It is commonly believed that increasing the price of petrol is the best solution to alleviate the traffic pollution problem. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

It is often argued that the increase in the price of carbon fuel is the best method if we want to decrease the severity of air pollution in cities. On the one hand,

cars

Use synonyms

indeed elicit a great amount of greenhouse and other toxic fumes into the atmosphere.

Consequently

Linking Words

, creating incentives for

people

Use synonyms

to start using personal vehicles less and to choose other means of transportation would benefit the environment.

This

Linking Words

measure would

also

Linking Words

support technological advancements as corporations would invest in

cars

Use synonyms

that require less fuel to operate.

On the other hand

Linking Words

, if you increase the price of petrol you cause the rise of prices for all goods that are transported by lorries including food.

This

Linking Words

would create an extra burden for the most vulnerable members of the society

such

Linking Words

as the elderly, families with many kids and

people

Use synonyms

with disabilities.

Furthermore

Linking Words

, when the government concentrates its attention on fuel and vehicles it misses other important issues.

For instance

Linking Words

, why do

people

Use synonyms

need to drive

cars

Use synonyms

.

Change the punctuation

?

show examples

Perhaps, the quality of the public transport is so poor that

people

Use synonyms

do not have any other choice rather than to go by car. In

this

Linking Words

case, it would be beneficial to develop other types of public transport. In conclusion, while managing air pollution by increasing petrol prices is a fair solution, I believe that it has its disadvantages. In order to decrease the number of

cars

Use synonyms

in the cities, governments should look for other strategies that would not harm poorer citizens.