79. This newspaper editorial concludes that our city should build a plant for burning
7 G! ^& a/ ], z/ ?4 M: Gtrash in order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills. The
$ h+ i8 F/ t6 Y2 m( V4 ^2 V( Pauthor adds that an incinerator could offer economic benefits as well, since incinerators ! j9 B3 D4 ~( @9 A5 W6 e* k0 u
can be adapted to generate small amounts of electricity for other uses, and since ash : Y) t! `' @" R a
residue from some kinds of trash can be used as a soil conditioner. Even if these claims $ M1 @, |- Q/ S' [$ P B
are true, the author's argument is unconvincing in three important respects.
+ k$ \7 m7 m6 m. S- _ To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating * w7 J; \ D' H: U* o
trash. It is possible, for example, that respiratory problems resulting from the air
' r0 Q i. q! R8 ]pollution caused by burning trash might be so extensive that they would outweigh the
, G3 h x" B: u+ y0 R! W- N! r+ d2 ahealth risks associated with landfills. If so, the author's conclusion that switching to
- z4 ?; x4 a( nincineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined.- U h# n3 A' N
Secondly, the author assumes that discontinuing landfill operations would abate
q$ u/ E* E' ~6 s! Gthe heath threats they now pose. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible
& T" n7 ^4 R& P* X$ ^% [that irreversible environmental damage to subterranean water supplies, for example, has
6 B0 t' `5 f' Zalready occurred. In this event, changing from landfills to incinerators might not avoid
3 i4 G! E) v1 y2 N7 mor abate serious public health problems.
% X% `& |0 D; _5 f9 f( R% U6 @ Thirdly, the author's implicit claim that incinerators are economically - `4 _$ a/ i J1 h8 `9 B
advantageous to landfills is poorly supported. Only two small economic benefits of
. ?& H3 I% i* [/ I- M3 W4 C& zincineration are mentioned, while the costs associated with either burning trash or
; G; A# P& R: q, o. h7 b1 z- R& Nswitching refuse disposal systems are ignored. In all likelihood, such costs would be
* E- B, V) ]! ^* G+ e+ U; gsignificant, and may very well outweigh the economic benefits.
9 t5 ^4 C9 P' Y! j In conclusion, the author's argument provides inadequate justification for
2 l* J; A' ^! B* z( ^switching from one disposal system to the other. As it stands, the argument takes into
! I9 h! p% q* v( saccount only a limited number of benefits from the change, while addressing none of its
0 R6 `3 O( I2 t. hcosts. To better evaluate the argument, we must first examine all the health risks posed
) _) Z& w, j0 F( Uby each refuse disposal system and conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of each - h2 o6 w+ U1 z) H% y0 m
system, taking account of the cost of the new system, the cost of the changeover itself, - f0 @% k0 ~6 ]" \2 F. t, Z4 j
and the expected costs to the community of health problems resulting from each system. |
发表于 2012-8-15 21:50:16
