You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
People think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. Give your opinion.
OR
To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel. What is your opinion on the above assumption?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Sample Answer 1
It is widely believed that one solution to environmental problems would be for governments to raise the price of petrol. While I consider this a practical measure, I would argue that other measures might have an even more significant impact.
If national authorities raised taxes on petrol, this would address two environmental issues. Firstly, motorists would limit the number and length of their journeys in private cars to compensate for the extra expense. Governments would then be forced to upgrade and expand public transport provision, as people would still need to travel to work, school or shops and hospitals, for example. Secondly, from the perspective of freight services, more goods would have to be transported by rail rather than by truck. Both these measures would cut down on vehicle emissions and help reduce the greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, while this rise in fuel prices might be a useful stopgap measure, governments could adopt transport policies which would be more effective in the long term. For instance, the local authorities in London introduced a congestion charge on all vehicles visiting the city centre. They use the money raised to subsidize the cost of fares and to invest in transport infrastructure. In turn, this has improved the city’s air quality due to the reduction in exhaust fumes. Another policy would be to introduce free bus and train passes, as the increased use of public transport would reduce pollution from private cars and help in the effort to combat global warming.
In conclusion, a sharp rise in petrol prices would be a useful environmentally-friendly transport measure, although in the longer term other steps would be more effective.
Vocab Highlights
to raise petrol prices (a sharp rise in petrol prices = increase the cost of fuel): to increase the price which people pay for petrol
Example: Raising petrol prices would not be an effective method of reducing the amount of traffic on the roads.
to upgrade and expand public transport provision: to improve bus and train services and to make these services more available
Example: One way to reduce road traffic is to upgrade and expand public transport provision.
freight services: the system of transporting goods
Example: Railways must provide more freight services in order to reduce the number of trucks on the roads.
congestion charge: an amount of money that people have to pay for driving their cars into the centre of some cities, as a way of stopping the city centre from becoming too full of traffic
Example: More cities should follow the example of London and introduce a congestion charge in order to ease traffic flow in the city centre.
to subsidize the cost of fares: to give money to a business or organization to help to pay for the cost of using public transport
Example: Governments must subsidize the cost of fares on public transport.
to invest in transport infrastructure: to spend money on improving roads, railway lines, train and bus stations
Example: Governments must invest in transport infrastructure to make journeys by road and rail safer.
national and local authorities: government organizations acting at a national level or within a smaller, local area
Example: Tackling crime is a responsibility of both national and local authorities.
to raise taxes on: to increase the amount of tax on something
Example: Governments should raise taxes on cigarettes to persuade more people to give up smoking.
a stopgap measure: a policy or action adopted for a short time until some more permanent solution is found
Example: Building more prisons will not solve the problem of rising crime rates, but it is a stopgap measure which the government must take to protect ordinary citizens.
to adopt policies: to start to use particular policies
Example: In order to deal with traffic congestion, the government must adopt policies to restrict the use of private cars.
to cut down on emissions: to reduce the amount of gases sent out into the air
Example: People must be made aware of the need to cut down on emissions from their cars if we are to reduce air pollution.
the greenhouse effect: the natural process by which the sun warms the surface of the Earth.
Example: Our burning of fossil fuels is increasing the greenhouse effect and making the Earth hotter, endangering all life on the planet.
global warming: the process by which the Earth is getting hotter, as a result of the greenhouse effect – in particular the increase in carbon dioxide in the air.
Example: Perhaps the major environmental challenge which faces humanity today is global warming, because it threatens our survival.
environmentally friendly: behavior or products that do not harm the environment
Example: We can help to protect the environment by using detergents and cosmetics that are
to address [verb]: to think about a problem or situation and decide how you are going to deal with it
Example: We must address the problem of traffic pollution urgently.
exhaust fumes [noun]: smoke from cars or other vehicles which is dangerous for people to breathe in
Example: I hate walking in the city centre, because of all the exhaust fumes which pollute the air.
Sample Answer 2
The overconsumption of fossil fuels has become an essential topic of concern recently. Some people suggest that increasing the fuel price can be the solution to cope with environmental issues. I believe that other measures should also be given equal consideration.
Firstly, increasing fuel expenses cannot minimise the global dependence on fuel. It should be noted that even when the price of fuel increases significantly, people still cannot cut down the tremendous demand for petrol at once. For example, in daily life, people still need to use their cars despite the fluctuation in the petrol price. Another apparent reason is that petrol is also intended for other applications in manufacturing and agricultural industries. If the price of fuel increases, the national economy could suffer many unfavourable consequences.
Regarding reducing greenhouse gas emissions, some measures should be taken to mitigate the problems of overconsuming fuel. The most practical measure is to reduce the demand for resources in daily activities like travelling or production. This can be done by encouraging people to turn to mass-producing energy-efficient products like hybrid cars or implementing new saving energy technology in manufacturing. Besides, the most sustainable solution is to lower the reliance on fuel by taking advantage of alternative resources. Wind and tidal power in the Netherlands, nuclear power in Japan, and solar power in the United States have all proven their efficiency in energy in energy production. These could be employed in other parts of the world to minimise global dependence on fossil fuels.
All existing data shows that only fuel price increases will not reduce the global warming effects. Some alternative solid measures need to be implemented t
Useful expressions:
Tremendous (adj.) very great in amount or level, or extremely good.
Mass-produce (v.) to produce many goods cheaply using machines in a factory.
Energy-efficient (adj.) using little electricity, gas, etc.
Hybrid (adj.) (also hybrid car) a vehicle with an engine that uses both petrol and another type of energy, usually electricity.
Implement (v.) to start using a plan or system.
Solar power: energy from the Sun.
Fossil fuel: fuels, such as gas, coal, and oil, formed underground from plant and animal remains millions of years ago.
Sample Answer 3
Undoubtedly, it is important to understand environmental hazards and why it escalates. Environment hazards mean a decrease in the quality of the environment where we are residing. Due to harmful gases such as CO2 and SO2 emitted by industries, vehicle air is polluted. The industries throw harmful waste products into rivers which affects flora and fauna. Not only air and water are polluted, noise pollution has also surged. The same is the circumstances for arable lands.
So, it is clear that environmental hazards have increased not only by combustion of fuel, but others factors are also responsible for it. I reckon increasing fuel prices due to this reason is a foolish tactic. According to the given assumption, increasing fuel price means not making the price of ordinary people friendly. If this manoeuvre of concerned authorities, they will subsequently come under fire, and they cannot run the state. Transportation is a boon in the 21st century. We cannot imagine visiting our destination on foot as we cannot afford the fuel cost. Fuel is essential not only to transport but it is also required in every walk of life. For instance: cooking food, running industries etc., requires fuel.
The poor either protest against the price or rob those people who have purchasing power. It means unrest starts in the country. When it peaks some people lose their life, and the government is compelled to suspend the price increase. It is clear that increasing fuel prices is not a solution to control environmental hazards. Instead, it is an unwise strategy. Increasing awareness, banning old vehicle dependency or introducing renewable energy sources are some inevitable solutions to environmental hazards.
In conclusion, fuel prices should not be increased. Instead, other alternatives should be deduced. Environment hazards are common problems of people from every walk of life, so we should solve them by moving ahead shoulder to shoulder.
Sample Answer 4
Skyrocketing the fuel price can indeed make a nosedive on the use of vehicles in many cities but curtailing the volume of energy we utilise is not an elixir as it would soar the daily living expense. Hence, human beings ought to scout out renewable energy to halt the tide of environmental upheaval.
To begin with, protecting the environment only through the buoyant price of energy sounds somewhat over-optimistic. Developing other environment-friendly forms of momentum, such as hydrogen, the most potent weapon to deal with this murky water, is a far better solution. Despite the exorbitant price of fossil fuel, there is still a kaleidoscope of transportation that will need it. And by extension, aeroplanes would be a concrete example- although the usage of these kinds of gigantic transportation is bound to dwindle, it is undeniable that they still emit a sheer amount of carbon dioxide. Therefore, diving deeply into the domain of substitute energy can be served as a luminary that closes Pandora’s Box.
Besides the renewable energy and the colossal fuel price, rearing a myriad of flora can usher in a great preponderance. The vegetation which absorbs carbon dioxide, the most malignant element in our environment, renders easy access to oxygen. In this dimension, reviving biodiversity seems as essential as importance can be. Shielding the rainforest from deforestation and planting a broad spectrum of trees from alpines to the bush on the significant boulevards can breathe life into the urban sprawl. Most importantly, it could thoroughly eradicate environmental ailments.
It is reasonable to extrapolate that spurting fuel prices can be described as a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, impeding a wide range of anthropogenic activities and cementing the cornerstone of the ecosystem might be much more possible and practical to tackle this elusive enigma.
Sample Answer 5
Environmental or natural hazards are the results of physical processes that affect humans and the environment daily and are harmful both in the short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, and toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.
One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is raising fuel prices. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank, carburettor during regular operation, and engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions. Industrialisation is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.
“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a typical fuel product, is non-toxic but contributes to the greenhouse effect. It is also known as global warming and is probably the most dangerous threat to human existence.
Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and saves the earth. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for carpooling. Carpooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. The government should implement strict car use rules; for instance, no less than 4 people should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased thoughtfully because if it is so high, it will hamper ordinary people’s lives. Many people still use public transportation for movement, and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with fuel.
Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing worldwide due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol more responsibly and less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards. However, it might have some side effects the proper initiatives by the Government can control those.
Sample Answer 6
Several reasons are causing environmental harm; this has become an urgent issue to discuss and bring a solution to. The number of ever-increasing cars is one of the reasons that lead to negatively affecting the environment, and some assumptions about increasing the fuel price would solve this problem. But the reality would be different, and increased fuel prices would cause many other problems while contributing little to reducing environmental pollution and hazards. So this can’t be the best solution in any way.
First of all, the maximum number of cars are owned by the rich, and fuel prices would not restrain them from using the cars. The fuel price increased significantly over the past 12 years, which has done nothing to reduce car usage. On the contrary, the number of cars running on the roads has increased more than expected. Besides, the fuel price determines the market prices of other daily necessary products and increasing the price would only bring misery to the low and medium-earning class population. Electronic wastage, industries, household electrical devices, deforestation, chemical wastage, unthoughtful activities of people are causing more damage to mother earth than the gas omission by cars. We should also focus on those aspects before increasing the fuel price just based on an assumption.
The main idea of increasing the fuel price is to reduce the number of cars running in the street and to restrain car owners from using the cars less. But that would prove to be a ridiculous solution, especially when car owners are mostly high-earning class and they would not bother about the fuel price.
The best solution to address this utmost concerning issue is to introduce an environment-friendly energy source like solar energy system, to improve the public transportation system & train system so that people mostly use these systems instead of always using their cars, increasing the awareness of the people so that they do not directly contribute to harm the environment, and making strict rules so that deforestation, chemical wastages and other harmful ways of environmental pollutions get reduced.
Sample Answer 7
Increasing the price of oil is one of the main strategies elaborated to act against the worsening of habitat conditions. Nonetheless, such a solution could not be enough to stop the phenomenon.
Raising prices of environmentally dangerous goods is not a recent hypothesis. It is named the Pigovian tax and aims to reduce the use of such goods. It affects consumption, balancing the advantage of using a particular product with the disadvantage of a growing cost to obtain it. Consequently, consumers tend to move toward less expensive goods. This tendency is advantageous because the State doesn’t need to deal with enterprises: the loss of clients means a consequent interest in enterprises toward green energy. The market works as a stabiliser, more than an element damaging the environment. Therefore, this policy can be advantageous.
On the other hand, disadvantages are more influential than positive effects. Firstly, the Pigovian tax’s effectiveness lies in the actors’ ability to find a good to be used as a substitute. What if a country invested many resources in road transport? What if a State can rely on massive oil reserves? In short, such a choice must consider both the existence of alternative sources and the historical industrial evolution of the country. Moreover, the importance of such an asset as energy makes using incentives and changing prices unreliable and dangerous. It could create too much damage for an excessively unpredictable policy.
Many doubts remain about the hypothesis of using prices as a lever to modify how people behave when dealing with energy and petrol. Some positive consequences are undeniable, but the risks are still higher than the expected benefits. Consequently, betting on alternative solutions would be desirable.
Sample Answer 8
It is irrefutable that diagnosing the ways to save the environment is one the most severe matters among countries. Many nations are finding solutions to this ugly growth as it has been heard that increasing fuel prices can be proven an effective solution. However, I do not endorse this observation.
While spotlighting the above aspect, I can explicitly say that this prediction can adversely impact society. The price of fuel is at its peak, so the fairs get heavily increased. With that, people’s life would probably get more miserable. This practice will contribute to deteriorating the situation of poor people. For verification, it is illustrated that millions of people in the world go to work by public transportation. It has been proved in developing and developed countries that whenever the price of oil increases, the fairs of public transportation do not take enough time to reach the climax.
Furthermore, there is no full proof surety that after raising the price of fuel, car owners would abandon driving their vehicles. The dramatic increase in folks’ income has made societies more prosperous than in the past. If they can afford a car, oil expenditures are not beyond their approach. For instance, the total number of car holders in developing and developed countries has increased markedly.
Fuel is not used to run cars only. It is also used to run industries and machines. So increasing prices of it would hurt industrial production as well. By increasing fuel prices, the government would be in a great dilemma and unable to control the daily commodity price. The increased fuel price would only cause problems for poor people, while rich people, who mostly own cars, would find a way to buy them. The main concern is pollution prevention, not fuel price. There are other ways of doing so rather than increasing the fuel price. Increasing fuel prices would create some international crisis, and nations that produce fuel would benefit from that while the poor nations would struggle.
The apparent conclusion is that an increment in fuel cost is not an exceptional measure to reduce environmental hazards. Instead, it is reactionary work. Many other solutions can be applied. Like government should prompt eco-friendly vehicles and public transport by handovering them with extraordinary facilities. It should also make people aware of the menaces of pollution.
Sample Answer 9
The requirement and consumption of fuel have increased manifolds to meet the demands of the world population for industrial growth, power needs, transportation purposes, etc. The demand for fuel will only increase in the coming years, as projected and forecasted by energy experts. Many governments are taking measures to curb the demand for this commodity due to the heavy cost involved in import etc.
While some people believe that increasing the cost of fuel would save the environment from more damage, others opine that that would only create more misery for the poor.
Besides the financial constraints for many governments, a general but very important issue that needs to be addressed on a war footing basis is the environmental hazards associated with the massive use of this commodity that is not only harmful to mother earth but also poses significant dangers to human health. These dangers include toxic effluent dumped into the sea, which can destroy sea life, and pollutants released in the air, causing air pollution, affecting agriculture, the ozone layer etc. Human beings can suffer problems from breathing to some life-threatening diseases such as cancer.
So what option do we have? Perhaps one of the options but not the best one is to increase the cost of fuel, which will have adverse effects in countries where poverty level and inflation is already high, and general misery will increase. A better option might be to conserve fuel consumption by promoting energy conservation and creating a national policy suggesting various measures.
I would like to end my subject on the note that each country has to prepare a line of action by keeping the interest of its people and economy in mind.
Sample Answer 10
Of late, the increasing influx of vehicles poses a great menace to the environment across the world. Many assert that hiking oil prices would probably eliminate some dangers to the ecosystem. Nevertheless, I believe this idea is ineffective and would adversely affect ordinary people.
On the one hand, the fuel price increment might indeed reduce the usage of vehicles to some extent. This is because middle-class people will approach public transport and other alternatives at lower costs. It may result in controlling the emission of smoke and gases, hugely damaging the living world. Thus, it might prevent further environmental degradation.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that this tendency may make a trivial impact as most cars and vehicles are owned by the rich. For instance, New Delhi, the capital of India, where the government has recently amended this act, still stands taller in the list of highly polluted cities. In addition, even if the rates of oils are skyrocketing, wealthy car owners can still afford it. Hence, I would say that it will hardly yield the desired outcome.
I also believe this trend would contrarily influence commoners’ lives. Owing to a hefty fuel toll, the diverse range of trades will undoubtedly be affected, raising the fare of necessities. Moreover, the factors such as deforestation, industrial emissions, and so on primarily cause great havoc on the natural world. For example, the more people vandalise the forests, the worse the effects will be. So, it is baseless to implement this act into society.
To conclude, as this is incoherent due to its negligible positive result, governments should develop constructive measures to prevent detrimental effects on the ecosystem.