Heated debate as to whether increasing the price of petrol can address environmental problems

People think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems.

Give your opinion.

It has been a subject of lively heated debate as to whether increasing the price of petrol can address environmental problems. While I acknowledge that this measure can be favorable to some extent, I am of the opinion that there are other sustainable and effective solutions.

On the one hand, it is reasonable that raising the cost of fuel used to power cars and other vehicles is advantageous to some extent. One of the major benefits might be the improvement in the urban's air quality. In fact, imposing higher taxes on fuel will significantly discourage people from using their private vehicles for daily commute, which in turn forces the government to upgrade and expand public transport provisions to fulfill the city dwellers' traveling demand. As a consequence, the amount of CO2 emission released from private automobiles will considerably reduce, resulting in the alleviation of air pollution.

On the other hand, the national authorities should adopt transport policies which would be more effective in a long run. The first policy would be for car manufactures to design more environmentally-friendly cars. Instead of fueling cars using traditional and limited natural sources, car production companies should invest in renewable and infinite energy sources such as solar power or hydrogen, which proportionally spares future generations the pending energy crisis. Another policy would be to raise the public's ecological consciousness. Indeed, one of government's unavoidable obligations is to instill the urgent need of protecting our environment into the psyche of each and every member of our planet. As a result, people would be fully aware of the gravity of the situation and willing to take immediate actions to prevent further environmental degradation.

In conclusion, although raising the price of petrol may be advantageous to a certain degree, I espouse the notion that other solutions would be more efficacious due to the aforementioned reasons.

PLEASE RATE AND FIX IT FOR ME

Considering that only one point of view was presented in the original prompt, and there is no opposing opinion given for you to discuss, it is not proper to refer to the discussion in this manner. The basis of the discussion is a single opinion coming from you, as the writer, not from 2 widely accepted public opinions.


Incorrect opinion basis. The writing requires a single straightforward supporting opinion, not a comparative "extent" presentation. The response format used is not acceptable.


Refer to the problem in your actual opinion statement and provide 2 alternate solution topics. What was provided is an incomplete opinion representation.

The discussion paragraphs itself are not following the expected response presentation since your opinion is divided rather than collated into the explanation of a single idea. Your reference to alternative solutions is a good response, so defend it strongly over 2 paragraphs. Do not divide the discussion since that will provide an open ended opinion for your discussion, which does not meet the clear opinion requirement of the writing task.