Select two out of the three writing prompts listed below. Your responses to your two chosen prompts should be at least 500 words each. No title page is needed, but be sure to indicate which writing prompts you are addressing at the top of each response. Each response needs its own reference page.

Writing Prompts (respond to two only):

1. Explain the origin of the federal Pollution Prevention Act, including the year it was passed, events leading to its passage, politics leading up to its passage, by how wide of a vote it was passed, and which president signed it. Please use the CSU Online Library, the Internet, the textbook, and/or other resources to respond. Please cite and reference all sources used.
2. In Chapters 1 and 2 of the course textbook, Ashby (2013) discusses materials and energy. After studying the chapters, select four items total (materials and/or energy) where minimal cost pollution prevention efforts can provide the most gain in environmental benefit. Also, discuss which of the laws listed in the Unit I Lesson apply to your selections.
3. Address one of the five principles described on page 102 of the textbook. In your essay, include the date that the principle was initiated, events that led to the creation of the principle, the purpose of the principle, your thoughts about the usefulness of the principle, and any recent developments that occurred as a result of the principle.

                                                           SAMPLE SOLUTION

The Pollution Prevention Act is widely regarded as the most crucial regulation with regard to prevention of United State’s environmental pollution. More so, the regulation’s structure is wide-ranging and established a nationwide policy regarding environmental protection including the statement that pollution ought to be prevented or minimized at the source if likely. The origin of this crucial policy can be traced back to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its effort to minimize pollution in the country. EPA was launched in the wake of widespread concern about environmental degradation in the 1970s with the aim of consolidating various federal research, standard testing, as well as monitoring and enforcement activities to oversee protection of environment. There was always the feeling that EPA was generalized and pollution prevention efforts were coming short. Congress was well aware by the 1970s that pollution control often led to unintended as well as damaging effects (Case, 2013). More so, conventional pollution control laws were meant to curb pollution in only a singly medium, which signifies that there was additional pollution caused through the transfer of substances from a medium to another.  In fact, the United States government saw the need to narrow interpretation of what pollution prevention was about leading to the refurbishing or review of EPA. The outcome was what is today’s renowned the Pollution Prevention Act, which was passed by Congress in 1990. Indeed, following the passage of this regulation EPA came up with a formal definition of what pollution prevention entailed as well as a strategy to make it a central guiding statement. Through the Pollution Prevention Act Congress established that pollution ought to be curbed at the source if possible, waste that cannot be prevented need to be recycled with environmental concerns in mind, as well as release or disposal into the environment should only be viewed as the last resort. Through the Pollution Prevention Act, EPA sought to set its priorities right including showing the manner in which waste management needed to be done. The outcome was a hierarchy of favored options for addressing pollution and prevention was placed at the top of the list. For this reason, the Pollution Prevention Act has come to be associated with mitigating pollution at the point of origin. Thus, it can be said that the origin of the act involved the need to supplement conventional approaches with fresh ones that might better deal with cross-media pollution transfers as well as ensuring cost-effectiveness. The conventional pollution prevention policies or approaches faced challenges in the face of an increasingly industrialized nation, and Congress had to act leading to the enactment of the act.