Both government investment in public transport systems and reductions in public transport ticket prices would help to reduce transport pollution greatly. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Pollution is a global concern which has induced governments to fund public transportation and invest in the reduction of tickets for public services which might help to tackle it. In my opinion, it cannot be a viable choice because it may cause a burden on the expenditure of the administration.

Firstly

, excessive investments in transport services can cause a decrease in the share of revenue in sectors

such

as education, defence, space exploration and so on.

Also

, lowering ticket costs will diminish the revenues of the government.

For instance

, if the administration increases funding in the transport sector and people are not willing to switch to public services from their personal vehicles, it can lead to a disastrous situation and hamper the government’s purse.

Therefore

, the aim of reducing

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

pollution will not be met by taking

such

changes in the policy.

On the other hand

, the introduction of battery-operated vehicles or the banning of carbon-emitting automobiles can be a viable choice because it won’t plunge the revenues of the government’s purse and could be a helping hand in combating pollution.

For example

, a few years ago a city administration in India had devised an odd-even scheme where on alternate days, odd or even numbered vehicles were used.

Also

, the contents of the petrol should increase the amount of ethanol present in it, so it will burn more and in turn lessen the carbon emissions. In conclusion, in order to improve, the atmosphere it is not necessary to increase the funds for public transportation and cost-cutting tickets. It can be achieved by implementing policies which can be employed in a manner that can be beneficial for both the government as well as the citizens of the country.