Hi students,
It's amazing how fast the first week went by. I know that we had a lot of general class information to cover, but overall, I think we are off to a good start. Thank you for your responses to last week's question. I look forward to reading and commenting on them during the next two days. For this week's question, I'd like to turn our focus to our week 2 theme: waste disposal. More specifically, I'd like you to think about some of the ideas discussed in Diogenes' excellent presentation. Here is the discussion question (slightly revised) that you chose as a class:
Will incineration as a method of waste disposal increase in different countries and cities around the world? Why or why not?
I look forward to reading your responses. Happy writing!
Josh
I think incineration will decrease because it harm the earth. I know that there are some advantages like we can decrease a quantity of trash. Howevwe there are also disadvantages. When incinerator burn trash, it will produce harmful air and it will cause air pollution and global warming. Now those issue became quite serious problem, so we should stop using incinetration. Some developing countries will continue to use incineration because they may not have other techniques. However developed countries have many techniques, so the number of those countried which use incineration will increase.
ReplyDeleteBefore becoming more serious issue, we should change our thinking. It's not time to think about only ourselves.There may not be a way of waste disposal without disadvantages, if so, we need to think new way to save the earth.
Hi Chinami,
DeleteI like the the optimistic tone of your response. I should add to that the comment that you sound both optimistic and realistic. Incineration is here to stay for awhile at least, but certainly people around the world can think of alternatives in the near future.
On Grammar:
1. Here are two clauses where subject-verb agreement is wrong; don’t forget to add “-s.”
→ because it harm the earth
→ When incinerator burn trash
Can you find other clauses with this error?
2. Before becoming more serious issue, we should change our thinking.
→ In this sentence, you have the participial phrase “before becoming....,” which is a reduction of a clause (before + subject + verb). When we reduce adverb clauses to phrases like this, we need to keep the same subject as the independent clause. In this case, the subject is “we,” so the two subjects don’t match, and the sentence is what we call a “dangling modifier.” Here is a site that can help you understand this problem:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/597/1/
Ayano
ReplyDeleteI guess, developing countries will continue to dispose garbage by incineration. As you know, some countries are small and they don't have enough space like Japan. So they want to dicrease the quantity of garbage and save space.Furthemore, developing countries doesn't have skills to invent other ways to incinerate garbege. And also, they don't have much money to build new disposal facilities. That's why I think incineration will increase especially developing countries. I want developed countries' scientists or professional in environment field to teach these skills and build other disposal facilities. Actually it takes much time, cost and need many people's help so it may hard to be realized. However, air pollution is really serious health problem and air pollution have serious effect to neighboring countries. People and government have to take measure as soon as possible.
Hi Ayano,
DeleteYou’ve got lots of good ideas here. I agree that scientists and engineers in developed countries can and should help transfer their knowledge and technology to developing countries. However, one thing I would slightly disagree with is your statement that people in developing countries don’t have the skills to invent new technology. Some (not all) do have the skills; they don’t always have the resources or the infrastructure! There are many very innovative people in developing countries, who, with a little material support from other countries could come up with some amazing new technologies.
On Grammar:
1. Actually it takes much time--> time non-count: ..a lot of time
2. air pollution have serious effect to neighboring countries → two errors: 1. subject-verb agreement and 2. effect to → effect on.
I think that incineration in rich countries will keep because these countries, usually don't have enough space to to build a landfill.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the pollution in the environment should will be controlled and decreased by new technologies.
I don't think that incineration is the best method for the disposal waste, but is better than to put or to throw away in every/anywhere.
The society has technology for to improve this method and to become less aggressive for the environment.
In the other side, we have the developed countries and the developing countries whose methods for the disposal of waste can be incineration and ladfill.
In these countries usually the landfill is the first choice, and consequently they have the problems related with this.
Some times they have space for landfill, but don't have the necessary conditions for to build it with security for people and environment.
For other side, we have poor countries, where sometimes people live in the waste.
These countries, frequently, don't have minimal conditions for survive and they don't care about incineration. For them, the first condition is to stay alive.
So, for all these reasons, I belive that incineration can be a good strategies, but not for every country.
Each strategy should be adapted for each reality, in this point I strongly agree.
Hi Fernanda,
DeleteYou offer a number of interesting thoughts on incineration and other methods of waste disposal. One of the most striking things that you mention the fact that in many countries, people just want to survive. For them, it’s ironic (and unfortunate) that landfills might actually help them do this. I fully agree that each country is unique; therefore, the best method of waste disposal will depend on the individual country. It’s a complicated matter!
On grammar:
1. ….but is better than to put or to throw away in every/anywhere → After “than,” we use the -ing form of the verb. Think of “than” as a preposition (it introduces a noun phrase); we always use the -ing form after prepositions.
2. conditions for to build → When you use nouns followed by verbs, you can just use the infinitive (to form) of the verb. You don’t need “for.”
Ex: ….conditions to build it. I don’t have the information to do it. She doesn’t have the skills to finish it.
I just want to say that there are multi-chooses in dealing with garbage and incineration is just a choose.
ReplyDeleteFirstly,we should serious study the amount, composition and classification of the waste in a country or city.Is it mainly made up with the production or living waste? industrial or agricultural waste? single or composite garbage? Incineration depends on the structure and type of waste, some agricultural wastes and toxic substances can not be simply refuse incineration.
Second, we must analyze a country's economic development, technology costs and civic awareness on waste disposal. The advantage of incineration is fast, do not take land resources.However,at the same time,it’s not only more expensive than landfill and recycling but also produce some greenhouse gases and toxic gases. Therefore, most countries will select the garbage recycling firstly.
In summary, incineration will accelerate develop in some countries and cities which be provided with developed economy and technology, limited land space, enormous pressure of waste disposal,but not be necessary in other countries and regions. Just like every one have different eating habits, ways of waste disposal must be different. This is one of the characteristics of this colorful planet.
Hi Shumian,
DeleteYour final thoughts reverberate Fernanda’s idea that the most appropriate waste disposal method really depends on the conditions of the country in question. Very true. I’m really drawn toward your idea that the type and quantity of waste a country produces must be analyzed before making any decisions about methods of disposal. Certainly the type of industries common in a country will result in different types of waste, which means different methods of disposal may be needed.
On Grammar:
1. we should serious study the amount → Don’t forget to use the adverb form when modifying verbs.
→ We should seriously study...
2. The advantage of incineration is fast, do not take land resources. → In this sentence, it looks like you were on your way to using the correct grammar, and then something happened. Here you have an independent clause and then a verb phrase that needs a subject and coordinating conjunction or at least coordinating conjunction.
→ ...is fast, and it does not take....
or
→ is fast and does not take...
Incineration among the different methods of waste disposal, despite its impact on the environment, has its advantages and disadvantages. But, unfortunately, it will not be increase in different countries for the following reasons:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, incineration demands expensive structure which can be provided by rich companies, and this is not easy to do in the poor countries for which is not a priority protecting the environment.
Secondly, people living in the poor countries are difficult to understand this method, accept and follow it, the best for them is the recycling and reuse of materials. While this may not yet be very prevalent in developed countries, many developing countries practice this method because of the economics of recycling and reuse which gives incomes to the poor people in the business.
At the end, the decision to increase incineration over different countries and cities must be weighed carefully and see which is the best effective, whether creating profits for people or protect the environment? Isn’t it adapted to the rich countries that can afford the maintenance and where there are people trained for this process? Otherwise, the international organizations, in the help and support that they provide to the poor countries, they can invest more money in the protecting of the Environment to avoid them to be sick, instead always providing support to treat sickness. Waste can cause sicknesses, why not helping the poor people to be aware from damages and impacts due to wastes that became harmful upon their conditions of life.
Hi Rose Myriam,
DeleteI think you are on to a very interesting idea in stating that recycling really does meet the needs of the people in developing countries. I think there are many places in the developing world where the idea of reusing or recycling just makes sense (unlike here in the U.S., where we had to be taught to understand this). When I went to Ecuador for the second time, it really saddened me to see that plastic bottles, which couldn’t be recycled at the time due to a lack of infrastructure, were replacing the once common glass bottles. Instead of taking glass bottles back to the stores where people bought their sodas and other drinks, people just threw the plastic on the ground because they didn’t know what to do with it.
On Grammar:
1. people living in the poor countries are difficult to understand this method, accept and follow it, the best for them is the recycling and reuse of materials.
Here you have a comma splice, which is a comma between two independent clauses where there should be a period or connecting word. Can you find the comma splice?
2. Otherwise, the international organizations, in the help and support that they provide to the poor countries, they can invest more money
Here you’ve got two subjects. Can you find the redundant subject?
Probably, the incineration will extend for many countries around the world as this technology show good advantages for big cities. This kind of city generally own difficult to find specific land for final disposal of solid waste. Furthermore, the land prices closed to these cities are too expensive. However, the large and medium-sized cities represent less than 20% of the world cities. The most are small cities under 20 thousand habitants that don't own financial conditions for operate an incinerator or contact some company. Other problem is that the small cities don't provide qualified manpower to operate safely these facilities. However, these cities own land enough to construct landfills. In Brazil, for example, it's possible construct small-sized landfill with security without the set up of soil protective membrane. In these cases is possible to compact the base of landfill using clay. Moreover, the installation of incinerators represent a great problem in poor and development countries, because the proper equipments to treatment of gases are very expensives and generally aren't installed them like should to be. The local environmental agencies, in its turns, don't get control and oversight every time the environmental quality in these facilities as there is lack of trained people and equipment of air quality measurement. So, It's unfeasible to use incinerators in many places around the world. Both the final disposal systems show vantages and advantages, and need to be analysed under different angles.
ReplyDeleteHi Diogenes,
DeleteIt makes sense that incinerators better serve large populations with little space, while landfills can accommodate smaller cities with lots of space. It’s true that training and infrastructure are both lacking in some developing countries, and this obviously limits their capacity to install alternatives to standard landfills. Do you think that developed countries should help developing countries (especially those with large population centers) with both educational and material resources so that these countries diversify their waste disposal methods and capacity?
On Grammar:
1. conditions for operate → see my comment above for Fernanda on using infinitives after nouns.
We also use infinitives after adjectives.
You say “ it's possible construct” → It’s possible to construct...” Here’s another example: It’s difficult to do it.
2. these cities own land enough → “enough” comes before the noun it modifies: “own enough land.”
Here’s another example: I don’t have enough money.
As we discussed about last days, incineration has it's main advantages and disadvantages. For me, the question behind the existing or non existing of incineration in some developping countries, is above environment reasons.
ReplyDeleteFor me then, it's first all about business and economy matters than technical or environment apprehensions. We need to deep descern why, although this incineration's process is very expensive, it is not the States' calling, but private institutes'. Superior to that, Andrés witnessed how in Switzland, policemen even make domestic controling, in other words, to urge people to observe the incineration process: "No wastes, no incineration business can survive."
In conclusion, I'd say that yes, that process needs a high level of people's understanding the technical steps to separates wastes, but we have to conceive that the incineration is also about very big technical and finance investments, what at the end make it, more a business than an environmental approach that can be reached by everyone, even some Govenments in spite of good environment and health policies.
Hi Audace,
DeleteYou make an interesting point that the viability of incineration really comes down to investment and private capital being provided by private investors. What would you think about private companies “setting up shop” (i.e. creating incineration infrastructure) in developing countries? If there were a financial incentive (energy production, or maybe even state investment in private enterprise), it may be possible. While at his point, landfills represent the most common waste disposal method in developing countries, in the future this will have to change. Perhaps, with private investment from outside countries, incineration will be part of this change.
On Grammar/Vocabulary:
1. behind the existing or non existing → ..existence or nonexistence....
When describing the “state of being,” we use the -ence form of “exist.”
2. it's first all about business and economy matters than technical or environment apprehensions
→ …..MORE about business and economIC matters than technical.......
“Than” needs to be preceded by “more.” In this case, we have “more about + noun + than + noun.”
Another pattern could be “more + adjective + than + noun.” Example: It’ more about money than love. OR The book is more interesting than the movie.
Incineration should be integrated in a group of solutions, not like the best solution. Certainly, for a bis city is an important incinerate as disposal waste because don't have space to landfills, but this has disadvantages as we treated in class.
ReplyDeleteI agree to implement incineration method in big cities or gathering some small cities because this method need much civic culture about environment protection, and other option to manage waste like recycling or landfills.
Also, I agree with the pyramid of management waste, this show that the most important topic are reduction in the source, and recycling; the last are landfills, and incineration. It's a process as first education; second, reduction in the source, and recycling; third, assessment of advantages and disadvantages of incineration; last, incineration like option.
Incineration can't be the first or unique option.
Hi Andres,
DeleteYour summary of the hierarchy of waste disposal steps is exactly in line with my view. People need to be educated first and foremost about reducing waste and the recycling. After that, each city can and should review available options for disposal of the waste that can’t be recycled. I think that in developing countries where the infrastructure or private investment is lacking, creating an incineration process may be a challenge. Also, if it comes down to choosing infrastructure for recycling or incineration in developing countries, you’d probably agree that recycling would be preferred.
1. …..because don't have space to landfills,...
→ Take a look at this clause and think about what is missing (remember: a clause has a subject and a verb). **That’s right, it’s missing a subject.
2. I agree to implement incineration method in big cities
→ With the verb “agree,” we have three choices: agree to (agree to do something like a favor or request), agree on (make a decision), agree with (agree with an idea), or agree that (similar to share an idea but followed by a clause) . Which would you use in this case? → “....agree with implementing incineration.....” OR “...agree that implementing incineration is a good idea..”
Here’s a great explanation online: http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/agree
For me, the incineration can’t be the solution of waste disposal in all countries and cities around the world.
ReplyDeleteAs much as incineration as a method of waste disposal has increased in rich countries, developing countries have waste management difficulties. These difficulties are complicated by population pressure and the central problem concerning the good governance. Almost of all people live in low income.
Domestic waste in developing countries is primarily made of organic material, and is treated by landfill and composting. The remainder of the disposed waste consists of paper, plastics, glass, metals, textiles, etc.
Incineration is used primarily as disposal for biological waste associated with medical care. Policies governing the appropriate use of incineration exist sometime, but incinerators mostly consist of ovens or open pits used to burn bandages and blood products. As developing countries don’t produce manufacturing waste, they don’t have the big and expensive incinerators like rich countries. That is said that the main ways to manage waste are: reuse, landfill and composting. The recycling is not meaningful.
Beyond the question of “how to manage the solid waste”, it is critical to think differently on “how to reduce the waste”. Indeed, it is shown that many tons of raw material are unnecessary extracted to produce a little of commodities or articles. Finally, the big quantity of remainder waste needs to be disposed somewhere. A kind of vicious circle !!!
Hi Emmanuel,
DeleteThere are a couple of unique points that you bring up in your response. First, I hadn’t thoroughly considered the fact that many developing countries simply don’t produce the type of consumer and industrial waste that might make incineration a more desirable alternative. In some ways this is a good thing: the excess consumption of many developed countries is not enviable. Second, you state that “recycling is not meaningful.” Do you mean that there isn’t the infrastructure for recycling programs? Or people don’t recycle due to a lack of awareness? Lastly, I completely agree that incineration is better suited for some countries more than others.
On Grammar:
1. That is said that the main ways to manage waste are: reuse, landfill and composting.
→ “That said, the main ways.....” (delete “that” and add a comma), or you can say “Having said that, …..” (still with comma).
2. ....it is shown that many tons of raw material are unnecessary extracted to produce....
→ …...are unnecessarily extracted......
Here you are modifying the adjective “extracted,” so you need the adverb form of unnecessary.
Dear Josh,
DeleteI thank you for your comments and for letting me know the two Grammar points I mistook.
Recycling is not meaningful because of the lack of infrastructure, and when there are a little bit somewhere people don't really use due to a weak of awareness.
I think, incineration as a method of waste disposal will increase in different cities and countries in the world, especially in the rich ones. Because this method has many advantages, like reducing the volume of waste, producing energy, also using small area t o do this process. But it is very expensive; to built modern incinerator, which will not pollute the air (equipped by filters).
ReplyDeleteHi Zineb,
DeleteWhat do you think a solution to the high cost of incineration might be? Do you think governments should invest in private companies? Might the energy produced pay for the cost of building incinerators in the long-term? Can the installation of filters entirely mitigate the production of harmful CO2 into the atmosphere?
On Grammar:
1. I think, incineration → I think (that) incineration....
Note that we do not put a comma after “think” when it is followed by a dependent clause (in this case, it’s a noun clause. Also note that “that” is optional: I think that it is good OR I think it is good.
2. But it is very expensive; to built modern incinerator, → In this sentence, you don’t need the semi-colon (;). Generally, semi-colons go between two independent clauses (you can replace and/or/but with semi-colon, for example) or before a transition like “however” or “moreover.” You review these rules on the Unit 1 grammar page.
I think incineration increases because it costs less money to make it without thinking about environmental problem. I understand recycle is good way to deal with disposal. But making this system need a lot of investment and education. There are many poor country which can not afford to educate about recycling. So incineration will increase. But I think recycling is the best way.
ReplyDeletekei
Hi Kei,
DeleteDo you think that building incinerators is cheaper than teaching people how to recycle? It’s true that in order for people to recycle, governments or private enterprises need to create the infrastructure that would allow people to recycle. I wonder which would be more expensive....
1. I think incineration increases → I think incineration WILL increase (future!).
2. educate about recycling → educate PEOPLE about recycling.
The verb “educated” is followed by an object unless it’s used stative-passively (e.g. I am not educated.).