【简介】感谢网友“雕龙文库”参与投稿，这里小编给大家分享一些，方便大家学习。
42. The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how
our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products
and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires
them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and
about regulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help
companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations
compel me to disagree overall with the argument.
First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably.
At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be
subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement
requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover,
a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to
every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does
more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company on the coast. It
would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or,
in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement
measures.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly
reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious.
Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in
some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more
influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.
Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous
effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before
regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government
reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA might be overburdened with
its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage
by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.
In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what
environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation
before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speakers recommended
approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it
ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage
resulting from bureaucratic delay.
42. The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how
our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products
and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires
them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and
about regulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help
companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations
compel me to disagree overall with the argument.
First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably.
At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be
subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement
requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover,
a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to
every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does
more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company on the coast. It
would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or,
in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement
measures.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly
reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious.
Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in
some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more
influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.
Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous
effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before
regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government
reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA might be overburdened with
its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage
by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.
In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what
environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation
before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speakers recommended
approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it
ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage
resulting from bureaucratic delay.
