Essay by Jeenn Lee Hsieh
essay3663@hotmail.com

Many people say that companies and tour operators should pay the bills for cleaning up pollution, instead of the government. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge and experience.

谢振礼老师对于考前猜题毫无兴趣。不曾失败过，因为不曾预测过。研究雅思写作试题的演变与走向，发现大作文真题循环出现，或不同时间，或不同考区。真题时而化妆旅行五洲四海，内行人认得出来。比方说，在过去半年内，谢振礼整理80道海外真题，其中至少10道真题近来在中国考区重现。反方向也可能，国内有15个Task 2 试题流窜他乡，只是不得而知何年何月再见唐山。

2012年2月巴西雅思A类写作真题是议论清除污染的责任，到底擦屁股的庞大经费应该是从哪里来？是造成污染企业？还是政府单位？题外指示：考生的答题立场可以被允许脚踏两条船，可是总得说出道理来。

近期内，谢老师所盘点的海外雅思写作真题，并兔年与龙年，将全部投稿发布友善网站，分享网友。大概每一题都有一篇范文参考。

Money is not the only solution to pollution problems, but it can certainly make a difference by repairing the damages done to environment by human activities. For the government to hold industrial and transportation sectors accountable for much of pollution today, it seems logical to introduce ecological taxation. If only for financial reasons, green tax regulations may be a means to an end; however, drastic measures could also turn out to be just an irony because the poor, rather than the rich, would be most affected economically.

By collecting ecological taxes, the government attempts to make private parties involved feel the social burden of their actions. Air and water pollution has become a serious trouble to individuals as well as to the society as a whole, and in this respect cash is thought to be a practical solution. The public sectors require more tax money to finance cleaning up pollution, so it makes economic sense that all trouble makers should pay their shares of expenses. Otherwise, it would be like everybody wants to eat at the government's table, but nobody wants to do the dishes, so to speak. This fiscal reform is meant to not only relieve the government from a budget stress but also discourage the use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing greenhouse gases which result in the global climate change. From this point of view, it seems clear that it is the polluting private sectors instead of the government that should be responsible for footing the bills

Taxing pollution, nevertheless, usually entails exerting a burden on consumption, accordingly affecting negatively the low-income people. What seems to be a fair practice to shoot troubles could finally backfire. It is as if green taxes levied on the rich would eventually become consumption taxes on the poor. It might happen like this: the government forces polluting businesses to pay excessive taxes as punishments, and these businesses will have no other choice but increase prices of products or services to cover higher costs, and this in turn will painfully hurt poor consumers' pockets in the end. Exactly for that theory, some economists do not recommend unpopular economic sanctions as a means to end pollution because the expected consequence is no more useful than showing a traffic ticket in order to deter a habitual speed or drunk driver. It other words, for the government to keep pollution at bay, better solutions ought to lie elsewhere.

In conclusion, cleaning up pollution nowadays is such a big task that the government cannot act alone when tackling this century's major challenge, regardless of who should pay the bills. Along with levying green taxes, the government should also consider rewarding shifts to environment-friendly energy alternatives. After all, to reduce global pollution, forces must be joined from all fronts ranging from individuals to governments to such private parties as guilty as polluting companies and fossil-burning transportation operators.