As the decade progresses, environmental issues have become the hottest topic, resulting in a heated debate over the cost of resolving them. Some people suppose that businesses and individuals are responsible for paying for cleaning up the pollution they propel instead of the government. I profoundly subscribe to this notion for the following reasons.
To begin with, the act of forcing companies and private individuals to foot the pollution bills can minimize the environmental repercussions. To clarify, it is not the government but the industries and households that have a directly detrimental influence on the surroundings. Therefore, to reduce the expense paid for environmental rehabilitation, they will have to innovate and adopt greener strategies to minimize their harmful impacts. For example, oil and gas companies like Shell are turning to green energy, with the recent announcement that it was investing $1. 7 billion in wind power. In summary, charging industrial firms and citizens with pollution costs will deter them from producing more negative influences on the living zone.
Moreover, when the government is free from supporting the pollution costs, it can allocate its funds to enhance the living standards. Although the role of the authority role is to reinforce the environmental laws, the astronomical costs of clean-up procedures can be a burden on the national funds, especially in underdeveloped countries. For example, according to a Fiscal report by BBC, air pollution in 2014 cost the U. S. economy roughly 5 percent of its yearly gross domestic product (GDP) in damages. Therefore, when companies bear the pollution cost, the administrations can concentrate on developing national infrastructures and environmental protection to the standard of citizens’ living comfort. In short, instead of being used for cleaning up and reducing pollution which enterprises could produce, the governmental expenditure can be utilized for other developments.
To conclude, in light of the above rationales, I pen down saying that industrial firms and private individuals should share the amount of money spent on purifying the polluted areas.
As the decade progresses,
environmental
issues have become the hottest topic, resulting in a heated debate over the
cost
of resolving them.
Some
people
suppose that businesses and individuals are responsible for paying for cleaning up the
pollution
they propel
instead
of the
government
. I
profoundly
subscribe to this notion for the following reasons.
To
begin
with, the act of forcing
companies
and private individuals to foot the
pollution
bills can minimize the
environmental
repercussions. To clarify, it is not the
government
but
the industries and households that have a
directly
detrimental influence on the surroundings.
Therefore
, to
reduce
the expense paid for
environmental
rehabilitation, they will
have to
innovate and adopt greener strategies to minimize their harmful impacts.
For example
, oil and gas
companies
like Shell are turning to green energy, with the recent announcement that it was investing $1. 7 billion in wind power. In summary, charging industrial firms and citizens with
pollution
costs
will deter them from producing more
negative
influences on the living zone.
Moreover
, when the
government
is free from supporting the
pollution
costs
, it can allocate its funds to enhance the living standards. Although the role of the authority role is to reinforce the
environmental
laws, the astronomical
costs
of clean-up procedures can be a burden on the national funds,
especially
in underdeveloped countries.
For example
, according to a Fiscal report by BBC, air
pollution
in 2014
cost
the U. S. economy roughly 5 percent of its yearly gross domestic product (GDP) in damages.
Therefore
, when
companies
bear the
pollution
cost
, the administrations can concentrate on developing national infrastructures and
environmental
protection to the standard of citizens’ living comfort. In short,
instead
of being
used
for cleaning up and reducing
pollution
which enterprises could produce, the governmental expenditure can
be utilized
for other developments.
To conclude
, in light of the above rationales, I pen down saying that industrial firms and private individuals should share the amount of money spent on purifying the polluted areas.