The best way to solve the world’s environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel Sample Essay

Hi IELTSMaterial, I’d like to submit my essay of the above topic for evaluation. I’d like to know my band score if this was an IELTS test and feedbacks. Thanks for helping!

Essay:
According to some raising the charge of fuel is an optimal way to resolve worldwide environmental issues. In my opinion, I disagree that this is the most excellent way to improve the environment, as there are still other techniques that achieve the same or even better results than this solution.
A good reason to assume that this is not the best answer for pollution problems is that severe actions take a large responsibility for contamination that this measure is unable to prevent. One of the notorious causes of environmental troubles is deforestation, and fluctuating the price of fuel will not oscillate any operations of clearing the forested land, which means that this will also not develop any positivities to the environment.
When it comes to resolving environmental issues, there are other measures that should be considered. One of the clearest answers in my belief is to replace disposal items with reusable items. As plastic accounts for an extensive amount of time to dissolve, even in a matter of centuries, we should recycle these items to inhibit the superabundance of redundant offal into the ocean, ambiance, and numerous other essential components of the environment that we are supplying unnecessary refuses out of it.
In conclusion, operating activity of augmenting the cost of fuel is not a perfect movement to conserve the environment, instead, we ought to be concentrating on crucial actions that will ameliorate environmental problems such as implementing other procedures that are more beneficial in order to prevent serious contamination.

Reply

There is no doubt that the use of fuel has had a devastating impact on our environment and unless serious measures are taken we might never be able to save what we still have. That is why I believe that the most effective method to save nature is to increase fuel prices for the reasons that I will be discussing.
To begin with, humans are in nature greedy beings, their own benefit will come before any other consideration. This means that if gas is an available and cheap source of energy to run their cars they will keep using it regardless of what harm it might cause. Moreover, many people believe that they will only live for some time on this planet before dying so it does not suite them to make changes that can cause them inconveniences for the benefit of future generations that do not affect them in any way.
Another reason to consider is available data that we already have. It has been shown that the best motive to stop an unwanted behavior is to make it expensive. The most prominent example is that of smoking. The number of smokers in countries that made cigarettes more expensive has dropped significantly compared to countries where prices stayed the same. Therefore, if the same concept can be applied to fuel people will be forced to find other means that are less expensive namely renewables.
In conclusion, it is not enough to rely on the conscious of people to help save our environment, governments must have the main role by making fuel an undesirable option, one way to do that is by making it financially repelling. However, it is still important to provide fuel substitutes that will make people happy for the plan to work out.

Reply

It’s often argued that the most effective way in order to tackle traffic and pollution problems is rising the cost of petrol . I completely agree that this would be the best way to approach these issues.

Firstly,by increasing the price of petrol, the number of people who use public transportation would experience a significant growth . Hence there would be less cars in the streets or highways then less traffic jams would be seen . Moreover, the amount of carbon dioxide or other toxic gasses in the in the air would be decreased.

Having said this, it must also be said that some associations may not spend as much time driving outside as before in order to save more money.For instead, there are some people who are juggling their demands and their inadequate salaries . Therefore they make every endeavour which would help them lessen their expenses.

Another point to consider can be replacing our existing vehicles by electronic ones which could be powered by a renewable power that produces zero emissions . The plan is simple but revolutionary. It starts with the installation of a home charge point , and through this, the vehicle will be plugged into the electricity grid whenever it is in the garage.

Last but not least point would be about evolving the efficient facilities or more essential than that how safe and hygien are our public transportation. This measure also have a decisive impact on the number of people who would have a tendency to use public transportation. For example, if people be ensured that the factors they are searching for ideal transporting is available while using subway they may be more tempted to buy a ticket for it .

In conclusion, I strongly agree that a rise in the price of petrol would solve many kinds of pollution and also traffic. I associate the practicality of this solution with more use of public transportation and eliminating extra or unnecessary transfers . On the other hand, producing electronic vehicles and advancing public transportation’s features are other operable solutions in order to deal with such problems.

Reply

In recent times, environmental problems have always been a huge concern to a great proportion of people in many societies. There is a school of thought that the government ought to increase the price of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental issues. From my own perspective, it is a useful measure, but other measures might be more effective.
On the one hand, there were many positive results if the government escalated the expense of fuel for many vehicles like cars or motorbikes. First and foremost, it could restrict the number of people using these private vehicles. Secondly, the money raised could be used to improve the quality of public transport like buses or trains. The public transport would be invested to upgrade and expand, as people would still need to go to school, go to the company, or go to the supermarket, for instance. Both these measures could cut down on carbon emissions from vehicles and help to reduce the greenhouse effect and evenly, global warming.
On the other hand, while increasing the price of fuel for many private vehicles would be a useful measure, the government could adopt transport policies which would be more effective for the long term. The government could invest in the quality of public transports and encourage people to use them. Besides that, the government could introduce some free transports that support people having a low income. These measures would improve the air quality in the city and reduce the pollutants from private transports and also decrease the ability of global warming.

To conclude, the rise in the cost of fuels for vehicles would be a useful measure, although there were other ways to solve the environmental problems.

Reply

Increasing fuel price is the most effective way to solve environmental degradation globally. While there are certainly valid arguments to support this, I believe that this is not the solution to this problem. This paper is going to discuss my reasons.

Supporters of this argument claim that cars are the major cause of environmental degradation. Thus, raising petrol price would reduce pollution as the number of vehicles on the road would decrease. Nonetheless, I would contend that, hiking the price of fuel is not going affect fuel consumption. This is going to affect only low income earners as a huge part of their income would be used to fuel their cars. People with disposable income would not be affected as they would still be able to afford it. This can be seen in Japan where the number of car users remained the same after the hike in the price of petrol. Therefore, it is obvious that a hike in fuel price is not going to affect the number of automobiles on the road.

Furthermore, increasing the cost of fossil fuels is not a feasible solution as there are no alternatives for the society. Rather than increase the price of fuel the government should focus on making public transport better. For instance, they can create good roads, maintain public buses and make bus fares cheap in order to attract more people to use public transport. Thus, a substitute should be created for people rather than raising the cost of fossil fuels.

In conclusion, I once again reaffirm my position that making fossil fuels more costly is not the best solution to environmental issues worldwide because of its effect on a certain section of the society and the absence of better alternatives.

Reply