"Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."
The author contends that regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats before the information is fully known or concrete. Indisputably, environmental threats are not to be taken lightly while forming a policy because it is ultimately the environment which governs the existence of humans. We cannot think of jeopardizing the environment for policies/regulations where the latter can be amended easily but once the former is affected, restoring it to normal might be a herculean task. Nevertheless, threats which do not have solid evidence to back them cannot be considered as true and reliable. They might be a hoax or a rumour also. Thus, it would not be sensible of the regulators/policymakers to consider baseless threats without fully investigating them.
It is a common known fact that anything done hastily without considering the intricate details will lead to undesirable results. Keeping that in mind, adept regulators/policymakers are very meticulous before sketching out the final policy. It is unlikely that they have not foreseen an environmental threat. Even if they fail to be scrupulous, responding to a threat without looking into it deeply would prove to be imprudent. For instance, the Indian government's plan of installing a thermal power plant in the state of Karnataka(which was facing an energy crisis) was renounced by the opposition claiming that it would raise the air pollution index of that particular region. Nevertheless, without giving much concern to it the government proceeded with the plan and succeeded in adding another 1000 MW to the total installed capacity and fulfilling the energy demands. After 3 years, when the air pollution was measured, the opposition's claim was proved to be groundless. In this circumstance, if the government would have considered the opposition's conjecture then it would have certainly delayed or even cancelled the project. Consequently, it is obvious that the regulators din't respond to the threat without thorough investigation.
Furthermore, a regulatory body cannot waste its precious time on a hoax. Social media is the best place to spread such unsupported news and a few people who are unaware of the truth use this as a tool to circulate rumours. For example, there was a post on Facebook which claimed that Coca Cola was dumping its factory waste in the river Kaveri thereby harming the marine life. The company was actually disposing its waste but after treating it with chemicals which made it completely benign. Hence, all the evidence provided has demonstrated that there has to be a solid evidence backing the threat.
Admittedly, the threats are sometimes plausible and can lead to major environmental disasters. But, this is specifically true when it is proved and examples supporting it. There have been many cases where the potential environment threats were ignored even when they had "credible and widely known explanations" . Be it the Bhopal gas tragedy, radioactive disposal, ozone layer depletion and pollution of oceans by plastic. However, the above argument does not constitute sufficient support to claim that the policymakers should respond to these threats without fully knowing the consequences.
To reiterate, although the threats are not to be taken lightly before framing a policy/regulation, they have to be examined thoroughly and the regulators should gather supporting evidence before jumping into conclusions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-07-30 | vsn1541997 | 83 | view |
| 2017-01-12 | bhaskarvemuri18 | 50 | view |
| 2017-01-12 | bhaskarvemuri18 | 16 | view |
| 2016-10-04 | cybertelic | 83 | view |
| 2016-08-20 | nikita2792 | 50 | view |
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permi 55
- "Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete." 83
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 54
- "The most effective strategy for a company to use to maintain and increase profits over the long term is to maintain high ethical standards." 50
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 26
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 662, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...iable. They might be a hoax or a rumour also. Thus, it would not be sensible of the ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1014, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had considered'?
Suggestion: had considered
...In this circumstance, if the government would have considered the oppositions conjecture then it woul...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1168, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regulators'' or 'regulator's'?
Suggestion: regulators'; regulator's
...t. Consequently, it is obvious that the regulators dint respond to the threat without thor...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 323, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ible and widely known explanations' . Be it the Bhopal gas tragedy, radioacti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, then, thus, while, as to, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.5258426966 184% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2931.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 537.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45810055866 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.33253129703 2.79657885939 119% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532588454376 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 922.5 704.065955056 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6106155186 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.730769231 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6538461538 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.21951772744 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 5.13820224719 350% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.301729743838 0.243740707755 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0824135774219 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131505786588 0.0758088955206 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163203443872 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0993531545955 0.0667264976115 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.