Please review my essay. This is my first attempt. Also I need tips to improve my language. Thanks in advance.
"Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."
How would you rate the accuracy of the above statement? Support your position with reasons and examples.
The speaker states that regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete. While it is important that environmental threats be nipped in the bud, but taking action without complete knowledge may do more harm than good.
Firstly, the right course of action to be taken can be determined only if full information is available in any case and environmental threats is no exception.For example, the government of Maharashtra decided to ban the use of inorganic pesticides when it was reported that use of these pesticides caused the soil to become infertile. However, when a scientific research was conducted, it was found that when inorganic pesticides were used in optimum, they did not affect the soil fertility.Banning the use of inorganic pesticides instead would affect the harvest and in turn will impact the economy. If the government had researched thoroughly prior to imposing the new policy, they could have avoided the loss by taking the right course of action.
Another reason why regulators should not respond to potential environmental threats without complete details is that the response to the same may prove to be detrimental. Instead of providing a solution to the issue at hand, it may complicate the problem. In 2006, the Mumbai municipality passed a law stating that all vehicles must use CNG as fuel inorder to bring the water pollution in mumbai down. However,six months after the law was passed, it was found that the air pollution had infact risen in the city. The reason for this was that CNG, when used in vehicles that ran on unleaded petrol caused more smoke than the other vehicles.
Thus, regulators and policy makers should not respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete as such responses may be ineffective or even worse may aggrevate the problem at hand.
"Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete."
How would you rate the accuracy of the above statement? Support your position with reasons and examples.
The speaker states that regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete. While it is important that environmental threats be nipped in the bud, but taking action without complete knowledge may do more harm than good.
Firstly, the right course of action to be taken can be determined only if full information is available in any case and environmental threats is no exception.For example, the government of Maharashtra decided to ban the use of inorganic pesticides when it was reported that use of these pesticides caused the soil to become infertile. However, when a scientific research was conducted, it was found that when inorganic pesticides were used in optimum, they did not affect the soil fertility.Banning the use of inorganic pesticides instead would affect the harvest and in turn will impact the economy. If the government had researched thoroughly prior to imposing the new policy, they could have avoided the loss by taking the right course of action.
Another reason why regulators should not respond to potential environmental threats without complete details is that the response to the same may prove to be detrimental. Instead of providing a solution to the issue at hand, it may complicate the problem. In 2006, the Mumbai municipality passed a law stating that all vehicles must use CNG as fuel inorder to bring the water pollution in mumbai down. However,six months after the law was passed, it was found that the air pollution had infact risen in the city. The reason for this was that CNG, when used in vehicles that ran on unleaded petrol caused more smoke than the other vehicles.
Thus, regulators and policy makers should not respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete as such responses may be ineffective or even worse may aggrevate the problem at hand.
