▶ Your Answer :
Nowadays, environmental problem such as air
and water pollution is becoming more and more serious and governments all over
the world are taking different steps to deal with this problem. While there are
lots of measurements that they can take, I think passing and enforcing the
environmental laws, which is the third choice, is the most crucial action that
they should take. The reasons illustrating this are stated in the following
paragraphs.
To
begin with, it is the most cost effective method. Other methods such as
conducting research on environmentally friendly energy and protect wild life,
require funding which comes from the citizens’ tax. However, passing and
enforcing laws do not require such a tremendous money like the research funds,
thus less burdensome for its citizens and increasing the possibility to draw
agreement from them. For instance, the city that I am living at once started a
project to build a hydroelectric power plant. People from other countries
thought that it was a great idea, but it eventually failed because it faced
serious disagreement of the local citizens due to tripled tax. If the city had
tried alternative methods like promoting carpooling or regulating carbon
dioxide emission, they would not have failed.
Secondly, passing new laws can alter public’s
attitude towards environment. Laws that directly regulates lifestyle such as
encouraging public transportation and recycling will change people’s attitude
as well as behavior in the long run. The city that my sister is currently
living at enforces people to recycle and punishes people who throw trash in the
road. This law not only makes her to be careful when throwing trashes but also to
realize that a small but relentless behavior can pose threat to the Earth.
Other methods suggested as a choice are far from the general public’s life,
thus causing the public to feel they are irrelevant to the environmental
issues.
Finally,
time efficiency is another advantage for this method. While the first method is
risky and even if it succeeds, conducting researches on new energy sources
takes a lot of time to see the outcome. The second choice, too, would require
lots of time for the air condition to be recovered. However, regulating carbon
dioxide or toxic pollutants from factories would directly improve water and air
condition. When my hometown had passed the law on the sulfur dioxide emission
from the factories, the air condition directly improved because it was the
major cause of the air pollutants in the area. If the government had instead
planted trees to protect forest, it would have taken a long time for the air
quality to be improved.
To
conclude, whereas some people might argue that funding researches on the new energy
sources or protecting nature is more important, I would rather consider passing
new laws and enforcing them as more crucial measurement to the environment. Since this
choice is not only cost effective but also time efficient. Moreover, new laws
regulating public’s lifestyle can positively change people’s attitude towards
the environment, thus even more beneficial in the long run. |