Many people believe that companies and individuals should pay to clean up the environment in proportion to the amount of pollution they have produced. To what extent to you agree or disagree?

It is often argued that people should be charged in accordance with the amount of pollution they produce. While I accept that certain organisations should be penalised for this, I believe that 1not every individual should be forcedevery individual should not be forced to pay a fine. There are several reasons why 2large companiesthe giant entrepreneurs should pay for contaminating the land. 3Having penalised with a specific amount of money factories will help the government to raise money which can be used in a variety of long-term and rationalised measures to mitigate the pollution from the earth. This will also deter them from producing more 4pollutiongarbage and pollution. 5Take London as an example, where governments have invested recently a hefty amount of money in public transportation, in particular, local buses which have been designed to be much more efficient than the older ones. So these vehicles discharge fewer 6harmful emissionscombustible pollutants into the air. Also, these 7profit-driven companiesself-centered companies sometimes exploit natural resources such as forests, 8water, landwater land and agricultural 9landlands, 10beyond sustainable limitsbeyond all their limits just to 11increase their profitsincrease the profit. If these companies are not obliged to 12contribute the money thatshare the amount of money, which is required to curb 13pollutionpollutions, they will become more short-sighted (or greedy) in terms of making more money without even caring about the 14their impact on the climate and the environmentimpact on climate change and environment. However, I would argue that 15not every individual should be liableevery individual should not be liable to 16pay the proposed finepay recommended fine. It is unrealistic that we can stop people from polluting the 17environmentuniverse merely by imposing charges. 18Because people need electricity to enjoy technologies, a farmland to grow crops and an accommodation to live, food to eat as well as a mean of transportation to travel. Furthermore, if people from 19disadvantageddevastated backgrounds are charged more for the impact they have on 20climate, itclimate; it will create 21a situation of serious hardshipan upheaval situation where lower-income groups would not be able to pay even for their daily necessities. In conclusion, organisations who are earning millions of pounds by exploiting natural resources should only be obliged to share the amount of money in curbing the pollution rather than all the common citizens.