Some people think that the effective way to reduce pollution is to tax the companies which cause it. Others think that there are better ways to achieve this. Discuss both the sides and give your own opinion.
40 minutes, 250 words at least.
Please read the sample answer also.
Pollution has become a pestering problem in almost all
the countries. It is argued by some people that the best method for reducing pollution is to impose heavy taxes on the corporates, while others have an opinion that there are other alternative (if you wish to avoid repetition of other) effective ways such as imposing stringent laws and improving public awareness (imposing and improving are parallel). In my opinion, I consider that the second (latter) view is more effective since it has long-term benefits. (The structure of introduction is good. All points effectively covered.)
The Government can impose high taxes on
the a company’s manufacturing products such as plastics and fertilizers, which are the primary cause of pollution. Increased taxes will increase the prices of the end products and eventually their demand for the products will fall. This will give a lesser incentive to companies to produce more resulting in lower pollution levels. (Well-argued. Good job!) Moreover, higher taxes collected can be further utilized in government schemes that aid in supporting finance/ support cleaning drive of the polluted bodies such as rivers and oceans and roads (roads are not polluted. It is NOT drive of polluted bodies). For instance, in 2015 The University of Cambridge found in a study that high taxes assist the governments to further in invest in most advanced technological methods to reduce pollution by 25 percent. (You can write really simple things: Industrial waste disposal in water bodies has led to the death of fish in rivers such as Beas, Ravi, Yamuna, and Ganga. The government of India is trying to ameliorate this problem by the tax collected from corporates.)
On the other side, some people think (I agree with the opinion ….) that there are other more effective ways such as stringent laws and public awareness to tackle the problem,
and I agree. The Government should enforce laws on capping the maximum amount of emissions released by an industry. This will lead them to adopt better production practices, thus resulting in decreased pollution. (A point clearly written and explained.) Furthermore, through public awareness campaigns, citizens should be made aware of the harmful impacts caused by these products on the environment. People will then tend to choose alternative products which cause no or lesser or no harm. For example, in a recent survey, The times of India found that due to public awareness campaign 25 percent of New Delhi‘s citizens prefer to choose products such as jute bags with which have a lesser carbon footprint than paper and plastic bags. (Just making this more specific.)
To conclude, while high taxes is a short-term remedy and puts a lot of pressure on consumer pockets, I think that public awareness campaign would make people more aware of their duties to protect the environment.
Please subscribe to my Youtube Channel.
Contact me for writing polished and effective Statement of Purpose.
Contact me for Editing Services and Document Writing Services.