Most people agree that the use of fossil fuels should be reduced to some extent. However, imposing
taxes is a controversial tactic which appears to have a number of contradictory effects. We will consider both
sides of the discussion in this essay.
On the one hand, those who support taxation of fossil fuels promote the idea that higher prices will
lead to lower consumption and thus lower emissions. They point to evidence from countries such as Sweden
where this appears to be the case, and urge other nations to follow suit. Furthermore, proponents of fuel taxes
claim that the funds raised can then be used to subsidise renewable energy projects such as solar and localised
biofuel reactors. To the supporters of the idea, these benefits are convincing.
However, opponents of fuel tax are able to cite evidence from other countries (including France and
Italy) where higher tax has apparently not reduced demand for such fuels. In these cases, the effect has been to
force people to pay more for the same volume of energy, which appears to penalise those who can least afford
it. Moreover, critics of fuel tax also highlight the difficulty in governments promising renewable schemes
without interfering in the entire energy market. If the state was to control the entire market for fuels, they say,
this would force suppliers to leave the market, thus reducing competition and efficiency. This argument also
appears to be quite powerful.
Overall, I would tend to side with the opponents of fuel taxation. It seems to be unreasonable to force
vulnerable consumers to pay more for a commodity which is essential to them, without a real infrastructure
for renewable energy being in place. It would be more logical to improve availability of renewables first, which
would allow consumers to make a genuine choice. 
Most  
people
  agree
 that the  
use
 of fossil  
fuels
 should be  
reduced
 to  
some
 extent.  
However
, imposing
taxes is a controversial tactic which appears to have a number of contradictory effects. We will consider both
sides of the discussion in this essay.
On the one hand, those who support taxation of fossil  
fuels
 promote the  
idea
 that higher prices will
lead to lower consumption and  
thus
 lower emissions. They point to evidence from countries such as Sweden
where this appears to be the case, and urge other nations to follow suit.  
Furthermore
, proponents of  
fuel
 taxes
claim that the funds raised can then be  
used
 to  
subsidise
  renewable
  energy
 projects such as solar and  
localised
biofuel reactors. To the supporters of the  
idea
, these benefits are convincing. 
However
, opponents of  
fuel
 tax are able to cite evidence from other countries (including France and
Italy) where higher tax has  
apparently
 not  
reduced
 demand for such  
fuels
. In these cases, the effect has been to
force  
people
 to pay more for the same volume of  
energy
, which appears to  
penalise
 those who can least afford
it.  
Moreover
, critics of  
fuel
 tax  
also
 highlight the difficulty in  
governments
 promising  
renewable
 schemes
without interfering in the entire  
energy
 market. If the state was to control the entire market for  
fuels
, they say,
this would force suppliers to  
leave
 the market,  
thus
 reducing competition and efficiency. This argument  
also
appears to be quite powerful. 
Overall
, I would tend to side with the opponents of  
fuel
 taxation. It seems to be unreasonable to force
vulnerable consumers to pay more for a commodity which is essential to them, without a real infrastructure
for  
renewable
  energy
 being in place. It would be more logical to  
improve
 availability of  
renewables
  first
, which
would  
allow
 consumers to  
make
 a genuine choice.