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

0
4914

The best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

You should write at least 250 words.

 

 

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample

Sample Answer 1:

Excessive traffic and increasing pollution are affecting every major city in the globe. To
lessen such problems, some people say that governments should raise the price of
fuel such as petrol and diesel. It may help to some extent but I disagree that it is the
best solution to solve the problem of environment.

To begin with, the number of cars in a country directly depends on the proportion of
the population affluent enough to own cars. As a result, raises in gas price could
invoke hard feelings among this segment of people but would not drastically change
their behaviour in using cars. Even if the number of cars on road is reduced due to
higher gas cost, this is not the best way to solve traffic problems. Such policy would
hurt the auto industry, place higher costs on current and prospective car owners, and
be detrimental to the economy of a nation. In the long run, the final way out could be
the construction of better roads and more effective use of available transport
facilities.

Secondly, there is evidence that waste gas from cars is not the leading cause of air
pollution. The culprit may be the discharge of polluting substances into the
atmosphere due to the rapidly growing manufacturing industry. As a result, reduction
of the number of cars would not return us a blue sky and fresh air. We could better
handle this problem if we could increase control over industrial waste-discharge and
adopt more environmental friendly materials and production equipment.

Finally, other measures like the application of cheaper and cleaner energy resources
could also be a better solution. For example, we now have the ability to make cell-
powered or even solar-powered cars. Such energy is completely clean and plentiful.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, it is not the best way to control traffic
and pollution by increasing gas price because such action will hurt consumers and
economy without achieving what it is aimed for. Measures such as construction of
better transport facilities and development of new energy resources could be more
effective solutions.

Sample Answer 2:

Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.

One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions.

A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.

In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.

Model Answer 3: (Agreement)
Environmental or natural hazards are the result of physical processes that affect humans and environment every day and harmful for both in short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.

One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburetor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The industrialization is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.

“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic, but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the most dangerous threat for the human existence.

Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Car-pooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. Government should implement strict rules of using car, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average people’s life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price of fuel.

Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.

Model Answer 4: (Disagreement)

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.

Model Answer 5:(Disagreement)

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.

 

Model Answer 6: (Disagreement)

It is an irrefutable fact that to diagnose the ways for saving the environment is one the serious matters among the countries. Many nations are finding the solutions to this ugly growth. As it has been heard that to increase the price of fuel can be proved effective solution. However, I do not endorse this observation.

While spotlighting to the above aspect, I can explicitly say that this prediction can have adverse impact on society. Being price of fuel at the peak, the fairs get heavily increased. With that the peoples’ life would probably get more miserable. This practice will contribute to worsen the situation of poor people. For verification, it is illustrated that there are millions of people in the world, who go to their work by public transportation. It has been proved both in developing and developed countries, whenever the price of oil increases; the fairs of public transportation do not take enough time to reach at climax.

Furthermore, there is no full proof surety that after raising the price of fuel, the car owners would abandon driving their vehicles. The dramatic increase in the folks’ income has witnessed that the societies are richer than past. If they can afford to buy a car then expenditures of oils are not beyond their approach. For instance, in both developing and developed countries, the total number of car holder has increased markedly.

Fuel is not used to run cars only. It is also used to run industries and machines. So increasing prices of it would hurt the industrial productions as well. By increasing fuel price Government would be in a great dilemma and would not be able to control the price of the daily commodity. The increased price of the fuel would only make problem to the poor people while rich people who mostly own cars would find a way to buy it. The main concern is the pollution prevention not the fuel price. There are other ways of doing so rather than increasing the fuel price. Increasing fuel price would create some international crisis and nations who produce fuel would get benefits from that while the poor nations would struggle.

All things are considered, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that increment in costing of fuel is not an exceptional measure to reduce the environment hazards rather it is a reactionary work. There are many other solutions that can be applied. Like government should prompt eco-friendly vehicles and public transport by hand-overing them with extraordinary facilities. It should also make the people aware of menace of pollutions.

 

Model Answer 7: (Disagreement)

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.

Model Answer 8:

Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case.

One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions.

A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions.

In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our children’s children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen.

Model Answer 9:
In the day and age, human civilization is developing at utterly fast speed, requiring an enormous amount of energy which is primarily sourced from the burning of fossil fuels. Undoubtedly, this traditional source of energy is condemned as the culprit for the emissions of greenhouse gases, causing global warming and venting anger from environmentalists. In response to this, some people has suggested the increase of fuel’s price to demotivate users and ameliorate the situation. Convinced by well-grounded reasons, the author believes that while such an idea is feasible and may yield immediate benefits, it is long from a complete adequate solution.

First of all, while lifting the price of fuel can impede its consumption to some extent, the great demand for such a substance, being strongly inelastic, will not varnish, at least in the short term. Undeniably, fuel is one of the most vital sources of energy in society, inextricably intertwining with the progression of mankind. In the near future, it is elusive to see the advent of any economical replacement for fuel, especially in agricultural and industrial activities. It is thus not an exaggeration to say that fuel will continue to be an integral part of modern life.

Secondly, it is fallacious to accuse fuel as the sole cause of environmental problems. Other factors such as deforestation, natural disasters and toxic pollutants being released from industries all jointly contributes to the degradation of environment. Focusing on fuel usage alone in tackling environmental deterioration will therefore be a vain effort. Instead, a sustainable solution to effectively preserving nature requires a combination of actions being carried in different areas with a mutual aim in protecting the environment.

In the light of the aforementioned facts, imposing higher price of fuel is neither the main nor the only solution to environmental problems that people are struggling to solve, although the utilization of fossil fuels, particularly petrol, is the largest source of emissions. Some other methods should be taken into consideration as well.

 

Get More Topic Sample Answer

 

Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post. 

 

(Collected; Source: Internet)