Topic: Many companies provide important products or services, but also damage the environment. Some people believe that the best way to stop companies from harming the environment is to require them to pay a penalty such as higher tax or a large fine when they cause environmental damage. Other people think there are better ways to stop the companies from harming the environment. Which view do you agree with and why?
It is an irrefutable fact that environment plays an important role in human beings’ lives. With this in mind, a heated controversy exists over whether the best way to prevent companies damage the environment is to require them to pay tax or there can be other solutions. As far as I am concerned, penalty such as paying tax or fine cannot be helpful and there are better ways to persuade companies to pay more heed to the environment. The reasons for my choice are manifold, among which increasing motivation and government support dominate.
To begin with, the government can increase the impetus of companies for using materials which are environmentally friendly. In other words, the government can take some measures such as rewarding companies which do not harm the environment. Therefore, other companies can be encouraged to follow their instruction and decrease the amount of their environmentally harmful products. To illustrate my point, I would like to mention an example. There were some oil factories in my country which did not pay attention to people’s objections toward their harmful products for many years. Recently, however, one factory has collected consumers’ opinions and has decided to remove all materials harmful not only to individuals but also to the environment. In addition, during a short period of time, the government has made a decision to give a reward to this factory and appreciate its environmental efforts. Moreover, the sale and the number of customers who buy the products of this factory have increased dramatically, bringing about huge benefits for the factory. As a result, this occurrence has stimulated other factories to brush up on their products to catch up with their competitors and keep pace with them. Had not the government praised that factory, other companies would not have been motivated to change their environmentally hazardous products.
The other equally significant reason worth mentioning is that paying tax might induce companies to use low-quality materials to compensate for their financial cost. Needless to say, the lower the quality of the products, the more harmful the products. Thus, this decision would bring about more “repercussions” rather than helping the environment. The government, on the other hand, can support companies by giving funds to use organic materials and boost the awareness of companies’ leaders about the importance of the environment. By doing so, companies would feel more responsible as to their goods and products. Indeed, they will try hard and do their best to improve what they are producing. Therefore, it would not be exaggerating to say that hardly a punishment can prevent negative actions. Without a shadow of a doubt, the environment can be protected not by forcing companies to pay tax but by supporting them to adopt methods that minimize damage to the environment.
To sum up, by taking all of the above-mentioned reasons and examples into account, one can conclude that the penalty would not be efficacious to prevent companies harm the environment. There are other alternatives which can be performed by the government–such as motivating companies and supporting them. I wish all of us not take our environment for granted and take care of it as much as possible for the next generation.
53 min—536 words
