The graph illustrates a significant transformation in the recycling rates of four materials (aluminum cans, paper, glass, and plastic) within a specific country over a period of 28 years, from 1982 to 2010.

A striking trend emerges in the recycling rate of aluminum cans. Virtually non-existent in 1982, it exhibits a remarkable surge, exceeding 40% by 2010. This rapid rise coincides with the apparent introduction of aluminum cans around 1986. Interestingly, this period also witnessed a moderate decline of around 10% in the recycling rates of paper and glass containers.

However, the trends for paper and glass diverge thereafter. Paper and cardboard recycling displays a gradual decrease, falling from 80% in 1994 to 70% in 2010. Conversely, glass containers show a positive trajectory, with their recycling rate climbing from 50% to 60% during the same timeframe. Notably, the recycling rate for plastics remains relatively stagnant, showing minimal growth over the decades.

The graph’s pronounced shifts suggest a growing focus on recycling materials with higher economic value, such as glass and aluminum. This phenomenon can be attributed to several factors. Advancements in production efficiency likely led to increased disposable income, allowing consumers to purchase more beverages in aluminum and glass packaging. As a result, the focus for industries might have shifted towards cost reduction and profit maximization. In this context, improving the recycling rate of valuable materials like aluminum and glass might have been seen as a more readily achievable solution.

In conclusion, the period between 1982 and 2010 witnessed a gradual shift in the market share of different packaging materials. The rise of aluminum cans and glass containers seemingly coincided with a decline in the use of paper, cardboard, and plastics. This trend is further reflected in the changing recycling rates for these materials, with a growing emphasis on the more valuable aluminum and glass.

Nowadays, some are convinced that it is more important to learn English over local languages. This would threaten the latter as they would be at risk of disappearing if the number of their speakers diminish too drastically. While I agree that speaking English is crucial in our globalised world, we should still try to make sure local languages are kept alive.

On the one hand, everyone should learn English as it is a language spoken around the world. As a result, it has become easier to travel to foreign countries and visit them without the need to learn their language. It is a common language for tourism and business, so people from different countries and with different mother tongues can exchange using English. This has allowed people to be connected to each other and to have access to foreign culture and knowledge thanks to this lingua franca that English has turned it.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that governments and people around the world should ensure the survival of their local languages. Indeed, these languages carry the heritage and culture of these countries and they might lose this rich legacy – as well as their own identity – if they yield to the supremacy of English. For example, parents could teach their local language to their children and the latter could have some subjects at school in their local language. That way, they would not lose touch with it.

In conclusion, I believe that it is crucial to learn to speak English in the world we live to be able to travel abroad and have access to other cultures. However, I think that it is our responsibility to maintain alive our local languages so we do not forget about our history and cultural identity. Hopefully more local languages such as Cantonese in Chinese-speaking countries or Breton in France can be taught at school in the years to come.