▶ Your Answer :
Humans should preserve nature and environment
green because extreme industrializing or developing may prohibit the nature’s
sustainability, which in turn eventually threaten humans. However, the
suggestion of passing laws to preserve remaining wilderness areas should be
reconsidered since the idea overlooks potential consequences that may not
contribute to better environment, but negatively influence environment and
people.
To
begin with, if the legislators pass the bill, the real estate price in
residential areas may skyrocket because the real estate market recognizes that
the current habitat areas will be restricted. The fact in this case, however, is
that the competitions between house-seekers will soar since the numbers of
people are likely to increase for most cases. For example, in South Korea, once
a land is declared as “Green Belt (a certain terrestrial area in which no
development is allowed),” the surrounding areas’ real estate price dramatically
increased. Once the city officials declared the suburban areas in Hwa-seong
City (a land 1 hour far from Seoul by driving), the Hwa-seong City’s land price
soared. This phenomenon caused instabilities among residents in the city;
therefore, people struggle to live and abundant complaints were issued.
Legislators should consider this type of influence on real estate market when
they review the laws.
In
addition, the laws may harm natural sources by enforcing people to preserve the
wilderness when it comes to building an express way or railroads. For instance,
in South Korea, because a local area near Daejeon, which is located in the center of the peninsula, has been declared as the
wilderness needing preservation, the railroad route must have avoided the area even though
penetrating the land was more efficient and cost-effective. Moreover, the detouring
decision has led the developers to destroy other natural sources that were
located on the detoured route such as trees, river sides, and green hills. In this case, if the law was not enforcing the
constructors, the railroad would be built on the wilderness which would not
harm any other natural resources as well as would lead a cost-effective
decision.
In
sum, passing the laws that preserve wilderness in favor of natural sources
seems to work positively on environment; nonetheless, the decision makers must
reconsider its potential negative consequences regarding the real estate price
and unexpected ineffective decision that can harm other natural sources.
Rather, in order to prevent those byproduct-like results from happening, a
certain amount of flexibility to the laws should be taken into account |