GED Essay Example: Factory Emissions
As concerns about climate change and air quality grow, factory emissions are often highlighted in GED writing prompts. This GED essay factory emissions example shows you how to evaluate different perspectives, build a well-reasoned argument with evidence, and structure a clear, high-scoring response for the RLA test.
Read the prompt and task instruction below. Your task is to write a well-organized extended response of at least 300 words in 45 minutes, as shown in the Model Response that follows.
GED Essay Samples by Topics
Task Instruction
Analyze the arguments presented in the two speeches. In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree. This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Cutting Factory Emissions for a Cleaner Future
By Michael Foster, Environmental Health Researcher
Stricter factory emission regulations are essential for protecting public health and environmental quality in communities across America. Industrial facilities release dangerous pollutants including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and toxic chemicals that cause respiratory disease, cardiovascular problems, and cancer. Children, elderly residents, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions suffer disproportionately from industrial air pollution, making emission controls a matter of environmental justice and public safety.
Scientific research consistently demonstrates the health impacts of industrial emissions on nearby communities. Studies by the American Lung Association show that people living within two miles of major industrial facilities experience higher rates of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory conditions compared to residents in cleaner areas. Long-term exposure to what are factory emissions contributes to premature death, with the Environmental Protection Agency estimating that air pollution causes thousands of preventable deaths annually in the United States. These findings bolster the case for immediate regulatory action.
Environmental benefits of stricter emission limits extend beyond immediate health improvements. Industrial pollutants contribute significantly to acid rain, ground-level ozone, and climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturing facilities often release chemicals that persist in soil and water systems for decades, contaminating agricultural land and drinking water sources. Stronger emission standards help preserve ecosystems and protect natural resources for future generations.
Economic arguments also support stricter factory emission regulations despite industry claims about compliance costs. Healthcare expenses related to air pollution create substantial economic burdens for families and communities. When factories reduce emissions, local healthcare costs decrease through fewer emergency room visits, reduced medication needs, and lower rates of chronic respiratory conditions. These health savings often exceed the costs of emission control technology installation and operation.
Furthermore, stricter emission standards drive technological innovation and create competitive advantages for American manufacturers. Companies that invest in cleaner production technologies often discover efficiency improvements that reduce waste, lower energy consumption, and decrease raw material costs. These innovations can be exported to international markets, creating new revenue streams and positioning American firms as environmental leaders in global competition.
Property values in communities with cleaner air typically increase, benefiting homeowners and local tax bases. Residents prefer neighborhoods with good air quality, and businesses often relocate to areas with better environmental conditions. Tourism and outdoor recreation industries also benefit from cleaner environments, supporting local economic development beyond traditional manufacturing sectors.
Modern pollution control technology makes emission reductions both feasible and cost-effective. Scrubbers, catalytic reduction systems, and other proven technologies can dramatically reduce factory emissions without shutting down production. Many facilities that have upgraded their emission control systems report successful compliance with environmental standards while maintaining profitable operations.
Lastly, stricter factory emission regulations protect public health, preserve environmental quality, and promote long-term economic sustainability. While compliance requires upfront investment, the benefits to community health, property values, and technological innovation justify stronger environmental standards. Communities deserve clean air regardless of their proximity to industrial facilities.
Are Stricter Factory Emissions Worth It?
By Tom Bradley, Manufacturing Industry Analyst
Stricter factory emission regulations threaten American manufacturing jobs and economic competitiveness while imposing excessive costs on businesses that are already struggling with global competition. These regulations force companies to choose between expensive compliance upgrades and relocating production to countries with weaker environmental standards, ultimately harming both local employment and the broader economy without achieving meaningful environmental improvements.
Stricter emission limits can have serious economic effects, especially for manufacturing workers and their families. When factories are required to follow expensive new environmental rules, some decide to shut down or move their operations to other countries instead of paying for costly pollution control equipment. Smaller factories are hit the hardest because they can’t afford these changes the way large companies can. When a factory closes, it doesn’t just mean lost factory jobs. It also affects people who work in related areas like shipping, repairs, and local businesses.
Compliance costs for stricter emission limits often exceed what struggling manufacturers can afford. Installing advanced pollution control systems can cost millions of dollars, while ongoing operational and maintenance expenses create permanent financial burdens. Energy costs increase significantly when factories must operate emission control equipment, reducing profitability and competitiveness against foreign competitors who face no similar requirements. These expenses ultimately get passed to consumers through higher prices for manufactured goods.
International competition creates unfair disadvantages for American manufacturers subject to strict emission limits. Countries like China, India, and Mexico maintain lower environmental standards that allow their factories to produce goods at reduced costs. When American facilities must invest heavily in emission controls, they cannot compete on price with imports from countries that prioritize economic growth over environmental protection. This competitive imbalance encourages manufacturing job migration to regions with weaker environmental regulations.
Rural and industrial communities depend heavily on manufacturing employment and suffer disproportionately when emission limits force factory closures. These areas often lack diverse economic bases and alternative employment opportunities, making factory jobs essential for community survival. When environmental regulations eliminate manufacturing positions, entire towns can experience economic decline, population loss, and reduced tax revenues that support schools, infrastructure, and public services.
In addition, many existing factories already meet reasonable environmental standards without requiring additional costly upgrades. Older facilities that have operated safely for decades suddenly face expensive retrofit requirements that may not produce significant environmental improvements. The marginal benefits of stricter limits often fail to justify their substantial economic costs, particularly when other pollution sources like transportation and power generation contribute more significantly to air quality problems.
Market forces and technological progress naturally encourage emission reductions without government mandates. Companies have economic incentives to improve efficiency and reduce waste, leading to cleaner production methods over time. Consumer preferences for environmentally responsible products also drive voluntary improvements in manufacturing processes. Heavy-handed regulation can actually slow innovation by forcing companies to invest in specific technologies rather than developing better solutions for how to reduce factory emissions.
Regional economic development suffers when strict emission limits discourage new manufacturing investment. Companies considering facility locations often choose areas with reasonable regulatory environments over jurisdictions with burdensome environmental requirements. This regulatory competition drives manufacturing jobs to states and countries with more business-friendly policies, undermining local economic development efforts.
To sum up, stricter factory emission regulations create more economic problems than environmental solutions by eliminating manufacturing jobs and reducing industrial competitiveness. Rather than imposing costly regulations that drive businesses away, communities should focus on balanced approaches that protect both environmental quality and economic opportunity. Reasonable environmental standards can coexist with strong manufacturing sectors when regulations consider economic impacts alongside environmental goals.
Model Response on GED Essay Factory Emissions Topic
Both authors raise important concerns about factory emission limits, but Bradley makes a stronger argument by focusing on realistic economic consequences that Foster doesn’t adequately address.
Foster draws attention to the connection between emission control and cleaner, safer communities. His argument about children and elderly people suffering from factory emissions is compelling, and the idea of reducing healthcare costs makes sense. However, his argument assumes that stricter limits automatically lead to better outcomes without considering what happens to workers and communities when factories close.
Bradley provides a more realistic picture of how emission limits actually affect working families and local economies. His point about small manufacturers lacking resources for expensive compliance equipment shows a major problem that Foster overlooks. While large corporations might afford pollution control systems, smaller factories that employ many people in rural areas could be forced to shut down entirely.
The international competition issue that Bradley raises is particularly convincing. When American factories must spend millions on emission equipment while competing against imports from countries with weaker standards, they’re at an unfair disadvantage. Foster mentions Germany and Japan as examples, but those countries aren’t competing against the same low-cost producers that American manufacturers face.
Bradley also makes a strong point about the impact on manufacturing communities. Many small towns depend on factory jobs, and when environmental regulations force closures, entire communities can suffer economic decline. Foster talks about property values and tourism, but that doesn’t help unemployed factory workers pay their bills or support their families.
Foster’s argument about technological innovation sounds good, but Bradley shows that innovation costs money that many manufacturers don’t have. Small businesses can’t afford to become environmental leaders when they’re struggling to compete with overseas production.
Altogether, Bradley presents a more complete argument because he considers the real-world trade-offs between environmental goals and economic survival. While Foster focuses on ideal outcomes, Bradley examines what actually happens when regulations force difficult choices between jobs and environmental protection. His argument shows that stricter factory emission regulations might harm working families and communities more than they help the environment.
While the authors both want clean air and healthy communities, Bradley makes a better case that overly strict emission limits aren’t the right way to achieve those goals without destroying local economies.
(376 words)
