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 strict limits on trash from households can solve environmental problems. In some senses, it is undeniable that unchecked consumer waste contributes to environmental challenges. Only by focusing on the merits of trash limits for households, however, does this view overlook the limitations of such policies from the perspectives of promoting illegal practices and the potential effectiveness of regulations on companies.
Admittedly, few would disagree that household waste restrictions can lead to environmental improvement. When it comes to raising consumers' environmental awareness, household policies often have a more immediate impact than broader corporate regulations. Consider recycling initiatives, which not only reduce everyday waste but also promote the use of recycled products. Such policies make the public more cognizant of the waste issue, leading to a potential reduction in total waste. The point here is that policies targeting the general public essentially benefit the environment.
Nevertheless, imposing stringent trash limits on households might inadvertently promote illegal practices. Instead of addressing the core environmental concerns, policies that tax excessive garbage might compel individuals to dispose of their waste illicitly to evade these charges. This could ironically increase waste levels, counteracting the policy's original intent. This indicates that an overemphasis on consumer regulations might need rethinking.
Moreover, focusing solely on consumer restrictions isn't the sole solution. It's crucial to also consider the substantial environmental impact of corporations. Large companies often generate significant waste, including harmful pollutants. Notable environmental disasters, such as wastewater crises in regions like Korea, underscore the detrimental effects of unchecked corporate waste. This suggests that regulating companies in terms of environmental impact is essential for holistic problem-solving.
To sum up, while household waste limitations can yield positive outcomes, potential illegal activities by individuals and the significant environmental footprints of corporations highlight that household-focused policies don't invariably lead to environmental betterment. Only if we overlook these significant factors could we conclude that exclusively targeting households is the ultimate solution to our environmental woes.
| 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 |
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 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 83
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 54
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
- In any profession business politics education government those in power should step down after five years 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 531, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...int here is that policies targeting the general public essentially benefit the environment. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 52, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ocusing solely on consumer restrictions isnt the sole solution. Its crucial to also ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 222, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ghlight that household-focused policies dont invariably lead to environmental better...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, so, while, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 19.5258426966 20% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2106.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 326.0 442.535393258 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.46012269939 5.05705443957 128% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39277116192 2.79657885939 121% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.588957055215 0.4932671777 119% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.1894057451 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.842105263 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1578947368 23.4991977007 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36842105263 5.21951772744 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257296204081 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798359342111 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665688078439 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150104070156 0.150359130593 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708195128205 0.0667264976115 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 20.38 48.8420337079 42% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.89 12.1639044944 164% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.44 8.38706741573 124% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 11.8971910112 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => 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.