Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they change the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
The reading.
Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash.
However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view: they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. They use the following arguments to support their position
Regulations Exist
First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner—special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build.
Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash
Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks. Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products.
Increased Cost
Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies—perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.
The Lecture.
(Main points of reading)
1. Environmentalists in the United States suggest that the government should create new and stricter regulations to cope with coal ash because they worry about it will damage the environment. However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view and list three arguments.
2. First, the regulation that requires them to use liner to prevent coal ash from contaminating environment has existed.
3. Second, if creating new and stricter regulation might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products and raise consumers' unnecessary anxiety about buying recycled coal ash products.
4. New and stricter regulations mean a ten-times increase of cost for disposal and handling. Therefore, power companies would have to increase the price of electricity, which will not be welcomed by the public.
(Main points of the lecture)
1. There should definitely be stricter rules adopted for handling and disposing of coal ash.
2. First, liner process is not really sufficient because it only applies for the companies that have built a new landfill or a new pond. Those older disposal sites have caused significant damage such as harmful leakage into ground water.
3. Second, stricter rules for handling the coal ash won't necessarily mean that the consumers will stop using recycled coal ash products. Taking mercury as an example shows that consumers actually have very few concerns about it.
4. It is worthwhile to implement new and stricter regulation though the cost of coal ash storage and handling will increase. Actually it is not a big price for having a cleaner environment since it would only increase the average consumer's household electricity bill by only about one percent.
TASK RESPONSE 1.
The reading and listening both talk about environmentalists' suggestion that the United States government should enforce new, much stricter rules for handling and restoring potentially harmful coal ash. The writer puts forth the idea that new regulations are unnecessary and may have undesirable consequences, which is challenged by the lecturer.
Firstly, according to the passage, power companies are already required to use liners, a unique material that prevents coal ash components from leaking, if they want to construct disposal ponds or landfills. Nevertheless, the speaker points out that the current regulations are insufficient because they only influence new disposals ponds or landfills. As a result, in some old landfills, harmful chemicals have leaked into the soil, polluting underground water and damaging the environment. To guarantee healthy drinking water and protect the environment, we need new regulations that supervise old and new disposal sites.
Secondly, the author suggests that if stricter rulers are adopted, customers will be reluctant to purchase recycled coal ash products. On the contrary, the lecturer claims that strict rules do not mean purchasers will stop buying those products. For example, mercury, a hazardous substance, has been under stringent laws in terms of handling and storage for many decades. However, it has been successfully and safely recycled and raised little public concern. Likewise, the new regulation will not inhibit customers from accepting recycled coal ash products.
Finally, the author argues that new rules will eventually raise the price of electricity. However, the lecturer refutes the argument and claims that cleaning the environment is well worth extra money. According to analysis, those power companies will have to spend roughly fifteen billion dollars. Though this figure may be astounding at first sight, it will only increase individual costs by one percent on average. Obviously, it is definitely worth the extra costs.
TASK RESPONSE 2.