The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
In today's deteriorating environment, solving environmental problems has become an important task for various countries and governments. And when faced with the question of how to solve the problem of garbage generated by consumers, it has been suggested that cities can reduce the amount of garbage by severely limiting the amount of garbage collected from each household. This option has some merit, but it is not the best solution.
We should see the rationale behind the idea of reducing trash by limiting the amount of trash generated from each household. First of all, we should acknowledge that the restriction of the city entails a certain amount of coercion. This compulsion, if respected by the local residents, will in turn encourage them to consume less, thus reducing the amount of waste produced and solving the environmental problem. Secondly, in terms of the composition of waste produced by consumers, the waste produced by each household does account for a large proportion of the waste produced by consumers. Therefore, by limiting the amount of garbage collected from each household, the amount of consumer garbage can be effectively reduced.
However, there are a number of problems with this option. In terms of feasibility, residents may not be able to accept the limits imposed by the city. This is because recycling is the responsibility of the city's public administration and because residents pay taxes to the state as taxpayers, so the city should use those taxes to better serve the public. However, limiting the amount of recyclable garbage is clearly an attempt to evade the city's responsibility to manage the city. Second, from an enforcement cost perspective, by limiting the amount of trash that can be collected from each household, this is also unrealistic, as the cost to the government of effectively monitoring hundreds of thousands of households in a city is likely to be much higher than the benefits of solving the environmental problems that result. Third, it is also difficult to define what level of waste should be collected from households. If the limit is set too low and the amount of waste collected is too little, the lives of a large number of people will be affected; if the limit is too loose and the amount of waste collected is too much, it will not be able to solve the environmental problems.
In addition, in terms of the effectiveness of the scheme, limiting the amount of waste that can be collected from the population may not be effective in reducing the amount of waste generated by consumption. First of all, this is because limiting the amount of garbage that can be collected does not by itself limit the consumption behavior of residents. If people still consume and produce a lot of garbage, but the government does not collect it, then they will throw it away, which will cause more pollution. Second, a significant percentage of the waste generated by consumers may be environmentally friendly materials that can be recycled, and limiting the amount of garbage collected from residents may in turn result in the government receiving less recycled material, which can lead to further waste.
In summary, while there is some justification for cities to limit the amount of trash they collect from residents, this option is flawed from an effectiveness and feasibility standpoint.