Although the prices of fuels have greatly increased over the last decade or two, it is argued that further increases in fuel prices are the only way to reduce world consumption of fuel and lessen pressure on the world’s fuel resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience. You should write at least 250 words.
Oil, gas and coal are all non-renewable resources. This is known worldwide, as well as the fact that society lives above its demands. Even though fuel prices have increased significantly over the last decade, consumption will still cause these resources to run out eventually. It has been argued that the only way to decrease the usage of fuel is to further increase the prices.
Currently, most people think in the present and do not consider the future enough. Therefore, to affect people in their everyday lives, fuel prices ought to be raised. It is theorised that this will significantly decrease fossil fuel usage, as economic impact will be forced onto current users. It is necessary that fuel prices are high enough to immediately decrease the wealth of a family and make more people switch to public transport. Critics of this would argue, however, that society’s fossil fuels, such as petrol for cars, have an inelastic price and that price hikes would have no effect other than increasing tax and oil company revenues.
In addition, a significant increase in prices would not only impact each individual, but also a whole economy. Fuel prices are not only linked to transport, but also to food production, home heating and entertainment. A rise in prices in all these areas would seriously affect the standard of living of families with limited income and would mean the poorer parts of society would become even poorer.
In conclusion, while raising fuel prices is one of the most commonly-discussed solutions to fuel usage problems, this answer includes too many negative variables. Certainly, increasing fuel prices would create a small reduction of transport usage, but the far-reaching effects would be unfair and unsustainable.
Oil, gas and coal are all non-renewable resources. This
is known
worldwide,
as well
as the fact that society
lives
above its demands.
Even though
fuel
prices
have increased
significantly
over the last decade, consumption will
still
cause these resources to run out
eventually
. It has
been argued
that the
only
way to decrease the
usage
of
fuel
is to
further
increase the prices.
Currently
, most
people
think
in the present and do not consider the future
enough
.
Therefore
, to affect
people
in their everyday
lives
,
fuel
prices
ought to
be raised
. It is
theorised
that this will
significantly
decrease fossil
fuel
usage
, as economic impact will
be forced
onto
current
users. It is necessary that
fuel
prices
are high
enough
to immediately decrease the wealth of a family and
make
more
people
switch to public transport. Critics of this would argue,
however
, that society’s fossil
fuels
, such as petrol for cars, have an inelastic
price
and that
price
hikes would have no effect other than increasing tax and oil
company
revenues.
In addition
, a significant increase in
prices
would not
only
impact each individual,
but
also
a whole economy.
Fuel
prices
are not
only
linked to transport,
but
also
to food production, home heating and entertainment. A rise in
prices
in all these areas would
seriously
affect the standard of living of families with limited income and would mean the poorer parts of society would become even poorer.
In conclusion
, while raising
fuel
prices
is one of the most
commonly
-discussed solutions to
fuel
usage
problems, this answer includes too
many
negative
variables.
Certainly
, increasing
fuel
prices
would create a
small
reduction of transport
usage
,
but
the far-reaching effects would be unfair and unsustainable.