Rewrite timed paragraph

There are many waste disposal schemes such as zero waste, land-filling, incinerators and so on. In this essay, zero waste and land-filling will be compared and contrasted. There are three reasons why Vietnam should replace land-filling by zero waste for the future.

Firstly, land-filling is a method for final disposal of solid waste on land. As a result, Vietnam has wasted a lot of helpful lands in order to store the rubbish. Otherwise, zero waste is used to promote positive alternatives to land-filling and reduce dramatically incinerations. Second of all, people, who prefer the land-filling, may have a health risk, because the land-filling causes many organic wastes. On the contrary, people, who have the zero waste as the first choice, might have no health risk due to no organic wastes in zero waste. That might be the major reason why the councils have to separate "organics, dry recyclables such as bottles and plastics, and tricky residuals such as batteries". Therefore, with the purpose of achieving good health, Vietnam should use zero waste instead of land-filling. Finally, the materials of the land-filling is variable, while the ones of the other must be repaired, reused and recycled. Thus, the materials, which do not satisfy these requirements, are designed out of the system. In addition, it is definitely difficult to replace the whole land-filling systems by the zero waste one for a short time. However, it might save much money because of no waste of zero waste when it is already replaced land-filling by zero waste.

To recapitulate, there may be a lot of advantages of using zero waste. The most meaningful advantage is that the benefits for health and job will be enormous. In my opinion, Vietnam should replace land-filling by zero waste in the near future.