The growth in means of transports nowadays has recently been a heated issue because it leads to serious environmental problems. Some individuals state that the efficient way to approach the risks is to raise the fuel price. On my perspective, I suppose that there are other/alternative methods which also addresses the problem adequately/successfully.

To begin with, it is evident that the influence of fuel cost on the number of transports is unremarkable. This is because most people decide whether to buy a new car or not depending on their need as well as their budget, not particularly fuel price. One good example is in Vietnam, although the price of petrol is double compared with that 10 years ago, the figures of motorbikes and cars are significantly rising every year.

Therefore, what the government should do is to impose laws to restrict imported cars by tax in order to decline vehicles which play an integral factor in causing traffic congestion and pollution. In that case, the customers could take into consideration if the price of cars is too high to afford. As a consequence, traffic jam is reduced effectively. Furthermore, public transport should be improved to attract more passengers. This solution does not only cut down private vehicles but also reduce carbon dioxide emission that causes greenhouse effects and climate change these days.

In conclusion, as far as I concerned, there are many effective ways to tackle traffic and pollution problems besides the rise of petrol price. Above all, we should combine above – mentioned solutions to cope with traffic and environment issues.

Since the last decade, environmental hazards have been a highly debated topic across the world. Many people believe that raising the cost of fuel is the best solution to decrease threats posed to our surroundings. I am of the opinion that this approach is effective but not the best one. During the course of the essay, I shall support my stand with valid arguments.

Elevating the price of fuel would undoubtedly decrease its consumption and thus reduce the hazards caused by it. However, vehicular pollution is not the only threat to our environment today.

Many factors affect our environment. Excessive use of personal vehicles is just one of them. Air pollution is also caused by the burning of household and industrial waste. In Delhi, for example, the main cause of air pollution is the burning of crop residues by farmers in Punjab and Haryana. Thus, it is evident that raising the price of fuel is not the right solution to dealing with all sorts of environmental problems.

Moreover, the rise in fuel prices can have a negative impact on everyone’s daily routine if alternatives are not provided. In the past, whenever the authorities increased the cost of fuel, there have been numerous instances of strikes and violence throughout the world. If the prices are to be raised, the citizens should be provided with free or cheap public transport. Additionally, the government can decrease the tax on electric vehicles.

To conclude, escalating the price of fuel could help decrease environmental hazards, but can also lead to other problems. Governments and environmentalists have to consider implementing multiple solutions together. Additionally, to cope with the downsides of such measures, appropriate alternatives have to be provided to the citizens.

Environmental pollution has been a major concern in today’s society, and some people feel that governments should raise the price of fuel to resolve this issue. In my opinion, it may help to some extent; however, this is not the only solution to tackle this problem.

To begin with, increasing the price of petrol can help reduce the environmental pollution to some degree. In other words, excessive use of cars releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is detrimental to the environment. If the price of petrol is increased / hiked), individuals will start to use their cars less often and this in turn can decelerate the rate of air pollution. However, the increase in the cost of petrol will not stop the environmental pollution. Besides, the fuel price determines the market prices of other essential commodities, and increasing the price can affect poor and middle class families.

On the other hand, governments can take other measures to mitigate these problems. A better solution is to invest in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and tide rather than non-renewable resources like coal and petrol. For example, solar power in the United States has proven its efficiency in energy production. Second, by improving public transportation and reducing the cost of traveling, the government can encourage more people to use public transport; this practice can help clean the environment and reduce traffic.

To conclude, I strongly believe that the hike in the petrol price is not the best solution to this problem. Improving the efficiency of public transport and investing in renewable energy sources are better alternatives that ought to be considered.

Environmental or natural hazards are the result of physical processes that affect humans every day. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands, 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 carburetor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. “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.

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. Car-pooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too.

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.

The burning of fossil fuels is universally recognised as the largest source of emissions of greenhouse gases in the world and one of the key factors responsible for global warming. When there is a growing concern about the destructive effects of global warming and other environmental problems, some people argue that the best approach to deal with such problems is to increase fuel prices, assuming that it will lead directly to the drop in car use. This approach is productive to some extent, but some other measures should be given equal consideration.

It should be first noted that car use alone does not take up the entire consumption of petrol, although people’s obsession with car use contributes greatly to greenhouse gas emission. Petrol is intended for other applications too, such as electricity generation, the daily running of equipment and machinery for industrial and agricultural purposes. People are not surprised to see that the appliances used by many families are powered by petrol as well. Therefore, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, people should take different methods simultaneously, instead of relying on any single method only.

People should meanwhile recognise the fact that the demand for petrol is generally inelastic, at least in the short run. The consumption of petrol would not vary significantly according to the fluctuation of petrol price. To such a high degree have people relied on petrol in their daily lives that they cannot cut petrol use immediately. Some people might argue that using public transport is an alternative, but notably, public transport itself is a large producer of carbon dioxide. Going on fool or by bike is clean, but not preferred by many people, who are extremely time conscious.

Therefore, die effort to reduce greenhouse gases emission by curbing car use cannot achieve any immediate outcome unless sufficient time is given. Over a period of years, petrol consumption is very-likely to drop, when households realise that fuels represent an increasing proportion of expenditure. People might turn to fuel-efficient cars or reduce non essential trips, both resulting in the drop in petrol use. Car manufacturers are forced to enlarge research and development investment in producing hybrid cars or cars powered by renewable clean energy sources, a cure-all for car emission problems. In conclusion, imposing petrol tax is neither the main nor the only solution to environmental problems that people are struggling to solve, although the utilisation of fossil fuels, particularly petrol, is the largest source of emissions. Some other methods should be taken into consideration as well.