tpo41 Integrated writing

The reading passage supports the idea that representatives of power companies don't think as the environmentalists do. And the representatives argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. The lecture, however, argues that governments do should create new, much stricker regulations for handling and storing coal ash.

In the reading passage, the writer advances three different theries to explain why the representatives hold that view. Nevertheless, the speaker rejects them respectively.

To start with, according to the reading the effective environmental regulations already exist, but the lecturer rejects this point by arguing that the using of linver special material only happens to the new landfill. However, to the old ones they just doing as they used to do.

Also, the reading purposes that creating very strict rules might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. However, the listening argues that this is not ture. The speaker further explained that mercery have been recycled by strick rules for more than 50 years while people still use it. And so the worrying of recycling coal ash is unnecessary.

Moreover the writer continues to discuss the issue that stricts rules would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies, then they would raise the price of electricity, which would now be welcomed by the public. The lecture, on the contrary, mentions that the increase cost would be only about 1% of the original cost.

orginal listening material

There should definately be stricter rules adapted for handling and disposing of coal ash.

First, the regulations we have now for example those that require the companies to use liner are not really sufficient. Under the current regulations, liner has to be used only when a company builds a new landfill or a new pond. But companies are not required to add liner to old ponds and landfills.    

Yet several of those older disposal sites have caused significant damage. For example, the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into groundwater and contaminated drinking water. We absolutely need stricter new regulations that will prevent environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites, the new sites as well as the old ones.Second, stricter rules for handling coal ash won't necessarily mean that consumers will stop using recycled coal ash products. Let's look at how people responded to strict regulations for other dangerous materials. Take mercury for example. Mercury is a fairly hazardous material and it's been subject to very strict handling and storage rules for a long time. Yet several of those older disposal sites have caused significant damage for example the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into ground water and contaminated drinking water we absolutely need sticter new regulations that will prevent environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites. The new sites as well as the old ones.

 

Second, stricter rules for handling coal ash won't necessarily mean that consumers will stop using recycled coal ash products. Let’s look at how people responded to strict regulations for other dangerous materials take mercury for example. Mercury is a fairly hazardous material. And it’s been subject to very strict handling and storage rules for a long time. Yet despite those rules. It's been successfully and safely recycled for over fifty years. And consumers have had very few concern s about it. So it is unlikely that consumers will become afraid to buy recycled coal ash products. If stricter regulations are adopted.

 

Third, it's true that the cost of coal ash storage and handling will increase. But in this case, the result is well worth the extra cost. According to anaysts, the cost to the power companies of implementing these rules would be about fifteen billion dollars. That sounds like a lot. But when you actually do the math. It would increase the average comsurmerf house hold electricity bill by only about one percent. That's not a big price to pay for having a cleaner environment.