The speaker asserts that charging people for use of Tria’s beaches will reverse the beach erosion problem. However, it is questionable as to whether this strategy is practical. The speaker describes Batia’s successful beach replenishment project and argues that Tria should follow its example. The speaker’s reasoning makes sense at first glance, but there are several issues with it.

First, Batia’s beaches are relatively small compared to Tria. It is estimated that Tria could support 1.5 times the number of tourists that Batia does, so charging tourists for beach access would not generate enough revenue to cover the cost of beach restoration. Second, Batia’s beaches are only a few kilometers from the mainland, so their erosion has been caused by a combination of natural and manmade factors. The sand on Batia’s beaches has eroded due to natural geological processes, such as volcanic activity, and has also been eroded due to the construction of buildings on nearby islands. Therefore, it is unlikely that charging tourists to stop the beach erosion on Tria will be effective. Third, the speaker erroneously assumes that charging tourists will be enough to reverse the erosion. If Tria charges tourists, then it is likely that these tourists will flock to Batia’s beaches instead. If Batia charges tourists, then Tria’s beaches will essentially be left empty. Finally, although the speaker is correct that charging tourists would preserve some buildings near the beaches, it is unclear whether it would be enough to preserve them in the long term. The decision not to charge tourists on Batia’s beaches seems to have led to more erosion; in fact, the beaches are eroding faster than ever. Therefore, charging tourists may be a short-term solution, but it is not a viable long-term solution.

The speaker’s argument is not without merit. The revenues from charging beach-goers for access to the beaches would significantly bolster the revenue of Tria’s tourist industry. However, this revenue has to come from somewhere. The islands of Batia are not large enough to support 1.5 times as many tourists as Tria, and this means that charging tourists will not generate enough revenue to cover the cost of beach replenishment. Furthermore, the beaches on Batia are eroding because of natural geological processes. Therefore, charging tourists for access will not impact the natural processes that are causing beach erosion. Therefore, the only method of preventing the erosion would be to prevent people from building structures near the beaches, but this would also affect the tourism industry.

The speaker’s argument is not without merit, but it ignores several sources of evidence that could weaken it. The beaches on Batia are eroding faster than the beaches on Tria, which suggests that charging tourists would do nothing to reverse the process. This evidence alone undermines the speaker’s claim that charging tourists would make Tria’s beaches less vulnerable during storms. Furthermore, if Batia is able to charge tourists to cover the cost of beach replenishment, then Tria’s beaches would not be left empty. Tria’s beaches are likely to lose more tourists than they gain, and these tourists would not be willing to pay the fees that Batia charges. Therefore, charging tourists for Tria’s beaches would be counterproductive.

Finally, the speaker suggests that charging tourists would preserve some buildings near the beaches, but it is unclear whether this would preserve them in the long term. Batia’s beaches are eroding faster than ever, which suggests that charging tourists would do nothing to protect them. Furthermore, the beaches on Batia are eroding because people are building structures near them. If people do not start building structures near the beaches, then their erosion will stop. Therefore, charging tourists for access to the beaches on Tria would be pointless.