Writing Feedback / Increasing the price of fuel as the optimal solution to solve environmental problems [2]

Some people think the best way to solve global environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel.

To what extent do you agree or disagree

Society has witnessed environmental degradation in recent years, and finding a way to protect our nature is being considered as a top priority across the globe. Among solutions put forth, it is argued that increasing the price of fuel is the optimal one. While I agree that this is a feasible measure to deal with the above-mentioned phenomenon, it should be combined with other methods to maximize the effectiveness.

It is undeniable that raising fuel cost is beneficial to the environment to a certain extent in my opinion. With higher costs charged for petrol or oil, travelling by private vehicles might be discouraged, because commuters are now thinking more about their monthly expenditure when commuting with such automobiles and motorcycles. On that account, public transports might be considered as a substitute and are more likely to be chosen. With higher capacity, if public transport are packed with passengers, the amount of vehicles exhaust fumes released to the air could be significantly reduced and the air pollution might be mitigated, as a result.

However, I believe that increasing the fuel price solely is not optimal and long lasting, unless it is taken with other measures simultaneously. Besides encouraging public transport, another measure that might also efficiently deploy the capacity of vehicles is promoting car-sharing programs, which could play a pivotal role in reducing the exhaust emissions as well. In addition, a limitation of carbon footprint per capita might be issued, so that global warming could be slowed down. Finally, the public's awareness towards environmental importance and responsibility should be raised. With a deeper understanding about our world, people's behaviors might be done with a higher respect for ecological criteria.

In conclusion, through diminishing vehicles exhaust fumes, a higher cost for fuel might obviously exert a positive impact on the global environment. Nevertheless, this solution, from my perspective, should be implemented together with other methods to elevate the effectiveness.

I hope that you could give feedback and score for me. I really appreciate for your help. Thank you.

Writing Feedback / AGREE/DISAGREE - CLEARING PUBLIC PARKS [NEW]

Although many people value their public parks, this space could be better used for other purposes such as residential areas for the ever-growing population or to develop business and boost economies.

To what extent do you agree or disagree

Our industrial world has been witnessing the rapid development of economies as well as the population explosion in recent years. It is, thus, argued that natural sceneries, including public parks, should be cleared to make way for more accommodation and business buildings. From my perspective, I utterly disagree with this opinion, because I believe that natural sceneries have their own merits and the clearance of them is inappropriate.

To begin with, there are two main advantages of public gardens which are worthy of mention. Firstly, these parks play a pivotal role in freshening and enhancing the air quality, particularly in metropolitan areas. Through the photosynthesis process, plants grown in the parks might not only provide oxygen to local occupants, but also absorb emissions released form factories and industrial zones. The respiratory system of regional dwellers, on that account, might be significantly benefited and improved. Secondly, with a diverse number of trees, fountains and flowers consisted of in these places, the regional beauty might be remarkably fostered.

In addition, sacrificing public parks to more accommodations and workplaces, in my viewpoint, is unreasonable. We are living in a world where people have learnt how to manipulate state-of-the-art technologies and deploy the space above us. With technological advances, vertical construction with skyscrapers is a feasible solution to tackle the problem of overpopulation. For that reason, demolishing public parks for more buildings seems not to be a smart measure. Taking New York, which is a metropolis both well-known for excellent infrastructure and massive public parks, such as the Central park, for instance.

In conclusion, given that public gardens exert beneficial impacts on the air quality and they beauty of local areas, and given that the clearance of them for the purposes of dealing with population explosion and accelerating national economies is improper, these parks should be continuously maintained to increase the quality of life for local residents.