Tpo41

The lecture and the reading passage disagree on the merit of creating strict laws against the handling of that dangerous waste product the coal ash. The writer states that it is unnecessary for those rules, and they probably cause harmful consequences. He suggests that these laws might already exist, might discourage the recycling process, and increase the cost for the consumers. In contrary, the professor in the lecture casts doubt this idea; he thinks the view of the passage is detrimental. Following are how the listening rebuffs the three reasons of the passage.

First of all, the author asserts that those regulations are already exists. He states that the most required law that needed is that block the leakage of the coal ash from the linear. However, the professor challenges this point; he claims that those regulations are not applied on old lines and that it is why they are insufficient. Furthermore, they must create laws work on old and new lines to encourage replacement the old cracked lines which cause leakage of the coal ash in the water and contaminates it.

Secondly, the writer in the passage argues that those regulations might discourage the recycling process. Usually, most of the coal ash waste product is recycled and used to create some valuable building material such as cement and concrete. Therefore, those highly strictly rules probably affect negatively on that process. Whereas, the lecturer debuts this argument. He elaborates that these regulations are not necessary to raise the consumer's concerns and decline the recycling operations. He presents an example of the Mercury metal which is a very dangerous highly toxic product. The government creates highly strict regulations about how to handle it, but that does not affect negatively on the way or the process of recycling it. In fact, consumers are still willing to purchase it.

Finally, the reading passage states that those regulations would increase the cost of handling from power companies which in turn raises the prices negatively for the consumers. While, the speaker refutes this reason also. He points out that it is true this might increase the cost of the customer; however, it would be worthwhile. Moreover, this increment in the prices of the power which might reaches fifty billion dollars. But, this leads to 1% increase in the bill prices of the individuals which is not that much high. In fact, this prices is nothing against the benefits of protecting the environment from that dangerous coal ash waste products.