The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Many would assert that imposing limits on household trash can solve environmental problems. In some senses, it is undeniable that controlling consumer waste can mitigate environmental issues stemming from excessive trash. However, only by focusing on the merits of such household restrictions does one overlook potential limitations, particularly the risk of promoting illegal practices and the possible effectiveness of regulations targeting companies.
Admittedly, few would disagree that limits on household waste could ameliorate environmental issues. When it comes to raising public awareness of these problems, consumer-targeted regulations often play a more direct role than those aimed at corporations. For instance, recycling policies, which not only motivate individuals to reduce their daily waste but also to patronize recycled products, enhance societal understanding of the waste challenge. As a result, these policies contribute to a decline in overall waste production. The essence here is that environmental regulations targeting consumers are fundamentally beneficial.
Nevertheless, it is essential to scrutinize such regulations for unintended consequences, such as the potential promotion of illegal practices. For example, policies imposing additional taxes based on waste volume might inadvertently encourage individuals to dispose of their trash unlawfully to evade these charges. Such actions can lead to an increase in littering and, paradoxically, exacerbate the waste problem. This suggests that an over-reliance on consumer-centric regulations warrants reevaluation.
Moreover, focusing solely on consumer regulations may not provide a comprehensive solution. It's pivotal to consider the significant environmental impact of corporations, which often produce vast amounts of waste, including harmful pollutants. Indeed, many prominent environmental crises, like wastewater issues in Korea, predominantly stem from corporate activities. This observation underscores the importance of considering regulations that target companies as a primary strategy to address environmental challenges.
In conclusion, while restrictions on consumer waste offer certain benefits, potential drawbacks like unintended illegal activities and the overarching impact of corporations on the environment suggest that such policies may not always guarantee improved environmental health. I would argue that an integrated approach, considering both consumers and corporations, is essential for holistic environmental betterment. Only by acknowledging the multifaceted nature of waste management can we effectively address the environmental challenges at hand.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-19 | Juhong Park | 10 | view |
| 2023-10-19 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 62
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 19.5258426966 26% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2320.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 356.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.51685393258 5.05705443957 129% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.55483493395 2.79657885939 127% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60393258427 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.59117977528 132% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7573057318 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.105263158 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7368421053 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94736842105 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233127241439 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746208024027 0.0831039109588 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544777923405 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133645738258 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040503206029 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 10.91 48.8420337079 22% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.54 12.1639044944 169% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.05 8.38706741573 132% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 19.5258426966 26% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2320.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 356.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.51685393258 5.05705443957 129% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.55483493395 2.79657885939 127% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60393258427 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.1 1.59117977528 132% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7573057318 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.105263158 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7368421053 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94736842105 5.21951772744 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233127241439 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746208024027 0.0831039109588 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544777923405 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133645738258 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040503206029 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 10.91 48.8420337079 22% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.1743820225 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.54 12.1639044944 169% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.05 8.38706741573 132% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.