countries have to bear pointless expenditure to rejuvenate the state of environment. Some people argued that every individual inclusive corporation is obliged to pay the price for their actions that lead to environmental degradation, while others believed that certain activities are just unavoidable. This essay will present both sides of arguments before a reasoned conclusion is drawn.
To begin with, Go Green defenders claimed that everyone should be penalized for their doings that caused environmental problems. Although this may be true to certain extent; however, some of the contamination results from human actions are just inevitable. In the modern era, many daily activities require energy to operate. Most of the energy that human used such as fuel and coals, contain with combustible materials which will contribute to the environment pollution. Despite the existence of renewable energy, this technology is still too expensive at the moment and not every individual can afford to have. Hence, putting these costs and blames on these low level incomes groups will definitely burden them.
However, certain activities that harmed the environment are primarily motivated for self-interest. This can be easily evident from irresponsible companies that earned large profits from their noncompliance's activities such as over logging. Another great example is where household family discarded unwanted objects or food recklessly just to avoid paying disposal or cleaning fee. All these self-centeredness actions have caused serious global warming. Thus, by imposing penalty on these selfish deeds, government can utilize this fund to restore and improve the ecosystem.
To sum up, there are clear supporting reasons for both sides of views; however, in my opinion, it is still believed that preserving the ecosystem is a responsibility of every person. Hence, any egotistical actions that resulted to environmental damage, they should be liable for the cost of rehabilitation flora and fauna.
Many people believe that companies and individuals should pay to clean up the environment in proportion to the amount of pollution they have produced. Do you agree or disagree? Give your own opinion and examples.
My attempt:
Over the past decades of ecological history, various environmental problems that the world faced, some may due to natural catastrophe, but most of them are human caused. As a result, many countries have to bear pointless expenditure to rejuvenate the state of environment. Some people argued that every individual inclusive corporation is obliged to pay the price for their actions that lead to environmental degradation, while others believed that certain activities are just unavoidable. This essay will present both sides of arguments before a reasoned conclusion is drawn.
To begin with, Go Green defenders claimed that everyone should be penalized for their doings that caused environmental problems. Although this may be true to certain extent; however, some of the contamination results from human actions are just inevitable. In the modern era, many daily activities require energy to operate. Most of the energy that human used such as fuel and coals, contain with combustible materials which will contribute to the environment pollution. Despite the existence of renewable energy, this technology is still too expensive at the moment and not every individual can afford to have. Hence, putting these costs and blames on these low level incomes groups will definitely burden them.
However, certain activities that harmed the environment are primarily motivated for self-interest. This can be easily evident from irresponsible companies that earned large profits from their noncompliance's activities such as over logging. Another great example is where household family discarded unwanted objects or food recklessly just to avoid paying disposal or cleaning fee. All these self-centeredness actions have caused serious global warming. Thus, by imposing penalty on these selfish deeds, government can utilize this fund to restore and improve the ecosystem.
To sum up, there are clear supporting reasons for both sides of views; however, in my opinion, it is still believed that preserving the ecosystem is a responsibility of every person. Hence, any egotistical actions that resulted to environmental damage, they should be liable for the cost of rehabilitation flora and fauna.
