IELTS Writing Task 2 – The best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase

There are several reasons that are causing the environmental harms and this has become an urgent issue to discuss and bring a solution about. The number of ever increasing cars is one of the reasons that leads to affect the environment negatively and there are some assumptions that increasing the fuel price would solve this problem. But the reality would be different, and increased fuel price will cause lots of other problems while it would contribute very little to reduce the environmental pollutions and hazards. So this can’t be the best solution in any way.

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 in 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 activity 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 specially 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.

Increasing the price of oil is one of the main strategies elaborated in order to act against the worsening of habitat condition. Nonetheless, such a solution could be not enough to stop the phenomenon.

The idea of raising prices of environmentally risky goods is not a recent hypothesis. It is a namen (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 tent 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. Market works as a stabilyzer, 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 this 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 solution would be desirable.

The requirement and consumption of fuel have increased manifolds to meet the demands of world population for industrial growth, power needs and transportation purposes etc. The demand for fuel is only going to increase in the coming years as projected and forecasted by the energy experts. Many governments are taking various measures to curb the demand of this commodity due to heavy cost involved in import etc.

While some people believe that increasing the cost of the fuel would save the environment from more damages, others opine that that would only create more misery to the poor people.

Besides the financial constraints for many governments a general but very important issue that needs to be addressed on war footing basis is the environmental hazards associated with massive use of this commodity that are not only harmful to the mother earth but also pose great dangers to the human health. This dangers include toxic affluent dumped into sea which can destroy sea-life, pollutants released in air causing air pollution which can effect agriculture, ozone layer etc. Human beings can suffer problems from breathing to some life threatening diseases as cancer etc.

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 its own negative effects in the countries where poverty level and inflation is already high and the public miseries will increase. A better option might be to conserve the consumption of fuel 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.