Based on the given material, the lecturer, as well as the reading passage, discuss the regulation rules for handling and storing coal ash which contains potentially harmful chemicals for the environment. The reading passage states that currents rules are quite sufficient. That being said, the lecturer provides three reasons to repudiate this claim.
First, the writer says that current regulations, such as requiring companies to use liner materials, prevent contamination by coal ash. On the other hand, the lecturer declares that companies use liner material in new landfill or new pond. Still, at old landfill and pond, the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into groundwater and contaminated drinking water. So more strict rules are needed to prevent environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites.
Second, the author asserts that stricter rules might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products, such as concrete and bricks, owing to the fact that consumers may think that these products are too dangerous. Yet again, the speaker explains that recycling other dangerous material such as Mercury has been taking place for 50 years. So people would not be afraid to buy recycled products by establishing more strict rules for handling and storing coal ash.
The final point of contention between the reading passage and the lecture is that stricter new regulations would cause noticeable increases in disposal cost for companies and would increase the price of electricity. So people would not be happy with these rules. However, the lecturer says that the increased price will be worthwhile. Though the cost for companies is about 50 billion dollars, the amount of increased cost for each bill will be one percent of the bill.
Based on the
given
material
, the
lecturer
,
as well
as the reading passage, discuss the regulation
rules
for handling and storing coal ash which contains
potentially
harmful chemicals for the environment. The reading passage states that currents
rules
are quite sufficient. That
being said
, the
lecturer
provides three reasons to repudiate this claim.
First
, the writer says that
current
regulations, such as requiring
companies
to
use
liner
materials
,
prevent
contamination by coal ash.
On the other hand
, the
lecturer
declares that
companies
use
liner
material
in new landfill or new pond.
Still
, at
old
landfill and pond, the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into groundwater and contaminated drinking water.
So
more strict
rules
are needed
to
prevent
environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites.
Second, the author asserts that stricter
rules
might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products, such as concrete and bricks, owing to the fact that consumers may
think
that these products are too
dangerous
.
Yet
again, the speaker
explains
that recycling other
dangerous
material
such as Mercury has been taking place for 50 years.
So
people
would not be afraid to
buy
recycled products by establishing more strict
rules
for handling and storing coal ash.
The final point of contention between the reading passage and the lecture is that stricter new regulations would cause noticeable increases in disposal cost for
companies
and would increase the price of electricity.
So
people
would not be happy with these
rules
.
However
, the
lecturer
says that the increased price will be worthwhile. Though the cost for
companies
is about 50 billion dollars, the amount of increased cost for each bill will be one percent of the bill.