Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve the growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement? What other measures do you think might be effective?

It is often suggested that augmenting the price of
petrol
is an efficient method to combat increasing traffic
congestion
and escalating environmental
pollution
. I completely concur with
this
assertion, as a higher
petrol
price might discourage private vehicle
usage
,
subsequently
alleviating traffic and
pollution
.
Nevertheless
, I propose supplementary measures,
such
as the promotion of public transportation and the endorsement of remote working, to tackle these persistent issues more comprehensively. On one hand, raising fuel costs could significantly mitigate traffic
congestion
and air
pollution
. From the perspective of freight management, an escalation in
petrol
prices could dissuade individuals from using their personal
vehicles
, nudging them towards alternative transportation methods like trains, buses, and subways.
Consequently
, a decrease in vehicular density on roads could potentially alleviate gridlock
congestion
.
Moreover
, a reduction in the number of cars on the roads would
also
imply lower carbon dioxide emissions, as a significant proportion of these emissions stem from automobile
usage
. In effect,
this
would assist in curbing air
pollution
and contribute to the broader fight against climate change and global warming.
On the other hand
, I advocate the adoption of alternative strategies to tackle influx and
pollution
-related issues.
Firstly
, governments could invest in improving public transportation infrastructure, thereby making it a more attractive choice for commuters over their personal
vehicles
.
For instance
, enhancements making public transit faster, more reliable, and affordable could incentivize more widespread
usage
. Another effective solution could be the promotion of telecommuting. Governments and organizations should encourage a work-from-home policy, reducing the necessity for daily commuting and
consequently
decreasing the number of
vehicles
on the road,
thus
mitigating both movement
congestion
and air
pollution
. In conclusion,
while
I am in staunch agreement that augmenting
petrol
prices could discourage the
usage
of private
vehicles
, thereby reducing service and
pollution
, I
also
advocate for the promotion of public transport
usage
and the endorsement of telecommuting as part of a comprehensive strategy to address these critical issues.
Submitted by sgurbir89 on

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Use a variety of complex and simple sentences

You should use complex sentences in your writing, but it does not mean that you should try to make all of our sentences complex.

‘Complex’ sentences are not actually very complex; they are just two or more simple sentences put together. Putting them together makes the essay more coherent and cohesive.

Examples:

I really want to study but I’m too tired.

I wore a warm coat because the weather was cold.

If action is not taken soon on climate change, global warming will get worse.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ »— a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

Topic Vocabulary:
  • Discourage
  • Incentivize
  • Alternative energy
  • Public transportation
  • Lower-income
  • Carpool
  • Ride-sharing
  • Congestion
  • Urban planning
  • Pedestrian-friendly
  • Tax incentives
  • Electric and hybrid vehicles
  • Emissions standards
  • Cleaner vehicles
  • Congestion charges
  • Bicycle lanes
  • Sustainable
What to do next:
Look at other essays: