The soda ban is a bad idea because it was not fairly put into law. According to Karin Klein in the opinion piece “ Soda a problem but…” states “...New York Michael R. Bloomberg may be laudable, but is wrong for one man, even an elected official and even a well-meaning one at that, to dictate to people how big a cup of surgery soda they’re allowed.” (Klein pg. 288). This shows that the soda ban is wrong because one person should not be allowed to make a decision on his own. The soda ban should be voted on because that everyone will agree with it.
Later in the article, he even agrees that the environmental hazards that really worry environmentalist are that are caused by businesses and man-made things. Limbaugh exclaims that private property rights will not be curbed in this country for the efforts of preserving wetlands to save species like the spotted owls. He does try to leave the article on a much lighter note at the end, ensure the readers that the earth, which is capable of rejuvenation, will fix itself. Logic One of the most obvious lacking rhetoric in the passage is that Rush Limbaugh uses no other credible source other than himself. By doing this it makes his side of the argument less effective because, “where is he getting this information”?
Naomi Klein's novel, This Changes Everything highlights the most imperative actions that need to be taken towards climate change. Klein discusses that as a society we overlook the causes and the changes that need to happen to the systems that are making the crisis inevitable. She encourages formulating a mass movement for climate change that supports changes in the economic system. Klein’s main argument is that, most people think that climate change is a threat, “we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism” which is the “reigning ideology” of our time (p.18). The purpose of the book is that Klein is supplying society with a challenge: are we on the right path, are we doing the right things for ourselves and for the future, or is this the best we can be?
I agree, it is factual that we are facing severe environmental challenges. Even if the skeptics do not believe in the global warming, it is undeniable that the air and water pollution are caused by human activities. It is unhelpful to argue who is right, who gets more evidences or who eventually wins. If people just ignore the negative environmental impacts and do not implement any practical plans to deal with, our future generation will definitely suffer from
this process by EPA does not grant the public the opportunity to be heard on whether the dumping will adverselty affect them but rather the public is reduced to mere spectators. Further, the Ocean Dumping Management Act has been challenged to clearly articulate the scope and benefits of the act, given shifts in the types of materials proposed for ocean disposal, multiple agencies involved in ocean dumping permitting, and reduced public attention to environmental and human health risks of ocean disposal. Conclusion Unless the act is reviewed so as to ensure the public participation and aim at balancing between the economic and environmental tradeoffs. The act will be a mere rhetoric which does not solve the real problem but rather burden the people it seeks to protect through unnecessary
Singer says that the help being offered by the individuals and by the government is nowhere near the kind of help that the situation requires to be resolved. He argues that people especially those living an affluent lifestyle need to alter their entire perception of morality. He puts forward the assumption he relies on in order to continue with his argument (automatically considering that assumption to be true): death and suffering due to the lack of basic necessities of life are bad. Singer then states the principle which is if we can prevent terrible occurrences without sacrificing something of equal moral significance then we should go ahead and do so; this principle plays a major role in his argument. Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance.
Lao-Tzu says that the people become less virtuous when their government places more prohibitions on them. I agree with Lao-Tzu in this statement. People would not automatically become righteous simply because the government has forbidden things that are deemed immoral or socially unacceptable. The prohibitions may just hide the problems and may not necessarily solve much. The attention that the prohibition has brought towards the issue may cause people to purposely seek out loopholes or other ways to exploit these laws.
In the U.S. hydraulic fracking has been a main source of energy during today’s times, it 's cheap effectiveness makes us think this . People should know how hydraulic fracturing is not as clean and amazing as we think it is.Hydraulic fracking cannot be a sustainable option for America. There are too many faults for it to be upheld in the long run and we cannot depend on it as our main resource of energy forever. The way hydraulic fracturing is affecting the environment is too harmful for it to be a sustainable option. It contaminates drinking water, turns unused lands into industrial dumps.
As a result, externalities causes markets to be inefficient and fail to maximize total surplus. Therefore, government must take actions to internalize the externality. For example, it can impose a tax on the producer of the pollution or anything that may harm others’ interest, to reduce the negative effect. The following part of the investigative work will start from recognizing the issue of contaminate, and then evaluate the current performance of the British government policy of environment in air quality control. Environmental protection is always a major concern for government.
(AGG) As Daniel J. Boorstin had clarified, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” (Goodreads) This relates to the government form Fahrenheit 451 trying to hide the truth from the society, and had eventually killed them. (BS-1) The government tries to control the amount of knowledge and take advantage of the lack of knowledge. (BS-2) The effort to control this trait, while helping the society, will eventually damage the society. (BS-3) The lack of memory power will help avoid controversies while damaging many relationships, but, this can be fixed by slowing your thoughts and clearing your mind. (TS) In the book, Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury 's key message is to remind his readers about the value of knowledge and memory, and the dangers of trying to control them.