Saving Environment

The following appeared in an editorial from a magazine produced by an organization dedicated to environmental protection:

"In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports."

Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.

The presented editorial is logically flawed on many counts.

Primarily, the central assumption, that making managers aware about the pollution caused by manufacturing process can effectively reduce environmental damage, does not even attempt to establish the basis of its authenticity. Was there any survey by a neutral third-party that establishes this fact? Are there any strong environmental laws that can hold managers to account for knowingly polluting environment? Or is it simply the editor's personal view? Without establishing a clear cause-effect relationship, it appears to be an arbitrary assertion.

Further, the argument also assumes that there are no other possible ways to achieve the same goal. It may be possible to achieve the same by introducing tougher environmental laws, scheduling regular inspections, or by giving incentives to industries to switch to more environment friendly manufacturing methods. The reasoning neither tries to explore alternative solutions nor tries to explain why the chosen line of action is better. 

Finally, even if we concede that the assumption is right and a good way to achieve the desired goal, the way of implementing it is still questionable. While imposing stiff penalties may work, it is not necessarily the best way to provide financial incentives. Financial incentives can also be provided by giving tax breaks or government subsidies. It is not clear why imposing penalties is a better way. 

Concluding, on the whole the editorial appears to be more of an opinion rather than a well reasoned argument. Based on an arguably arbitrary assumption it goes on to reason that the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce some reports, the benefits of which are not clear. Although the intentions of the editorial may be good, the reasoning is definitely not. While taking note of its concerns, a more well thought course of action may be pursued to achieve the desired goals.