Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:
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?
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1: (Disagreement)
It is true that skyrocketing the fuel price can 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 as well. Hence, the human being ought to scout out renewable energy in an attempt to halt the tide of environment 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, which is 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, airplane would be a concrete example- although the usage of these kinds of gigantic transportations 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 close Pandora’s Box.
Besides the renewable energy and the colossal fuel price, rearing a myriad of flora can usher in a great preponderance. What renders an easy access to oxygen is the vegetation which would absorb carbon dioxide – the most malignant element to our environment. In this dimension, revive the biodiversity seems as important as importance can be. Shielding the rainforest from deforestation and planting a broad spectrum of trees that spanning from alpines to bush on the major boulevards can truly breathe life into the urban sprawl. Most importantly, it could thoroughly eradicate the environment ailments.
With all that, it is reasonable to extrapolate that spurting the fuel prices can be described as a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, impeding a wide range of anthropogenic activities and cementing the cornerstone of ecosystem might be much more possible and practical to tackle with this elusive enigma.
[Written by – Willie]
Model Answer 2: (Agreement)
Environmental or natural hazards are the results of physical processes that affect humans and environment every day and harmful for 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, 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 to raise the price of fuel. 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 and carburettor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The 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 normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the most dangerous threat to the human existence.
Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other 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 it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. 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. A government should implement strict rules of using cars, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average people’s life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price of the fuel.
Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world 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 in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.
First of all, the maximum numbers of cars are owned by the rich people and fuel price would not restrain them from using the cars. The price of fuel, in fact, increased significantly over the past 12 years and that has done nothing to reduce the car usages. 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 wastages, industries, household electrical devices, deforestation, chemical wastages, unthoughtful activities of people are causing more damage to the mother earth than the gas omission by the cars. We should focus on those aspects as well before increasing the price of fuel 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 the 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 own 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.
The idea of raising prices of environmentally risky goods is not a recent hypothesis. It is named Pigovian tax, and it aims to reduce the use of such goods. It really affects consumption, balancing the advantage of using a certain 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 effectiveness of the Pigovian tax lies on the ability of actors in finding 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 the one of energy makes the use of incentives and changing in prices an unreliable and dangerous tool. It could create too many damages for an excessively unpredictable policy.
All things considered, many doubts remain about the hypothesis of using prices as a lever to modify the way how people behave when dealing with energy and petrol. Some positive consequences are certainly undeniable, but risks are still higher than expected benefits. Consequently, betting on alternative solutions would be desirable.