Some people believe that the best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the price of fuels do you agree or disagree? Opinion Disagree. Economic problems Egypt Disagree. Social problems Third world countries

In

this

contemporary epoch, the possible solutions to mitigate the issue of contamination have become a controversial argument. Whilst some proponents emphasize that the panacea of the pollution dilemma is raising the expenses of fossil fuels, some opponents and I adopt a diverse stance. In

this

essay, my contention will be

further

explained. To embark on, even though crowded roads are considered the main source of

this

predicament, the high costs of fuel will result in an economic recession.

This

means that when authorities rises the value of petrol, the industries will significantly decrease. An eminent example is Egypt; despite the dramatic hike in fuel costs, many drivers cannot curb their dependence on vehicles.

Therefore

, what can be said is that if the state increases the fuel's value, the factories' production will immensely decline.

Furthermore

,

although

the economic crisis will be a huge problem to mitigate, other predicaments will widely spread because of poverty.

In other words

, if there is economic instability,

this

will cause joblessness and other social problem will be generated.

This

can be witnessed by the

Third

World Countries, which suffer from unemployment, that are considered under the poverty line because of economic stagnation.

Accordingly

, in a final analysis, raising the amount of money to purchase petrol is not considered the viable solution to alleviate

this

problem. In conclusion, after

this

essay has manifested the above-mentioned points, it can be reiterated that not only do petrol prices cause economic predicaments, but

also

they lead to low living standards, the decline in food and in basic life needs. Eventually, I am convinced that without other appropriate measures, the ecosystem's dilemmas could not have been solved.