Repetition and Parallelism

Theres of Leslies Critical Analysis on Smog Merchants Pollution has been single of the big fusss of our world. This has pushed many people who are concern enough to prepare programs that impart help reduce the problem and this Smog Merchants article is technically, star of those. But I dont look at marketing the right to pollute bequeath help In any way. It Is more like allowing destruction to stick to to the environment. In this article, it was implied that firms that are able to reduce pollutants below the levels to which it is entitled receives credits, and they an switch these credits to other firms.The thing is that. First. Why will you sell defilement rights when the name itself states that youre giving someone the capability to pollute noted that the problem you are solving Is pollution itself. Second, a company who cannot reach the culture tends to buy these credits rather than improving their facility and emissions reductions because it is way cheaper. So how can t his help when the only thing it can visibly do is to create firms that are dependent to the credits of other firms that are happy in cutting pollutants in the lowest cost.It has been said that the environment is a free resource, and air Is no doubt a offend of it. In number two question, it is being asked who implicitly has property rights to the air when the EPA auctions bottom of the inning permits My answer to this would be everyone, and no. I did not depend on who gets the revenue raised by the auction. Everyone has his right to consume air or use air or whatever you would like to do with air. It is part of the environment and thus, a free resource. The EPA auctions or the allowances aim to reduce the emissions of south dioxide.And firms are allowed to buy and sell these allowances to other firms when left unused. I recall that this doesnt affect the peoples rights to the air. The environment is a priceless resource. Since then, people have been witnesses of the priceless g enerosity of the environment. We have been able to survive till this year and contemporaries because of the environment. Why? Well this is where we get our resources starting from foods to clothes to shelters. Only did the movement of companies made us pay for this priceless resource.For me, we do need to springiness up everything to protect the environment if and only if it is necessary and if it follows a original action plan. I mean, we cannot Just give up anything unless were sure It will be for a good cost. People need the environment so much most especially for the continuous production of food. Nowadays, we are potently aware that the rate of population has Increased and Is still increasing. Without the environment, it would be with child(p) for the people to preserve the remaining resources, to sustain lives, and to continue successful generations.This alike Justifies why the environmental select has an infinite value. In number quatern question Dont such regulation s standard to Glenn away environmental quality at no charge? Yes. Basically because allowing firms and individuals to pollute the environment is the same as giving away environmental quality. To Justify this, allow me give an example. let say you have a piece of candy and it is your favorite. You never let anyone touch it because it might get germs or t Off amount of money. You wanted to keep it clean, but letting your friends have it for a savor ruined it.My fleck is that, if the regulations will allow firms to pollute up to that point at no charge, it would add up in destroying the environment and its quality at no charge as well. To solve this, I think it would be better to charge a price via emissions taxes. At least(prenominal) this can reduce firms or individuals who try to emit pollutants at a very high rate if get monitored well. If this practice continues from this generation to the next, it would plausibly reduce the amount of pollution since pollutants will be less emitted and polluters will gradually increase their emissions reductions.