Issue 42请指教,谢谢!

dingxiang

42. “Scientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”

The author argues that companies should resist changing their products or processes per recommendations from scientists until these recommendations become government regulations since scientists continually changing their recommendations in regard to environment. To some extent, I agree with the author's general assertion. However the author extends this broad assertion too far while overlooks some important factors which also contribute to this issue. On balance, my points of agreement and contention with the author involve a fundeamental and deep analysis of the issue as stated below.

On the one hand, I have to admit that the author's argument,although suffers from some obvious drawbacks, has some merits in stating that companies can't always follow what the scietists recommend. The implicit rationale behind it accords with our common sense and normal practices. After all, the first priority of companies is to produce, to maximize their profits with the requisite that they do not violate the governmental regulations. Since every change in products and process involves a lot of efforts, money, human resources to apply, it is unrealistic and unfair to require companies to follow the scientists’ recommendations whenever there are any.

Furthermore, scientists’ recommendations are usually divided into different schools even if it is about the same environmental problem. Thus, it is very difficult for companies to decide or judge to what extent, and which recommendations they should follow. And it is the government's responsibility to summarize, to judge which recommendations the companies should follow. All these arguments discussed above demonstrate beyond doubt that companies should wait and follow governmental recommendations in general circumstances.

On the other hand, recognizing a more applicable choice must incorporate some other essential factors, which may also contribute to this issue. The author here overemphasized the relative significance of the government in regard to its ability and efficiency. The argument is problematic in two aspects. First, it fails to consider that government, in nature, is bureaucratic and low efficient. It normally takes much longer time for a government to make any decision, thus a wait-and-see attitude within companies might cause some serious environmental problems before the government even realize there is a problem and take actions. The second argument-it might be noticed by others-is that government regulations is sometimes biased, also due to its nature. For example, when President Bush took office, the administration decided to abandon the Kyoto agreement which is agreed by major countries in the world as a global effort to curb the environmental problem of excessive emission of carbon dioxide. The reason behind it is that the Bush administration is mainly sponsored by traditional industries, such as oil and petrol, so these lobbyists actually influenced the administration to abandon the Kyoto agreement .Accordingly, I tend to concede that when it comes to some certain circumstances, it is partially inappropriate to wait and see the governmental regulations, because it is biased in the first place.

In conclusion, whether companies should follow scientists’ recommendations or wait for governmental regulations is a complex issue. Consequently, there is no easy or certain answer to it. To me, companies should basically follow governmental regulations while not forget their responsibility to protect the environment if there is no regulations to refer to

kaizizhao

mm也忒牛了吧，先不说文章怎么样。30分钟能写这么多出来！

dingxiang

唉, 可惜考试的时候没考这道, 郁闷

emeraldth

Although it is true that scientific definitions for what is beneficial
or harmful to the environment may change with the latest research
results, simply waiting until government regulations before changing
products and processes is not the best strategy for companies, for
three reasons.

The first reason is that companies that refuse to
actively change their products and processes for the sake of
environment lose their reputation. The problem of pollution and energy
conservation has become one of the hottest topic of the whole world.
People are paying much more attention to the environment as we meet
more hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions. A lot of
companies have been trying hard to declare themselves to be "green" or
at least pretend to be so. Under this situation, a company keeping
silent and simply waiting for government regulations will undoubtedly
lose its reputation.

The second reason is more directly
related to the profits. Quite a few far-sighted companies have been
putting resources to change their products and processes, or even
investing into researches of new energy sources. A perfect example is
the success of Toyota Prius. As the price of crude oil increases all
the way to $100, there have been more than 390,000 American owning a
Toyota Prius, the famous hybrid car that can be driven by both gasoline
and electricity. At the same time, German vehicle companies have
suffered a hard time in sales because their low efficiency in gas
usage. Only because Toyota designed this product before the government
encouraged high mpg cars and far before the potentially released
regulation about mpg, could it make such a big success.

One more
reason that companies should be active in adjusting their products and
processes for environment needs is that only after companies have
prepared themselves well enough that they can have impact on the
lobbyists and push for government regulations that match their own
interest. Nowadays, there have been at least five bills asking for a
nationwide regulation to prevent greenhouse gas emissions. And all
these bills are being pushed by quite a few companies which include
vehicle companies that have redesigned their engines to decrease
emissions, bio-tech companies that have grown Ethanol crops on farms in
Georgia, traditional oil companies that have improved their refinery
techniques, even computer companies whose motherboards are 98%
recyclable, and so on. On the other hand, those companies who rejected
to do so, will be punished by the future regulations, probably through
paying tax for carbon dioxide.

Admittedly, it may be hard and
risky to follow each new recommendation. But it is undoubtedly harmful
for companies to take a wait-and-see strategy. Any company that hopes
to be seen as "green" need to consider each scientific recommendation
carefully and make decisions accordingly but also quickly.