Repetition and Parallelism

Theres of Leslies Critical Analysis on Smog Merchants Pollution has been i of the big enigmas of our world. This has pushed many people who are concern enough to take a leak programs that leave help reduce the problem and this Smog Merchants article is technically, virtuoso of those. But I dont figure marketing the right to pollute go away help In any way. It Is more like allowing destruction to lift 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 care these credits to other firms.The thing is that. First. Why provide you sell contaminant 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 design 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 triple-crown in cutting pollutants in the lowest cost.It has been said that the environment is a free resource, and air Is no doubt a portion of it. In number two question, it is being asked who implicitly has property rights to the air when the EPA auctions keister 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 second dioxide.And firms are allowed to buy and sell these allowances to other firms when left unused. I retrieve that this doesnt affect the peoples rights to the air. The environment is a invaluable 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 multiplication because of the environment. Why? Well this is where we get our resources starting from foods to clothes to shelters. Only did the front end of companies made us pay for this priceless resource.For me, we do need to make up up everything to protect the environment if and only if it is necessary and if it follows a definite 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 intemperate for the people to preserve the remaining resources, to sustain lives, and to continue successful generations.This in addition Justifies why the environmental step has an infinite value. In number quaternion question Dont such regulati ons core 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. permit 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 degustation ruined it.My bit 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 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 in all likelihood reduce the amount of pollution since pollutants will be less emitted and polluters will gradually increase their emissions reductions.