SEARCH YOUR ESSAY

Sunday, July 10, 2022

Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay to clean up the pollution that they produced. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay to clean up the pollution that they produced. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments


Why private citizens and companies should do it 

  • They are the root cause and if they are made to pay, the evil will be nipped in its bud 
  • They can set precedents for their peers and counterparts 

Why government should take an action 

  • The state is paid taxes on the name of the environment, so they should fulfill their task
  • They have been elected for securing society from every possible catastrophe 
  • They enjoy the jurisdiction over the land and  have been vested with powers to make laws and create a framework to persuade (with help of punitive measures) or coax (encouragement) people into following eco-friendly policies. 
  • They have the resources - both money and manpower to handle task of such a greater  multitude. 
  • They also have a clear view of the impending catastrophes, and issues that transcend political and geographical boundaries,  due to being in possession of expert resources. 

There is a great tug of war going on between disparate sections of society as to whether businesses and people should be made to bear the cost of cleaning up the environment, or not. While some accord to the proposal of laying the onus on the former, others out rightly dissent.  

Those rallying behind the suggestion of making citizens and commercial organizations responsible for undoing the damage to the ecology, feel that it is them, the source of the trouble, where the individuals mindlessly engage in practices that are hostile to the the planet such as overuse of cars - that emit fumes, wastage of water, food and other resources - that is leading to catastrophic outcomes, business organizations are recklessly exploiting resources, resorting to deforestation and dumping industrial  waste in all the three spheres of the environment.  Therefore, charging them for the restoration of the ecology will teach an invaluable lesson and dissuade them from following practices that are hostile to nature. 

 Nevertheless, others are quite skeptical about the former view. As per them, adopting such a policy will mean committing injustice to the common populace and companies that are already burdened with numerous taxes, some of which are collected in the name of environment protection, and imposing an additional charge will make things difficult for both the people and the organizations. Furthermore, undeniably, governments are elected to serve the society and and protect it from every possible danger and situation, and affording a healthy planet, is thus, their obligation.  

Overall, despite this move looking unfair in its intent, I feel that people and business establishments must contribute to plans made for preserving the ecology even though the state must also play a part in this endeavor instead of avoiding this area. 

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or negative development?

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is considered very important. Why might this be the case? Is this a positive or nega...