Since the 21st century, people have paid more and more attention to environmental beautification. Once the environment is polluted, it will directly affect the survival of human beings. From the beginning, urban environmental protection and urban beauty have gradually developed to various parts of the countryside. Today, rural areas are paying more attention to environmental protection, and some rural areas are cleaning up rivers or abandoned farms.
In the past two years, in order to avoid environmental pollution, new measures have been adopted, that is, the rural areas are not allowed to burn firewood and use electricity for daily life. However, as soon as this measure was implemented, it was opposed by many farmers, who considered it unfeasible. After all, environmental protection is a very important issue, which can be described in one sentence, that is, "contribute to the present and benefit the future". So why would the peasants object? Is this a question worth exploring?
Reasons why farmers oppose the ban on burning firewood:
Further explore the reasons why the peasants oppose the ban on firewood, mainly because the implementation of this measure has a great impact on the lives of the peasants, which will seriously lead to the inability to guarantee a normal life, empty the wallets of the peasants, and destroy the bodies of the peasants. Why? The main points are as follows:
1. The cost of living is too high.
Firewood can be found everywhere in the countryside, especially in the mountainous countryside. Everywhere. Most importantly, these firewood and firewood do not cost a penny. Once the ban on burning firewood is changed to electricity, the cost of living will increase significantly. Especially in winter, the temperature in rural areas is low. If you rely on electricity for heating, you need at least about 1,000 yuan per month, and most families can't afford it.
In cities, buildings in residential areas are heated evenly for 4 months. But in the mountainous countryside, even on March 15, the weather is still very cold, so the heating cost from winter to warmer weather requires 5,000 to 6,000. Now, most people living in rural areas are elderly. These people do not have pensions, are living on a shoestring basis, and cannot afford to pay for heating. It can be seen that the peasants' opposition to the ban on firewood is justified.
2. Rural houses are very high, and it is unrealistic to use electricity for heating.
Now, the houses in the countryside are very tall and large in size. If the bedroom only relies on a small electric heater at night, the heating effect is definitely not good. There is an old saying called "kang hot house warm", because the kiln in the rural bedroom occupies a large area. When making a kang, use adobe and square bricks, both of which are slowly heated, thus extending the heating time in the bedroom.
Instead, electric heaters are used for heating. When it is turned on, it is hot. After closing, the indoor temperature drops quickly. Sleeping on the kang is good for the body, especially the elderly, as long as the temperature is right. In winter, the place to sleep is cold, which will definitely damage your health in the long run.
In summary, the peasants absolutely oppose the prohibition of firewood burning. If people's lives cannot be lived, what qualifications are there to develop agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, and to build beautiful villages? So, does burning wood really pollute the environment? not necessarily!
The "culprit" of environmental pollution
Smog weather has increased over the past two years, but many of these polluted areas are in areas where cities or factories are concentrated. Because there are thousands of vehicles on the road every day in the city, many dusty pictures are posted online. In some industrial workshop areas, the visible waste smoke and exhaust gas directly soared into the sky, which can be said to be a "thriving" scene every day. Some factories do not meet environmental standards at all and are still operating.
As a result, smog in cities or industrial factories is very severe. Looking at the countryside, every household is burning firewood to cook, but it is a blue sky with white clouds. Therefore, the ultimate culprit of environmental pollution is automobile exhaust or waste smoke from industrial plants.
Conclusion: Riders should know more about the hardships of walkers.
Any measures in the countryside must consider whether they will have an impact on the lives of farmers and, if so, whether they will be good or bad. Those who develop these measures should know more about the hard work of farmers and have a deeper understanding of their lives. Now building new rural areas is everyone's wish. If it can really bring good benefits to farmers, most people will support, cooperate and contribute their own strength.
If we do not understand deeply, what is the use of so-called professional knowledge for the development of new rural areas, which is not helpful to farmers and will even have a negative impact? Riders should be more aware of the hardships of walkers. Farmers should not pay with their wallets and health to control the environment and reduce smog. They should be a group that is cared for and cared for, not a group that is exploited.