When the issue of the upsurge in the cost of petrol and diesel comes into view, there exist conflict opinions. Advocates claim that the escalation in the fuel price will tackle several environmental problems regarding air pollution, whilst others adopt an opposing view that increasing the cost will make no difference to the existing environmental catastrophe. Each side has their own merits, which will be outlined below.
For starters, increase the price of gas engine have a tendency to do harm to the standard of living. To be more specific, apart from the expenditure on the maintenance of personal transportation, citizens have to part with their money for their priorities. According to Wikipedia, the yellow vests movement which involved a handful of grassroots from all walks of life in favour of economic justice because the cost of living are too high to afford. What can be inferred from this is the reform in fuel prices may make inhabitants suffer and many people would deprive of essentials living standard. What is more is that shooting up the fare of fuel does not guarantee that inhabitants will cut down on the time using personal transports, which is considered as the contributing factor to pollute. In other words, a handful of people possesses cars and motorbikes because it serves the purpose of personal enjoyment, so a little hike in prices is not of great importance to them. For example, a lot of billionaires buy up to date vehicles monthly because purchasing cars bring them a sense of achievements regardless of the fact that this item may be exorbitant. This directly suggests that once people can splash out on an expensive car, they will have no regard to the upsurge in additional cost.
On the other hand, using gas for the engine is to blame for part of pollutions. To be more specific, not only manufacturing sector but also transportation holds responsible for the changing in climate patterns. Recent research suggests that the amount of co2 from factories is the root cause of air pollution, but gases emitted from vehicles do. Accordingly, the fumes from factories only make up for 25% in the leading cause of air deterioration, while transport emission takes up the remaining. This directly indicates that increasing the price of oil is a viable option to strike the environmental disaster.
In light of the above arguments, I think that both the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. It is undeniable that environmental catastrophe is the wake up call for the whole society, but the truth is, no one can afford to be without personal vehicles. To relish this challenge, I really believe that the solar engine should be considered as a feasible alternative and government should give a helping hand in raising people’s awareness about protecting the earth.
When the issue of the upsurge in the cost of petrol and diesel
comes
into view, there exist conflict opinions. Advocates claim that the escalation in the fuel
price
will tackle several
environmental
problems regarding air pollution, whilst others adopt an opposing view that increasing the cost will
make
no difference to the existing
environmental
catastrophe. Each side has
their
own
merits, which will
be outlined
below.
For starters, increase the
price
of gas engine have a tendency to do harm to the standard of living. To be more specific, apart from the expenditure on the maintenance of
personal
transportation, citizens
have to
part with their money for their priorities. According to Wikipedia, the yellow
vests
movement which involved a handful of grassroots from all walks of life in
favour
of economic justice
because
the cost of living are too high to afford. What can
be inferred
from this is the reform in fuel
prices
may
make
inhabitants suffer and
many
people
would deprive of essentials living standard.
What is more
is that shooting up the fare of fuel does not guarantee that inhabitants will
cut
down on the time using
personal
transports, which
is considered
as the contributing factor to pollute.
In other words
, a handful of
people
possesses cars and motorbikes
because
it serves the purpose of
personal
enjoyment,
so
a
little
hike in
prices
is not of great importance to them.
For example
,
a lot of
billionaires
buy
up to date vehicles monthly
because
purchasing cars bring them a sense of achievements regardless of the fact that this item may be exorbitant. This
directly
suggests that once
people
can splash out on an expensive car, they will have no regard to the upsurge in additional cost.
On the other hand
, using gas for the engine is to blame for part of pollutions. To be more specific, not
only
manufacturing sector
but
also
transportation holds responsible for the changing in climate patterns. Recent research suggests that the amount of co2 from factories is the root cause of air pollution,
but
gases emitted from vehicles do.
Accordingly
, the fumes from factories
only
make
up for 25% in the leading cause of air deterioration, while transport emission takes up the remaining. This
directly
indicates that increasing the
price
of oil is a viable option to strike the
environmental
disaster.
In light of the above arguments, I
think
that both the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. It is undeniable that
environmental
catastrophe is the wake up call for the whole society,
but
the truth is, no one can afford to be without
personal
vehicles. To relish this challenge, I
really
believe that the solar engine should
be considered
as a feasible alternative and
government
should give a helping hand in raising
people’s
awareness about protecting the earth.