Some people support the idea of imposing taxes on fossil fuels (oil, coil and gas) in order to reduce energy consumption. Other people disagree with this approach. Consider the debate and its arguments, and come to your own conclusion.

The majority of people are considering the approach that governments should impose taxes on consumption of fossil fuels

such

oil, coil and gas to limit the use of these energy to some extent.

However

, whether about being efficient or not is controversial issue which appears to have a number of contradictory effects. We will consider the both sides of the discussion in

this

essay. On the one hand, those who support the taxation of fossil fuels, promote the idea that it is apparently available to operate an economic law, which means that the higher prices will lead to lower consumption, and

thus

reduce the supply of these energies as we are seeing in Sweden where

this

policy can be the most potential case, resulting some nations most responsible for

this

suitable tactic.

Furthermore

, proponents of fuel taxes are citing some evidence of practice organization founded by the government’s distribution, meaning that the fund raised by

this

type of taxes used to support the subsidized projects. An appropriate example of

this

can be seen in some company which aimed to distinguish recyclable and solar reactors, even biofuel. To the supporters, these arguments are convincing.

Conversely

, opponents of fuel taxes are capable to present some industry revolutionized countries

such

as Indonesia and Japan, where the tax-based system apparently cannot reduce the demand for fuels regardless of considering the overwhelming expenditure of oil and coil.

Consequently

, in

this

situation, people are claiming that the government have forced people to cost more for the same level of energy compared to non-added tax expense.

In addition

, the tax burden on least affordable consumers are appeared to be the penalized section. Another criticism is that the interfering government in competition of suppliers can be the significant factor to leave participants of

this

market. In conclusion, I would tend to side with the opponents of fuel taxation. It seems to be unreasonable to force vulnerable users to pay more for a commodity which is essential to them, without the real infrastructure of renewable energy. It would be more logical to improve the opportunity of overcoming by equitable price.