Opravy

On the contemporary society, environment pollution has now caused wide public concern.

Thus lead to a hot discussion on the issue about which is the most important field that the government should take to protect?

Different people will give different responses to this question from their own characters, emotional concerns, and even educational backgrounds.

Some prefer to develop new energy source, while others may choose to preserve the habitat of plant and animal.

However, when it comes to me, I support passing laws to prevent air and water pollution for the reasons as follow.

Admittedly, it is true that developing new energy sources and protecting animal and their habitats have their own merits.

It means that by using new energy material, we can stop using fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, we also can have more energy to develop our society and less harm to our environment.

At the same time, preserving natural places and the animals live in there is equal to protect ourselves.

It is common sense that in the ecosystem, everything influents each other, we may suffer from food shortage for a short term because of the extinguishing of the animals and for a long run, we may lose the priceless gene diversification, which may greatly impact the understanding of some diseases.

What fancy proposals of the two, aren’t they?

But is any of them the most important and wise one?

When taking more factors into consideration, as far as I am concerned, the significance of regulating and restraining the large factory to pollute air and water overweights the others.

The malfunction controlling air and water pollution has provoked public concern.

Unfortunately, people find that barely can companies to reduce the air and water pollution only by obligation.

It is that no law is set by the government leads to this situation.

Therefore we are tempted to ask ourselves: Isn’t it indispensable for the government to set the law to reduce the pollution?

Isn’t it crucial for the government to realize the necessity of the law?

Isn’t it compulsory for the government to control the air and water pollution by setting a law?

Obviously, companies cannot diminish the release of waste air and water to the environment without supervising and punishment.

Consequently, the government needs to implement a law to constrain the factories to harm our environment further rigorously and urgently, since most of them pay more attention to profit but not environmental protection.

The critical of protecting air and water is that is related to our health because we cannot live without them and once their polluted, we are facing the threat of diseases.

Although the industrial development benefits the masses in some field, it does not mean that we need to take the risk to put ourselves into the toxic air and water, which will lead to a disease eventually and gradually.

We may easily quote a single example to illustrate this.

By the late 18th century and the first part of the 19th century, coal came into large-scale use during the Industrial Revolution.

The resulting smog and soot had serious health impacts on the residents.

In the Great Smog of 1952, toxic pollutants from factories and home fireplaces released to air killed at least 4,000 people in London over the course of several days.

Examples like this also happen in China nowadays.

With the swift industrial development, Beijing the capital of China, suffering the most serious air pollution; Compared to citizens living in southern China, the average lifespan for Beijing’s citizens is five to six years shorter.

The air pollution in Beijing causes lower birth rates and higher adult mortality from respiratory related diseases.

Lung cancer rates have risen over 60% in the past decade.

In light of this, one could deny important that the government takes action to forbid air and water pollution, and neither could they afford the results to continue the situation without control and regulation.

Moreover, releasing toxic air and dumpling waste water into rivers will cause demaging to the ecosystem.