Ppadding:0pxfamily:Calibri
ExternalClassecxhmmessagePpadding:0pxExternalClassbody.ecxhmmessagefamily:Calibri
猫头鹰在线写作实验室
谢振礼 通邮讲座 雅思+托福
ielts360toefl@hotmail.com
ExternalClassecxhmmessagePpadding:0pxExternalClassbody.ecxhmmessagefamily:Calibri
>IELTS Essay Question 2014年2月 日本雅思作文真题
The industrial pollution is increasing all around the world. Some people say that the most effective way to tackle the problem is to tax companies that are causing the pollution. Others believe that there are other ways to control the situation. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience to support your opinion.
>A plan to write--大纲(起承转合)Key words (industrial pollution, to tax companies, etc.)
起 introduction: 征收污染税，用来清除 (cure) 污染;强制环保法可以防范 (prevent) 污染.
tax money is cure (cleaning up industrial pollution), but environmental laws are prevention
承 body A: cure 治疗(清除)污染 (industrial pollution). 说明：课税的钱用来大扫除污染。
转 body B: prevention 预防(工业)污染。说明：立法来严格管制污染工业。
合 conclusion: 治疗和预防并重 both cure and prevention are important
>Example Answer by 谢振礼 Jeenn Lee Hsieh ielts360toefl@hotmail.com
To address the industrial pollution problem across the world, both cure and prevention are important. While those companies which are causing the pollution should pay to clean up their waste, strict regulations should be enforced to control the situation. Pollution taxes are not the sole answer to the environmental problem because no pollution problem has really been solved, except by imposing a legal limit on industrial emissions.
On the one hand, although money is not the sole answer to the pollution problem, it certainly can make a difference. To begin with, it makes sense to tax the polluting industries because the revenue can be used as a remedy to heal an increasingly unhealthy environment. In fact, the idea is simple--when something becomes more expensive to do, people do less of it. This means that high taxes as "trouble-shooters" are expected to discourage the industrial sector from further damaging the environment. Just think for a moment: should the fossil fuel companies and other carbon emitters be under no obligation to be responsible for the clean-up expenses, who else should foot the bills? It may be said that environmental protection is everybody's business, but it would easily become nobody's business unless green taxes are levied on those notorious "trouble-makers".
On the other hand, putting a price tag on the environment is not entirely effective to cope with the pollution problem. Because not enough is done to repair the environment being affected by the industrial pollution, strict law enforcements should be required to prevent more pollution from happening in the first place. Ironically, in some countries, given that green taxes or carbon taxes have indeed worked well to raise revenue, they invariably become a license for companies to pollute in unlimited amounts. As is better known to environmentalists, some pollution conditions seem to have become from bad to worse due to lack of either earnest law enforcements or setting legal limits, or both. Unfortunately, many companies tend to know more about the price of polluting the environment than about the value of protecting the mother Nature. This being the case, without well-defined legal regulations, it is doubtful that high pollution taxes could actually bring the global pollution to a lower level.
In conclusion, any solution to today's pollution problem must involve not only money for governments to clean up the thrash left by the industrial companies, but also severe measures designed to reduce emissions. Pollution taxes may be a remedy for an unhealthy environment, but in the absence of more effective anti-pollution laws to prevent the industrial pollution, the situation would continue to be out of control. And this is why both prevention and cure are needed simultaneously. (谢振礼 批改作文 Jeenn Lee Hsieh ielts360toefl@hotmail.com)
