Question
Many people say that companies and tour operators should pay the bills for cleaning up pollution, instead of the government. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge and experience.
Sample answer
Money is not the only solution to pollution problems, but it can certainly make a difference by repairing the damages done to environment by human activities. For the government to hold industrial and transportation sectors accountable for much of pollution today, it seems logical to introduce ecological taxation. If only for financial reasons, green tax regulations may be a means to an end; however, drastic measures could also turn out to be just an irony because the poor, rather than the rich, would be most affected economically.
By collecting ecological taxes, the government attempts to make private parties involved feel the social burden of their actions. Air and water pollution has become a serious trouble to individuals as well as to the society as a whole, and in this respect cash is thought to be a practical solution. The public sectors require more tax money to finance cleaning up pollution, so it makes economic sense that all trouble makers should pay their shares of expenses. Otherwise, it would be like everybody wants to eat at the government's table, but nobody wants to do the dishes, so to speak. This fiscal reform is meant to not only relieve the government from a budget stress but also discourage the use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing greenhouse gases which result in the global climate change. From this point of view, it seems clear that it is the polluting private sectors instead of the government that should be responsible for footing the bills
Taxing pollution, nevertheless, usually entails exerting a burden on consumption, accordingly affecting negatively the low-income people. What seems to be a fair practice to shoot troubles could finally backfire. It is as if green taxes levied on the rich would eventually become consumption taxes on the poor. It might happen like this: the government forces polluting businesses to pay excessive taxes as punishments, and these businesses will have no other choice but increase prices of products or services to cover higher costs, and this in turn will painfully hurt poor consumers' pockets in the end. Exactly for that theory, some economists do not recommend unpopular economic sanctions as a means to end pollution because the expected consequence is no more useful than showing a traffic ticket in order to deter a habitual speed or drunk driver. It other words, for the government to keep pollution at bay, better solutions ought to lie elsewhere.
In conclusion, cleaning up pollution nowadays is such a big task that the government cannot act alone when tackling this century's major challenge, regardless of who should pay the bills. Along with levying green taxes, the government should also consider rewarding shifts to environment-friendly energy alternatives. After all, to reduce global pollution, forces must be joined from all fronts ranging from individuals to governments to such private parties as guilty as polluting companies and fossil-burning transportation operators.
