42. “Scientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“科學家在不斷重新制定對環(huán)境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的標準。由于這些標準不停變動，面對新建議，公司應(yīng)該保持他們的產(chǎn)品和流程不變直到新的建議成為國家標準為止?！?BR> 1. 科學家的建議也并不一定都是正確的。很有可能他的結(jié)論適用面很窄?；蛘咚玫降臄?shù)據(jù)有錯誤等等。
2. 對企業(yè)來說頻繁的變更產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)流程會造成很大的經(jīng)濟損失
3. 誠然等待國家制定標準很可能存在滯后等問題但是比較起來以上的問題還是應(yīng)該等待國家制定標準。此外一個折中的方案是國家成立專門的機構(gòu)快速地對新的方案和建議做出評價并迅速制定標準
split the difference lag evaluate
View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,
View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therefore do harm to the companies .
View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.
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 (adj. 觀望的) 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 (adv. 非常, 極端), 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 (pork: government money, jobs, or favors used by politicians as patronage) 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 (Environmental Protection Agency 美國環(huán)保署) 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 speaker’s 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.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“科學家在不斷重新制定對環(huán)境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的標準。由于這些標準不停變動，面對新建議，公司應(yīng)該保持他們的產(chǎn)品和流程不變直到新的建議成為國家標準為止?！?BR> 1. 科學家的建議也并不一定都是正確的。很有可能他的結(jié)論適用面很窄?；蛘咚玫降臄?shù)據(jù)有錯誤等等。
2. 對企業(yè)來說頻繁的變更產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)流程會造成很大的經(jīng)濟損失
3. 誠然等待國家制定標準很可能存在滯后等問題但是比較起來以上的問題還是應(yīng)該等待國家制定標準。此外一個折中的方案是國家成立專門的機構(gòu)快速地對新的方案和建議做出評價并迅速制定標準
split the difference lag evaluate
View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,
View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therefore do harm to the companies .
View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.
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 (adj. 觀望的) 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 (adv. 非常, 極端), 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 (pork: government money, jobs, or favors used by politicians as patronage) 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 (Environmental Protection Agency 美國環(huán)保署) 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 speaker’s 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.