Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental protection agency is the main agency concerned in the protection of the rules and rights that govern the environment. This includes charging human beings who offend the environmental rules and regulations and also preserve and taking care of the environment. The Agency however has not been so efficient in the current years and that is why termination of the agency seems to be the best choice since all it does is consume the taxpayers’ money and supply out very little in return. It has not been proven as the best move, however it is better if it is terminated and maybe come up with its alternative if need be.

Claim

The main claim is the termination of the program. I strongly support this with reference from the books of accounts of the program. Despite the program being a non-profit making agency, there are a lot of negative balances which show there is no efficiency in the program. On termination, there will be very little effect felt because it is just an agent, working on behalf of its master which is the ministry of environment. The agency receives plenty amounts of money but ends up misusing the amounts due to huge levels of embezzlement and corruption. Doing away with the corrupt officials might work, but as a short term solution. Short term solutions only make individuals feel better for the moment but later end up regretting due to the huge losses that could have been avoided if a better long term solution was chosen. This idea is not only meant to put us at a better position but also improve the lives of those that come after.

Another great reason which is putting the agency at a losing end is the ineffectiveness of their projects. The projects put on the table by this agency are all very creative and seem to be innovative but the projects that are actual and on the ground are very minute and most of them are to the benefit of a very small number of individuals, mostly the officials. This is a very selfish move as the officials think about themselves only. All the same, there has not been any effect felt by the agency, therefore its termination will also not be of effect to anybody apart from the selfish individuals who had set out to benefit from the project alone (McKinnon, p12).

The program also had a tendency of fining individuals who are not guilty. Their officials would charge even for the very trivial mistakes such as burning one’s litter. They would claim that it is a negative to the environment. They did all this with the aim of collecting as much fines as possible to raise their revenue and at the same time oppress those in need of their help. This is a very high corruption level that needs to be given a lot of attention (Layzer, p43).

Unbiased discussion of the opposition’s claim

When the agency was set up, there were some very viable plans that were set to benefit every individual who was budgeted to accrue benefits from the same. At this stage of the project, everybody was optimistic about it and that is why the principle, who is the ministry of environment, did not shy from investing heavily in the project using the tax payers’ money. During the first stages of its implementation, the agency helped in a very favorable way. There were projects like ensuring that the environment was clean and attracting even to the neighboring communities; this it did with no doubt.

The program has also employed a number of employees and that is a heads up. The several projects it started helped even in the reduction of the diseases that were affecting the communities around due to poor environmental conditions. The agency also gave the community around adequate education that was of aid to how they performed their daily activities. Last but not least, the agency was so strict on the environmental law breakers (Layzer, p52). This could include those who littered the environment and also the companies that were producing wastes and exposing them directly to the environment in a way that the individuals who lived in the nearby communities were adversely affected by the externality. This was important as the environment could remain clean and everybody learnt how to be responsible.

Common ground claims

The agency had a very smooth running in its earlier stages. This was propelled by the good leadership in the agencies and the knowledge and adherence of the objectives of the agency. It was so clear that the program was to be very effective in the days to come and its externalities would be felt by every individual who lives around. Things turned bitter after a period of time and the very efficient program became nothing but a money squandering project that was used for the interest of those who governed it.

Such reasons called for the intervention of auditing firms that concluded that there was embezzlement in the program. There also came some surveyors who did some analysis and concluded that the project could not bear any more fruits. The reasons why the project can no longer bear fruits is because the communities made use of the teachings it was given by the program and it now bet operates without the program, which has not been effective off late.

Conclusion

Having looked both claims, the best action would be the termination of the program as this would be with the best effect to every individual. Everybody wants to live in a clean environment, and at the same time, not willing to pay for a project that is not viable. Doing away with the program will be a loss to a very small number of individuals but a profit to the better part of the population.

Annotated Bibliography

Guo, Yanling, and Barry M. Kroll. "A review of studies on Rogerian rhetoric and its implications for English writing instruction in East Asian countries." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4.3 (2014): 481.

The authors of this book give a clear definition of the rogerian method of arguments and also give the steps to coming up with a good rogerian argument essay.

Blackwell III, Larry. "Exploring our options: cooperative rhetorical alternatives and their implications for teaching first-year composition." (2014).

Blackwell gives shares his book to include not only the rogerian arguments but also a group of other arguments that could be used in first year composition writing. It is a very resourceful piece in terms of literature.

Kraft, Michael. Environmental policy and politics. Routledge, 2015.

The book is about environmental pollution and gives a hint of how environmental pollution should be handled and controlled.

Layzer, Judith A. The environmental case: Translating values into policy. CQ Press, 2015.

Layzer dwells on the values we have as individuals concerning the environment and she insists on them being changed to policies so that they can be strictly adgered to.

McKinnon, Alan, et al., eds. Green logistics: Improving the environmental sustainability of logistics. Kogan Page Publishers, 2015.

This book is a source of logistics as far as the environment is concerned. It gives a brief detail of the elements that are likely to change if certain percentages of variables in the environment change.