Question

7. Future legislation will require further reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions. To meet these targets, some mining companies will have to update their processes. Some companies may decide to close their mines or smelters, rather than make costly upgrades. A mine closure can devastate the economies of nearby towns. In your opinion should a government subsidy be used to keep these mines operating? Give one argument for and one against.

Answer 1

Against :-

Utilising the tax payers money to provide subsidies to the billionaire's owned mining industry already so profitable these subsidies are not supporting the industry, but instead are simply increasing the size of their profits .Keeping alive these huge source of pollution for a handful of jobs is injustice to mother Earth. Instead these subsidies would be used for disablity care ,education care or create new sources of employment.

For:-

Subsidies will reduce the disruption to the employees, reduces the disruption to business and allows both the employees and the business to be better prepared [to resume] work and production . Once the upgrades are done,they will turn out to be less polluting . This will certainly improve the air quality index and the bill spent on the healthcare of patients will decrease. The contribution of these industries to foreign exchequer is huge which helps to maintain balance of trade. But if these industries are shunted out ,the people will go into abject poverty which will surely decrease the quality of consumed products so creating more pollution. So in best interest of nation, subsidies are essential.