2. 职称英语
  3. It has been reported that the government of Kunming is considering levyi

It has been reported that the government of Kunming is considering levyi

游客2023-11-25  23
问题         It has been reported that the government of Kunming is considering levying a 10-yuan pollution fee per day on tourists in the area near the Dianchi Lake. From the excerpts, you can find that this practice has achieved much applause, but there have also been doubt and criticism.
        Write an article of NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should:
        1. summarize the opinions from both sides, and then
        2. express your opinion towards this practice, especially whether it can achieve the due result.
        Yu Xiangrong from www.voc.com.cn
        It’s somewhat reasonable to solve the pollution problem through economic means. Natural resources are limited, and you have to pay for your use of the resources. Those who pollute should be held accountable in treating pollution, so it’s all right to charge the tourists. In addition, collecting pollution fees from tourists does not mean not to punish polluting factories.
        The pollution of the Dianchi Lake has long been a problem. In recent years, the pollution is becoming increasingly worse and is listed among the State Council’s major pollution treatment programs. Although the government has already spent billions of yuan to deal with the problem, together with a series of treatment measures, there are still no notable achievements.
        Since the source of pollution is industrial and daily sewage, the key to controlling pollution is to curb the discharge of wastewater from the two sources. In recent years, pollution treatment is consistently outpaced by pollution, so it’s important to change the old mindset in the real practice of pollution treatment. Prevention is much more effective and important than clean-up. The plan to collect pollution fees might be regarded as part of prevention. However, still we must make it clear that tourists are not the major cause of the pollution of the lake. Though economic means may not be the most effective way to prevent pollution, there must be some rigid rules. To some extent, charging pollution fees is only a supplement to the many ways of pollution prevention, and local authorities have missed a key part of pollution treatment by targeting tourists alone.
        Fan Zijun from China Business Herald
        When tourists come to the Dianchi Lake, they are already contributing to local hotels, restaurants and scenic spots. They are the source of money for the local tourism, so it’s unreasonable to ask them to pay extra money when they have already paid for every service they’ve got.
        In the name of protecting local ecological environment, the fee collection plan covers six counties and districts around the lake. Every tourist is supposed to pay 10 yuan for each day’s stay. Such an ambitious fee collection program is astonishing.
        The local government should not use environmental protection as an excuse to make money. They should allocate some of the tourism incomes to local ecological and environmental improvement, so that they can attract more tourists in the future. Now, however, they want to transfer the environmental cost to tourists when it is the locals themselves who should be responsible for the result Such a short-sighted plan could drive potential tourists away.
        The deterioration of the local ecological environment is caused by illegal commercial development and improper disposal of wastewater by some companies. If the local government targets tourists instead of the real troublemakers, it’s unfair and will do nothing to help the local ecological environment.
选项
答案                                                                 Well-Planned Pollution Treatment Is Needed
        The government of Kunming is allegedly considering levying a 10-yuan pollution fee per day on each tourist in the area near the Dianchi Lake. The public has concernedly voiced their opinions on this news. Some believe that such measure has a ground to charge the tourists as those who cause pollution should be responsible for addressing consequent problems and it can serve as a supplementary way to pollution prevention and treatment. However, some argue that local government, by this means, shifts the blame onto tourists. It is unfair to have visitors pay for pollution caused by illegal commercial development and improper disposal of wastewater.
        My viewpoint is that Kunming government should develop such an innovative approach into a holistic plan. What people strongly disagree with may not be pollution fee collection, but they are uncertain that how the fee will be allocated and whether pollution treatment will be effective. Admittedly, we can’t say that tourists have nothing to do with the environmental pollution of the Dianchi Lake, but a convincing proposal should be put forth and show people its flexibility. In other words, the fee collection process and the pollution treatment should be more transparent so that the public including tourists are aware of how their money are spent, what progress the pollution treatment makes as well as what kind of prospect they can expect based on current plan.
        In addition, if government collects pollution fees while turning a blind eye to bigger polluters, such as factories that release industrial sewage into the Lake, it’s really unfair and does harm to tourists and local tourism, let alone good intention to local environment improvement. So in the plan, government must manage a balance between pollution fee collection and other practices against pollution around Dianchi Lake.
        In conclusion, this pollution fee collection initiative is worth encouraging but also up for further assessment and improvement.
解析         材料针对游客是否应该为旅游景点的污染买单给出了正反两种观点。
        材料一肯定了向游客收取污染费的合理性（somewhat reasonable）：因为大家必须为使用资源买单（pay for your use of the resources），游客和企业都要为各自的行为负责（should be held accountable in treating pollution）。收取污染费是一种经济手段，是治污的补充措施（a supplement）。
        材料二则认为这一做法并不合理（unreasonable）：游客已经花钱购买了各项服务（already paid for every service），不应再向他们额外收费；这种做法实际上是打着环保的借口赚钱（as an excuse to make money），把自身的责任转嫁到游客身上，这种短视行为将赶跑潜在的游客（drive potential tourists away）。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3218847.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)