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.
Thanks to the population explosion and the advent of myriad FMCG products, the last few decades have witnessed an enormous increase in consumer-generated waste in towns and cities. The statement contends that the best method to solve environmental problems caused by such waste for towns and cities is to impose stringent limits on the quantity of trash the council will accept from every household. While the policy will raise concerns and accountability among citizens for the waste they generate, it might prove to be impractical and counterproductive. Moreover, solving environmental problems arising out of user-generated wastes needs a holistic approach as appose to formulating a single policy.
One of the biggest reasons for an abated generation of waste from households is a lack of concern and accountability among citizens for they believe no matter how much waste they generate the council trash truck is there to relieve them every morning. Imposing a limit on waste collection would force them to review their household consumptions and fix accountability for injudicious use of products and waste generation. However, beyond this benefit, the policy may have ramifications and lacks pragmatism.
The fundamental argument against the policy is the fact that: while the problem is about waste generation, the policy proposes to reduce waste collection. Enforcing such a policy may not necessarily reduce waste generation. Without proper waste collection service, people may resort to other detrimental ways for disposal. One can see public trash cans over flooding with household garbage on every nook and corner of the city. People may dispose waste in remote and abandoned areas or may store them in households resulting in pollution and unhygienic conditions. Unprocessed waste, such as, used batteries or sanitary napkins may result in greater environmental damage than that processed by the council.
Furthermore, such a uniform policy of limiting the waste collection from each household overlooks some practical points. Firstly, number and type of individuals vary from house to house. The policy doesn’t discriminate based on the size of the family and the type of waste they generate before fixing a limit. A larger family is bound to generate more waste than an elderly couple. Then, a large amount of recyclable waste is not as bad as a slightly lower quantity of non-recyclable ones. In such a scenario, bigger families may also start practising unfair means such as exchanging waste with smaller families for some cash.
The best way to mitigate the environmental damage would be to follow ‘The Waste Hierarchy’ principle outlined by European Commission which delineates steps for waste management in the given order: prevention, reduction, reuse, recycle, energy recovery and disposal. Firstly, FMCG industries must be encouraged with tax incentives to minimize extra packing and to use recyclable environmentally benign material for packaging. Then, citizens must be educated about the seriousness of the menace caused by consumer-generated waste. They must be taught about the practises they can adopt to reduce waste generation without affecting their consumptions. Purchasing groceries in bulk to avoid excess packaging, donating used books and clothes to charities, using canvas bog for shopping, etc are some good examples. Finally, the city council must ensure proper utilization of appropriate waste disposal equipments such as incinerators with air pollution control devices, landfills, etc. They can even use modern technology to recover energy from waste through anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, etc.
In conclusion, while the policy to limit the collection of consumer-generated waste could fix accountability on citizens for waste generation, it cannot suffice for waste mitigation and may even prove counter-productive. It can further impose some practical limitations in ensuring its fair and effective implementation. The best way to solve consumer-waste generated environmental problems calls for the holistic approach of prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of waste involving corporate, public and council participation.
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 | 83 | view |
2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
2023-10-18 | Juhong Park | 66 | view |
- To be an effective leader a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 66
- People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it 87
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 83
- The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 580, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
... be taught about the practises they can adopt to reduce waste generation without affecti...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1106, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...digestion, pyrolysis, gasification, etc. In conclusion, while the policy to limit...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 11.3162921348 35% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 58.6224719101 138% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3586.0 2235.4752809 160% => OK
No of words: 632.0 442.535393258 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67405063291 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01394158123 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21221549602 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 328.0 215.323595506 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518987341772 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 1149.3 704.065955056 163% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2993078166 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.655172414 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7931034483 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.03448275862 5.21951772744 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 5.13820224719 370% => 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: 0.428225467602 0.243740707755 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110638388989 0.0831039109588 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0985620465525 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.24669565984 0.150359130593 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108557767092 0.0667264976115 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.1639044944 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 192.0 100.480337079 191% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => 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.