Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay to clean up the pollution that they produced. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Pollution

is a harmful factor to human health and the environment. In

this

respect, it is perceived by some individuals that

manufacturers

and

companies

,

instead

of the authorities, should pay to clean up their

contamination

, and I almost agree with

this

idea. There are some advantages if

manufacturers

clean their

pollution

.

Firstly

, people can be provided more welfare services by the government because cleaning

contamination

by private individuals may reduce the expenditure,

for

example

Add the comma(s)

,example

show examples

the wage of

workers

, states should pay for

this

issue .

as a result

, the government can invest in many other services

instead

of purifying

pollution

.

Secondly

, the rate of

pollution

may diminish.

manufacturers

should spend money to clean their

pollution

because they may need to employ

workers

for

this

issue, and they should pay the wage of these

workers

.

as a result

, if they want their

companies

to be profitable they should reduce the amount of

pollution

in order to decrease the number of

workers

that they should pay.

therefore

, cleaning

contamination

by

manufacturers

may increase social services and reduce

pollution

.

However

, Some people believe that if

companies

clean up their

pollution

, it may have a negative effect. They argue that cleaning by

companies

may increase the rate of inflation because they have to spend part of their financial resources on cleaning up the

pollution

, so may increase the price of their products in order to offset their loss of money.

Thus

, it can have a negative impact in terms of economic view. In conclusion, If

manufacturers

and

companies

purify their

contamination

may have more positive effects .

therefore

, I almost agree with the idea that they should clean their

pollution

.