Many people believe that companies and individuals should pay to clean up the environment in proportion to the amount of pollution they have produced.
To what extent to you agree or disagree?
It is often argued that people should be charged in accordance with the amount of pollution they produce. While I accept that certain organisations should be penalised for this, I believe that every individual should not be forced to pay a fine.
There are several reasons why the giant entrepreneurs should pay for contaminating the land. Having penalised with a specific amount of money factories will help the government to raise money which can be used in a variety of long-term and rationalised measures to mitigate the pollution from the earth. This will also deter them from producing more garbage and pollution. Take London as an example, where governments have invested recently a hefty amount of money in public transportation, in particular, local buses which have been designed to be much more efficient than the older ones. So these vehicles discharge fewer combustible pollutants into the air. Also, these self-centered companies sometimes exploit natural resources such as forests, water land and agricultural lands, beyond all their limits just to increase the profit. If these companies are not obliged to share the amount of money, which is required to curb pollutions, they will become more short-sighted (or greedy) in terms of making more money without even caring about the impact on climate change and environment.
However, I would argue that every individual should not be liable to pay recommended fine. It is unrealistic that we can stop people from polluting the universe merely by imposing charges. Because people need electricity to enjoy technologies, a farmland to grow crops and an accommodation to live, food to eat as well as a mean of transportation to travel. Furthermore, if people from devastated backgrounds are charged more for the impact they have on climate; it will create an upheaval situation where lower-income groups would not be able to pay even for their daily necessities.
In conclusion, organisations who are earning millions of pounds by exploiting natural resources should only be obliged to share the amount of money in curbing the pollution rather than all the common citizens.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-03-09 | Saira Faiz | 84 | view |
- Students should continue their study abroad than to study at home. 73
- Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads.To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? 73
- All over the world, the rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. What problems does this cause? How can we overcome the problems of poverty? 56
- “Some experts opine that a new language should be introduced for all countries for international communication.”Do you think the benefits of introducing a new international language will outweigh the problems? 73
- An increasing number of larger shopping areas, malls and department stores are leading to the decline of smaller corner shops. What are the advantages and disadvantages of shopping in larger shopping centres rather than smaller, more traditional shops? 67
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 274, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'accommodation'.
Suggestion: accommodation
...hnologies, a farmland to grow crops and an accommodation to live, food to eat as well as a mean ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, as for, in conclusion, in particular, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 7.85571142285 191% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1801.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 343.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25072886297 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95983132122 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.577259475219 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 569.7 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6659863908 49.4020404114 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.642857143 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 20.7667163134 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.57142857143 7.06120827912 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195763494479 0.244688304435 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716978755457 0.084324248473 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0458419429642 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130134061328 0.151304729494 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0493082696538 0.056905535591 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 50.2224549098 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.3001002004 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 78.4519038076 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.