Some people believe that the best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the price of fuel. Do you agree or disagree?
Some argue that raising the price of fuel is the most effective way to tackle environmental issues. While many believe that it could eventually reduce carbon footprint and alleviate climate change, I disagree with their perspective.
Firstly, a hike in price makes limited impact on the consumption of fuel. Firms and individuals combust fuel to meet their necessities. For example, factories need to use gas and oil in their machinery to manufacture products like vehicles. This is particularly true in many developing countries with a large population and steady and robust market demand. Moreover, businesses pass the cost to consumers through higher pricing. Another example is workers living in remote areas commute to their workplaces by driving daily. In some regions where public transport infrastructure is underdeveloped, driving is the only option when affordable housing is available in suburbs. A price increase would do little in lowering fuel consumption.
Secondly, certain environmental problems are unrelated to the burning of fuel. Take the conservation of wildlife for example, which requires efforts in the education of the importance of protecting endangered species. In some Southeast Asian countries, people kill animals and eat game meat for cultural and religious reasons. In addition, government regulations and scrutiny are pivotal in combating illegal waste dumping. Some construction companies discard unprocessed waste for convenience and cost-saving considerations. Heightening fuel prices would not be a well-rounded solution to resolve environment issues.
In conclusion, the effect of a price increase in fuel on curbing environmental concerns is negligible. We should explore alternative means to improve our environment.
Some argue that raising the price of fuel is the most effective way to tackle environmental issues. While many believe that it could eventually reduce carbon footprint and alleviate climate change, I disagree with their perspective.
Firstly, a hike in price makes limited impact on the consumption of fuel. Firms and individuals combust fuel to meet their necessities. For example, factories need to use gas and oil in their machinery to manufacture products like vehicles. This is particularly true in many developing countries with a large population and steady and robust market demand. Moreover, businesses pass the cost to consumers through higher pricing. Another example is workers living in remote areas commute to their workplaces by driving daily. In some regions where public transport infrastructure is underdeveloped, driving is the only option when affordable housing is available in suburbs. A price increase would do little in lowering fuel consumption.
Secondly, certain environmental problems are unrelated to the burning of fuel. Take the conservation of wildlife for example, which requires efforts in the education of the importance of protecting endangered species. In some Southeast Asian countries, people kill animals and eat game meat for cultural and religious reasons. In addition, government regulations and scrutiny are pivotal in combating illegal waste dumping. Some construction companies discard unprocessed waste for convenience and cost-saving considerations. Heightening fuel prices would not be a well-rounded solution to resolve environment issues.
In conclusion, the effect of a price increase in fuel on curbing environmental concerns is negligible. We should explore alternative means to improve our environment.
