The notion that raising the cost of fuel for transportation can alleviate environmental issues has been gaining traction. From my point of view, while this solution can help tackle environmental problems to a degree, creating an incentive for individuals and enterprises to take action against these problems would be a more effective approach.
On the one hand, an increase in the cost of fuel may prove effective in decreasing the traffic volume, thus reducing harmful emissions that can affect the environment. First, this policy would raise people’s awareness on the frequency and length of their travels. Due to the rise in expenses, people would have to cut down on unnecessary trips. Moreover, as fuel prices soar, more sustainable mobility choices that rely less on carbon-intensive fuels, namely buses that run on biofuel, will witness a surge in demand. To illustrate, in America, since 2010, hybrid vehicles and smaller transports have had a growing market as a consequence of rising fuel prices.
On the other hand, increasing fuel cost cannot tackle all environmental issues. As a matter of fact, car emissions are not the sole cause, but emissions from livestock farming and other industries are also significant contributors to pollution. To illustrate, what is surprising is that livestock accounts for 64 percent of total methane emission - a destructive gas for the ozone layer. Hence, providing individuals and businesses with an incentive to protect the environment would be more effective. For example, the government can apply a lower tax on companies which leave less impact on its surroundings. In this way, enterprises will proactively find ways to reduce their carbon footprint.
All in all, increasing fuel prices can help solve environmental problems to a degree. However, the most effective solution would be to provide a stimulus for the society to intentionally reduce damaging impacts to our habitat.
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use 84
- Some people think the best way to solve global environmental problems is to Increase the cost of fuel To what extent Do you agree or disagree 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 695, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d ways to reduce their carbon footprint. All in all, increasing fuel prices can h...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, while, as for, for example, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1634.0 1615.20841683 101% => OK
No of words: 305.0 315.596192385 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35737704918 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07457121676 2.80592935109 110% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 176.041082164 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603278688525 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 506.74238477 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 5.43587174349 18% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.1538696709 49.4020404114 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.714285714 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7857142857 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06120827912 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174518066669 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599970922151 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641222761665 0.0667982634062 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111234619074 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0108098460865 0.056905535591 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.