Please read the following prompt and use it to write a five-paragraph (minimum) COMPARE AND CONTRAST essay that discusses the two opposing sides of this argument.
In New York City, plastic bags are often seen cartwheeling down the street, entwined in tree branches, or stuck in the rungs of street drains. In an effort to curtail their usage, there is a law in progress that will add a five-cent charge for every plastic bag that a customer uses in a grocery store or deli.
Proponents of the law argue that it will encourage people to bring reusable bags to the store, thereby reducing excess waste and litter.
One of the main objections to this law is that the charge is targeting, however unintentionally, the lower class, as the five cents won’t mean nearly as much to middle and upper-class citizens.
Overall, responses to the law are varied; many would appreciate reducing litter, but many others resist an additional cost when purchasing food.
As a reference, please read the sample essay I provided entitled “Waste” by Wendell Barry.
Paragraph 1 should be 5-6 sentences that include the thesis and three key ideas you will write about. You can introduce the essay by referring to “Waste” by Wendell Barry.
Paragraph 2 should be 6-8 sentences and details the side of the proponents of the law that will call for the elimination of plastic bags and advocate for the use of reusable bags.
Paragraph 3 should be a 6-8 sentence that discusses how this law would be targeting those to whom a five-cent fee to use a plastic bag would be a hardship for many lower-income shoppers.
Paragraph 4 would be 6-8 sentences of your ideas on which side of this law you think is the best for this issue and why.
Paragraph 5 would be 5-6 sentences for you to restate the thesis, restate the three key ideas addressed in Paragraphs 2,3, and 4, along with a closing statement.
Please remember to include any in-text citations and a Reference list both APA formatted for any research you cite in the essay.
Proofread carefully for complete sentences, correct spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and tense agreement.
Sample essay:
Now Activism-Wendell Barry
Page 1 of 2
WASTE
Wendell Berry
As a country person I often feel that I am on the bottom end of the waste problem. I on the Kentucky River about ten miles from its entrance into the Ohio. The Kentucky, in many ways a lovely river, receives an abundance of pollution from the Eastern Kentucky coal mines and the central Kentucky cities. When the river rises, it carries a continuous raft of cans, bottles, plastic jugs, chunks of Styrofoam, and other imperishable trash. After the floods subside, I like may other farmers, must pick up the trash before I can use my bottomland fields. I have seen the Ohio, whose name (Oyo in Iroquois) means “beautiful river,” so choked with this manufactured filth that an ant could crawl dry-footed from Kentucky to Indiana. The air of both river valleys is seriously polluted. Our roadsides and roadside fields lie under a constant precipitation of cans, bottles, the plastic-ware of fast-food joints, soiled plastic diapers, and sometimes whole bags of garbage. In our county we now have a “sanitary landfill” which daily receives, in additional to our local production, fifty to sixty large truckloads of garbage from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
Moreover, a close inspection of our countryside would reveal, strewn over it from one end to the other, thousands of derelict and worthless automobiles, house trailers, refrigerators, stoves, freezers, washing machines, and dryers; as well as thousands of unregulated dumps in hollows and sink holes, on streambanks and roadsides, filled not only with “disposable” containers but also with broken toasters, television sets, toys of all kinds, furniture, lamps, stereos, radios, scales, coffee makers, mixers, blenders, corn poppers, hair dryers, and microwave ovens.
Much of our waste problem is to be accounted for by the intentional flimsiness an unrepair-ability of the laborsaving devices and gadgets that we have become addicted to.
Of course, my sometimes impression that we live on the receiving end of this problem is false, for country people contribute their full share. The truth is that we Americans, all of us, have become a kind of human trash, living our lives in the midst of a ubiquitous damned mess of which we are at once the victims and the perpetrators. We are all unwilling victims , perhaps; and some of us even are unwilling perpetrators, but we must count ourselves among the guilty, nonetheless. In my household we produced much of our own food and try to do without as many frivolous “necessities” as possible – and yet, like everyone else, we must shop, and when we shop we much bring home a load of plastic, aluminum, and glass containers designed to be thrown away, and “appliances” designed to wear out quickly and be thrown away.
I confess that I am angry at the manufacturers who make these things. There are days when I would be
delighted if certain corporation executives could somehow be obliged to eat their products. I know of no good reason why these containers and all other forms of manufactured “waste”-solid, liquid, toxic, or whatever-should not be outlawed. There is no sense and no sanity in objecting to the desecration of the flag while tolerating and justifying and encouraging as a daily business the desecration of the country for which it stands.
But our waste problem is not the fault only of producers. It is the fault of an economy that is wasteful from top to bottom-a symbiosis of an unlimited greed at the top and a lazy, passive, and self-indulgent consumptiveness at the bottom- and all of us are involved it. If we wish to correct this economy, we must be careful to understand and to demonstrate how much waste of human life is involved in our waste of the material goods of Creation. For example, much of the liter that now defaces our country is fairly directly caused by the massive secession or exclusion of most our people from active participation in the food economy. We have made a social ideal of minimal involvement in the growing and cooking of food This is one of the dearest liberations of our affluence. Nevertheless, the more dependent we become on the industries of eating and drinking, the more waste we are going to produce. The mess that surrounds us, then, must be understood not just as a problem in itself but as a symptom of greater and graver problem the centralization of our economy-the gathering of the productive property and power into fewer and fewer hands, and the consequent destruction, everywhere, of the local economies of household, neighborhood, and corn-mutiny.
This is the source of our unemployment problem, and I am not talking just about the unemployment of eligible members of the “labor force”. I mean also the unemployment of children and old people, who, in viable household and local economies, would have work to do by which they would be useful to themselves and to others. The ecological damage of centralization and waste is thus inextricably involved with human damage. For we have, as a result, not only a decorated, ugly, and dangerous country in which to live until we are in some manner poisoned by it, and a constant and now generally accepted problem of unemployed or unemployable workers, but also classrooms full of children who lack the experience and discipline of fundamental human tasks, and various institutions full of still capable old people who are useless and lonely.
I think that we must learn to see the trash on our streets and roadsides, in our rivers, and in our woods and fields, not as the side effects of “more jobs” as its manufacturers invariably insist that it is, but as evidence of good work not done by people able to do it.
