Topic: people think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. give your opinion
Transportation emission is believed to be the main cause of increasing environmental problems. Under that assumption, people put forward the solution to raise the price of petrol. From my point of view, although I regard it as an effective measure, there are some other measures that would have an even greater impact.
If government authorities raise the price of petrol then it could address 2 issues. Firstly, in terms of private cars and motorists, the higher price of petrol, the more ability it has to restrict the number and lengths of cars and other vehicles' journeys so that they can compensate for the extra expense. Catch up with the situation, more goods will be traveled by rail than by trucks. Not only do both measures considerably ease traffic congestion but they also help cut down on the emissions from transportation, and in long run is to reduce the greenhouse effect on the environment.
Be that as it may, raising the price of petrol is just a stopgap measure, we need another one to deal with environmental problems in the long term. London, as a compelling illustration, has brought about congestion charges on all vehicles visiting the city center and had such efficacious results that remarkably decrease private vehicles inside urban. That money therefore can be used to enhance transport infrastructure instead. Another measure is to accommodate citizens with such free buses and train passes to govern them from using their own vehicles. what's more, government can ultilise the universal power to propagate people the deffects of massive traffic. In turn, we can gradually improve air quality even in big cities.
In conclusion, a sharp rise in petrol’s price would be a useful environmentally-friendly transport measure, although in the longer term other steps turn out to be more effective.
jwehopeTopic: people think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. give your opinion
You did not copy the task correctly. Please tell us exactly what you are responding to. We cannot evaluate "task response" if we do not know what it is. This is not one of the IELTS Task 2 prompts.
For example:
Some people think that the government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Transportation emission (That is very poor English.) is believed to be the main cause of increasing environmental problems. (You need to be specific. Plastic particles in the ocean is an environmental problem; so is deforestation and so is toxic waste dumping in rivers and growing landfills. You need to be more specific.) Under that assumption, people put forward the solution to raise the price of petrol. From my point of view, although I regard it as an effective measure (Measure for what?) , there are some other measures that would have an even greater impact.
If government authorities raise the price of petrol then it could address 2 (Do not use digits in formal essays. Write the word "two") issues. Firstly, First, in terms of private cars and motorists, the higher price of petrol, the more ability it has to restrict the number and lengths of cars and other vehicles' journeys so that they can compensate for the extra expense. (That sentence is so convoluted and unnatural that I had to read it a few times to understand what you meant. The examiner will not give you that benefit, and just shave points off your score. ) Catch up with the situation, (That is not good English - is it a solution for the extra expense? You have no coherence here.) more goods will be traveled (wrong word) by rail than by trucks. Not only do both measures (You only gave one measure, increasing the price of petrol) considerably ease traffic congestion but they also help cut down on the emissions from transportation, and in long run is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. effect on the environment.
Be that as it may, But / However raising the price of petrol is just a stopgap measure, we need another one to deal with environmental problems in the long term. (You need to write your idea here, followed by the example.) London, as a compelling illustration, has brought about levied congestion charges on all vehicles visiting the city center and that had such efficacious results that remarkably decrease (Ungrammatical - you are trying to write sentences that are long and complicated, but your skills are not good enough. ) private vehicles inside urban. (Urban is an adjective. You cannot use it as the object of a preposition.) That money therefore can be used to enhance build / maintain / improve transportation infrastructure instead. Another measure is to accommodate provide citizens with such free buses and train passes to govern (wrong word) dissuade / discourage them from using their own vehicles. what's (Avoid contractions.) more, government can ultilise the universal power to propagate (wrong word - propagate means to create more children or offspring. It is often used for plants.) people the deffects of massive traffic. (unnatural do you mean traffic jams?) In turn, we can gradually improve air quality even in big cities.
In conclusion, a sharp rise in petrol’s price would be a useful environmentally-friendly transport measure, although in the longer term other steps turn out to be more effective.
Topic: people think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. give your opinion
Transportation emission is believed to be the main cause of increasing environmental problems. Under that assumption, people put forward the solution to raise the price of petrol. From my point of view, although I regard it as an effective measure, there are some other measures that would have an even greater impact.
If government authorities raise the price of petrol then it could address 2 issues. Firstly, in terms of private cars and motorists, the higher price of petrol, the more ability it has to restrict the number and lengths of cars and other vehicles' journeys so that they can compensate for the extra expense. Catch up with the situation, more goods will be traveled by rail than by trucks. Not only do both measures considerably ease traffic congestion but they also help cut down on the emissions from transportation, and in long run is to reduce the greenhouse effect on the environment.
Be that as it may, raising the price of petrol is just a stopgap measure, we need another one to deal with environmental problems in the long term. London, as a compelling illustration, has brought about congestion charges on all vehicles visiting the city center and had such efficacious results that remarkably decrease private vehicles inside urban. That money therefore can be used to improve transport infrastructure instead. Another measure is to accommodate citizens with such free buses and train passes to govern them from using their own ones. In turn, we can gradually improve air quality even in big cities.
In conclusion, a sharp rise in petrol’s price would be a useful environmentally-friendly transport measure, although in the longer term other steps turn out to be more effective.
Some people think that the government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Example opening paragraph:
Greenhouse gas emissions from trucks, cars, and other vehicles are known to be a primary cause for climate change and global warming. The fumes also contain pollutants that are responsible for unhealthy air. Although raising the price of petrol could curtail travel and thereby reduce the amounts emitted, it is only a stopgap measure. So I must disagree, in favor of more effective and longer-term solutions.