Some people believe that the best way to solve environmental problems is to increase the price of fuels do you agree or disagree?

It is believed that increasing fossil

fuel

prices will be an efficient way to shield humans from pollution and tackle environmental issues.

This

essay presents a contrasting perspective with the statement since it could lead to economic strain and social effects.

Although

increasing the costs of

fuel

may reduce consumption in developing and developed countries, it

also

has a consequence for the economy, especially in developing countries where transportation is a lifeline for economic activities. Fossil fuels are a common source of transport, including public and private vehicles, higher

fuel

costs could become the reason why citizens cannot afford and delay their generation income.

As a result

, the whole economic development of a country would fall down or slow down. It not only affects pedestrians' work but has an effect on countries' economies.

Additionally

, there are majority of people who go to work in their vehicles use

fuel

and lower-income groups use transportation as a way to generate money, if the price of fossil

fuel

goes higher

then

it would widespread dissatisfaction among middle,

due to

these people spend a higher percentage of their income on transport and lead to economic strain.

Moreover

, it could exacerbate inequality between the poverty and the wealthy,

for instance

,

a classes

Correct the article-noun agreement

classes

a class

show examples

could show off how they can purchase fossils and others cannot, which would make the lower-income groups feel disrespected and embarrassed about themselves. In conclusion, increasing the costs of fossil fuels is not an effective way to tackle environmental problems and it

also

has negative consequences social and economic. Citizens may face widespread inequality and the economy would be fragile.