[练笔点评]刚开始准备issue,献上自己练笔一篇,求痛批!!!

mlmlml

题目:“The best way to preserve the natural environment is to impose penalties — whether fines, imprisonment, or other punishments — on those who are most responsible for polluting or otherwise damaging it.”


In contemporary society, the issue of the way to preserve the natural environment is much concerned to a point where a wide discussion has been aroused. One conventional acceptance is that the best way to preserve the natural environment is to impose penalties. In weighing up both the prospective benefits and potential risks, to large extent, I am on the opposite side of this claim and reckon that it assumer an illogic and irrational view.
At first glance, I have to concede that punishment such as fines and imprisonment, at certain degree, can benefit environment. For one thing, such punishment, on some occasions, can frighten individuals who attempt to ravage the environment.
Nevertheless, the conclusion that imposing penalties is the best way to preserve environment is not immune to several defects, which degrades this claim as problematic. As is often the case, the key point of preservation of the environment lies not so much in the emphasis of the punishment. Furthermore, the preservation of the environment is acknowledged as a complicated task whose approach involves a combination of efforts on both the internal and external layers and cannot possibly be realized by simple sets of imposing penalties.
What is more, the feasibility of the punishment such as fines and imprisonment is vulnerable to any challenge or question. A multitude of impediments that are expected to encounter such as the standard of punishment and the definition of breaking-environment behaviors are acknowledged as indispensable elements that play decisive roles in minimizing the viability. In this sense, it is almost a mission impossible to execute. In addition, according to a survey by International Environment (Vol. 46), 87.4% of the respondents between 18 and 75 in E.U. run the risk of the perspective that imposing penalties is the best way to preserve environment in that it is significantly difficult to define behaviors which are pernicious to the environment.
In addition, there is no point to claim that imposing penalties serves as the best solution to preserve the environment, besides which this proposal, to carry the idea further, is awkward in serving as a key that guarantees the effectiveness and efficiency. For instance, the green house effect, caused by the over emission of carbon dioxide, and the reduction of the ozone, cannot be readily eliminated by simply imposing penalties.
In conclusion, there is no point to claim that the best way to preserve environment is to impose penalties.

shapooya

Imposing heavy penalties on those who pollute or destroy the environment is one way to preserve our environment. But it is not the only way; nor is it the best way. Penalties may elicit grudging compliance, but other approaches—those that instill a sense of genuine commitment—are likely to be more effective in the long term.
Admittedly, motivating compliance with environmental regulations by way of penalties will serve environmental goals up to a point. The deterrent effect of these remedies cannot be denied. Yet it should not be overstated. Some businesses may attempt to avoid punishment by concealing their activities, bribing (lobbying) legislators to modify regulations, or moving operations to jurisdictions that allow their environmentally harmful activities. Others might calculate the trade-off between accepting punishment and polluting, budget in advance for anticipated penalties, then openly violate the law. My intuition is that this practice is a standard operating mode among some of our largest manufacturers.
A better way to ensure environmental protection is to inculcate a sense of genuine commitment into our corporate culture—through education and through shareholder involvement. When key corporate executives become committed to values, the regulations associated with those values become a codification of conscience rather than obstacles to circumvent. The machinations and maneuverings described earlier will thereby be supplanted by thoughtful concern about all the implications of one’s actions. Moreover, commitment-driven actions are likely to benefit the environment over and above what the law requires. For example, while a particular regulation might permit a certain amount of toxic effluents, businesses committed to environmental protection may avoid harmful emissions altogether.
Instilling a genuine sense of commitment through education and shareholder action is not just a better approach in theory, it is also less costly overall than a compliance-driven approach. Regulatory systems inherently call for legislative committees, investigations and enforcement agencies, all of which adds to the tax burden of the citizens whom these regulations are designed to protect. Also, delays typically associated with bureaucratic regulation may thwart the purpose of the regulations, since environmental problems can quickly become very grave.
In sum, penalties for violating environmental-protection laws are essentially expensive band-aids. A commitment-based approach, involving education and shareholder activism, can instill in corporate culture a sense an environmental conscience, resulting in far more effective environmental protection.

共享一下