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.

Humankind is heavily dependent on the natural resources in their day-to-day life. Fossil fuels are one of the most highly consumed resources. It is argued by many that, government should introduce taxation of the

use

of

such

resources while many others oppose

this

argument

.

This

essay will discuss both sides of the

argument

and draw a conclusion. Assuming that the taxes are not imposed, the

use

of petrol, diesel and other fossil fuels will continue and burgeon with the increase in population.

This

may lead to the resources being exhausted completely. To illustrate, an article published in the Times now magazine states that, if the consumption of petrol in motor vehicle continue at the same rate, there will be no petrol by the year 2100.

Subsequently

,

this

argument

has unfavourable outcomes.

However

,

on the other hand

, if the counterpart

argument

about laying taxation is considered. The society may see the surge in usage of fossil fuel, but will

also

affect the motor vehicle sector immensely, which in return will reflect on the economic growth of the country.

Thus

,

this

might be a suitable option but, is not the solution to the problem in the long run.

In addition

to

this

argument

, the government should

use

the taxes collected to fund its research and development department to develop a cost effective hybrid vehicle which can meet the need of the modern lifestyle, and as well, reduce the consumption of the

such

natural resources. To conclude, the

argument

to oppose imposing taxes has no base to it. Whilst by application of fuel taxes, and putting it to better

use

of providing solution to

such

crises will be of significant good for humankind.