<span><span>IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds? says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.</span></span>
The owner could advertise a sale and try to sell as many pairs of shoes as possible before the recession comes and prices fall even more. Then, when the recession hits a trough, the owner could use the money from this sale to expand the warehouse while costs are at their lowest point. The owner must be sure to plan for falling demand.
laissez-faire - supported lack of government intervention in business affairs
Interstate Commerce Act - regulated railroads
Sherman Anti-Trust Act - banned business practices that supported monopolies
Explanation:
Laissez-faire refers to an economic system from the 18th century that was opposing any government intervention in business affairs. In this system, the individual is the center of the society who has the right to freedom; therefore, the government should not be involved in the economy, because of the natural order that ruled the world.
Interstate Commerce Act was adopted in the U.S. in 1887 as a federal law that regulated the railroad industry. This Act fought for the adjustment of railroad rates, in order to make it reasonable and just. However, the government did not have the power to establish specific rates.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act was brought in the U.S. in 1890, as an antitrust law that banned business practices that supported monopolies. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was designed to help workers and smaller businessmen by providing them better conditions and encouraging competition.
<span>Mutual Bonds; are typically comprised of a mix of Stocks and Bonds.
Mutual funds represent another way to invest in stocks, bond alternatives. You can think of a mutual fund like a basket of stocks or bonds.
When investing for assurance and income, bonds are one of the most alluring asset classes.</span>
The correct answer is A. The government was guided by religious principles.
Explanation:
The Massachusetts bay colony was one of the first colonies created by settlers in North America and was founded in the 17th century, during this century and subsequent centuries the colony developed with a population and government that were mainly Puritan. Indeed most of the population that migrated from England to Massachusets colony were Puritans and because of this in terms of government only those that followed this religion were elected, besides the policies of the colony were the most radical due to this, as other religions were not tolerated and later there were laws that regulated appropriate behaviors according to religion. Considering this, the reason the government in Massachusetts bay colony was the most radical was that the government was guided by religious principles.
