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 Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree

Essay topics:

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.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

The pressure of human-being-generated waste putting on the natural environment has become a graver and graver issue around the world. Governments everywhere have gradually felt the seriousness of this issue. Some worry about the lack of landfills for increasing amount of domestic waste; others are plagued by the air quality problems caused by the waste incinerators. As a result, many governments start to take steps to deal with the matter. One of the seemingly effective solutions is to have local governments impose a strict restriction of the limit of waste allowed for each household. After all, it sounds quite reasonable that when the ceiling amount of household trash is set, the amount of total waste is controlled. However, this author has to point out that since such policy proposal fails to deal with the root problems, it is not able to solve the environmental issue concerning us.

First of all, strict regulations backfire. This tendency has been proved with many failed policies in many countries, from alcohol regulations to abortion bans, and severe restrictions on household waste are doomed to be a failure without a doubt. When people are strictly prohibited from a certain activity, and they have, for some reason, violated the law anyway, they will then try to find some illegal approaches to circumvent the punishment from the judicial body. Such results are generally worse for the well-being of both the individual breaching the law and the society as a whole. Take the case discussed here as an instance, this author can well imagine that under such a strict waste regulation, illegal dumping would become rampant because now that every household are finding ways to deal with the “surplus waste” in their houses.

Moreover, the strict regulations fail to face the causes of excessive household waste and thus their potency are cut from the root. Considering the environmental issue at hand, the root cause of excessive waste may well link to the excessive consumption and is then directly related to the government’s economy-boosting policy. It will never be workable for a government to reprimand its citizens for creating too much waste on the one hand, and encourage them to make more purchases in order to rise the GDP per capita for the country on the other hand. Sadly, we have actually seen many contradictory public policies like this in the real world. No wonder even though many governments have started noticing this severe environmental problem, domestic waste around the world just keep climbing regardless of the warnings.

This author would like to suggest that some degree of waste amount restriction could be effective, and yet related adjustments of governmental policies and related public awareness education would be even more potent regarding this issue. It is governments’ responsibility to find a balance between economic growth and environmental protection and thus enacting corresponding national and local policies. It is every human being’s responsibility to leave a sustainable environment to our future generation instead of making consumption just to grant our selfish desires. Either approach could be supported by a reasonable waste control policy but not a rigid, harsh one.

In a nutshell, this author believes that instead of focusing on the established environmental problem of waste disposal, our environment will be benefited more when we collaboratively eradicate the causes of waste production from a macro, governmental level as well as a micro, individual level.

Votes
Average: 6.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, anyway, but, first, however, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, well, after all, as to, as a result, as well as, first of all, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3021.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 564.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35638297872 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87326216964 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09320897345 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515957446809 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 953.1 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.3404809654 60.3974514979 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.318181818 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6363636364 23.4991977007 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.31818181818 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 5.13820224719 292% => 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: 0.209585304276 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0619466828362 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457008899344 0.0758088955206 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123463292598 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0393235847716 0.0667264976115 59% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 100.480337079 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.