Boosting the price of fuel is one way to solve the world's environmental problem. But it is not the only way; nor is it the best way. In spite of the short-term advantages, the advanced price of fuel may also elicit negative repercussion socially and economically. However, in view of the statement, I am of the opinion that other approaches − those that instill a sense of genuine commitment − are likely to be more directive and effective in the long run.
Admittedly, the increasing price of fuel and gasoline tax will serve the environmental goals up to a point. The distinct effects of these remedies cannot be denied. As is well known, the combustion of gasoline used by a large number of private cars will generate a mass of Carbon Dioxide, which is intimately bound up with global warming. Nevertheless, the higher price of gasoline causes less use of individual cars. In this case, not only the emission of greenhouse gas can be substantially cut down, but also the problem of traffic congestion can be effectively relieved. Moreover, thoroughly motivated by the ascending expenditure of gasoline, an increasing number of drivers tend to be dawned upon the paramount importance of environmental protection. In addition, as high-priced fuel will exceedingly trigger a high value on small-displacement vehicles and then breed a new wave of automobile manufacture, people concerned about the headache of global warming are more likely to be jubilant over the policy .
At the same time, the growing price of fuel will conversely pose detrimental impacts on the public socially and economically. First of all, the public attention will be diverted to the bargains of low quality, leading to a more grievous contamination. Secondly, from an economic perspective, the dramatically climbing price will be achieved at the cost of the potential economic transformation in our country. Nowadays, owing to a vital and decisive role the ever-developing industry plays in our nation, the run-up in oil price will inevitably initiate the ensuing enhancement in price of the other relevant products. As an instance, auto oil is an essential component in the operation of most industrial machines. Hence, some manufactures will calculate the trade-off, and budget in advance by means of driving up the price of their products instead of the quality as well. Furthermore, with ponderous housing-related debt and stressful family burden, it will undoubtedly induce a threat to some citizens' financial stability. To illustrate this point, I will cite the case of my father's friend. He is a fledging merchant in the threshold of his business. His private car is used for transporting goods, whereas the enhanced price of gasoline makes his delivery expense more challenging and unaffordable. As a result, his wife has no choice but to take on a part-time job for extra money to keep the smooth flow of his husband's capital. Evidently, considering the affordability of the general public, it is not wise to bump up the price of fuel and gasoline tax.
In the final analysis, a better way to solve the world's environmental problem is to inculcate a sense of genuine commitment into the public − through education. When the public become committed to the environmental goal, the adverse impacts resulted from advanced price of fuel will be supplanted by thoughtful concerns about all the implications of one's action on the environment, resulting in far more effective environmental protection.
Hello Yingjing!
The next time you post an essay, don't forget to include the prompt.
Carbon Dioxide
"carbon dioxide" -- No capitalization is required.
Moreover, thoroughly motivated by the ascending expenditure of gasoline, an increasing number of drivers tend to be dawned upon the paramount importance of environmental protection.
Although, I got your point, I think this is a complicated sentence.
people concerned about
the headache of global warming
In the final analysis, a better way to solve the world's environmental problem is to inculcate a sense of genuine commitment into the public − through education.
I'm not sure about this sentence. It's not proper to introduce a new idea in the conclusion.
I think it is better to be more conventional in this intro:
Boosting the price of fuel is one way to solve the world's environmental problem, but it is not the only way, nor is it the best way.--- this is a powerful sentence. I think it is better as one long sentence.
I think your last paragraph should be much longer. You made some great observations, and you obviously have thought deeply about this. Give a big fat conclusion pararaph in which you discuss the implications of what the essay has shown. You wrote such a good essay that you deserve to be able to express yourself in a few more sentences during that conclusion. You earned it! So, what more do you want the reader to think about, now that you have made this point? Beef up that conclusion.
