IELTS Essay Topics with sample answer.

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 7 - To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:

To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.

What is your opinion on the above assumption?

You should write at least 250 words.


Model Answer 1: (Disagreement)
It is true that skyrocketing the fuel price can make a nosedive on the use of vehicles in many cities but curtailing the volume of energy we utilise is not an elixir as it would soar the daily living expense as well. Hence, the human being ought to scout out renewable energy in an attempt to halt the tide of environment upheaval.

To begin with, protecting the environment only through the buoyant price of energy sounds somewhat over-optimistic. Developing other environment-friendly forms of momentum, such as hydrogen, which is the most potent weapon to deal with this murky water is a far better solution. Despite the exorbitant price of fossil fuel, there is still a kaleidoscope of transportation that will need it. And by extension, airplane would be a concrete example- although the usage of these kinds of gigantic transportations is bound to dwindle, it is undeniable that they still emit a sheer amount of carbon dioxide. Therefore, diving deeply into the domain of substitute energy can be served as a luminary that close Pandora’s Box.

Besides the renewable energy and the colossal fuel price, rearing a myriad of flora can usher in a great preponderance. What renders an easy access to oxygen is the vegetation which would absorb carbon dioxide – the most malignant element to our environment. In this dimension, revive the biodiversity seems as important as importance can be. Shielding the rainforest from deforestation and planting a broad spectrum of trees that spanning from alpines to bush on the major boulevards can truly breathe life into the urban sprawl. Most importantly, it could thoroughly eradicate the environment ailments.

With all that, it is reasonable to extrapolate that spurting the fuel prices can be described as a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, impeding a wide range of anthropogenic activities and cementing the cornerstone of ecosystem might be much more possible and practical to tackle with this elusive enigma.

[Written by - Willie]


Model Answer 2: (Agreement)
Environmental or natural hazards are the results of physical processes that affect humans and environment every day and harmful for both in the short and long run. As the use of fuel increases to keep up with modern demands and increased population, the world is becoming more vulnerable to environmental hazards and disasters. Floods, earthquakes, severe thunderstorms, toxic or oil spills immediately come to mind when comprehending this issue, implying that all these things are inherently hazardous.

One of the most effective solutions to these environmental hazards is to raise the price of fuel. The use of petroleum and gasoline can release toxic chemicals into our atmosphere. These chemicals escape into the air during refilling, from the gasoline tank and carburettor during normal operation, and from engine exhaust. Transportation sources account for about 30-50% of all harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The industrialisation is another reason for the omission of harmful chemicals too.

“Smog” is another environmental hazard. It causes human respiratory stress, and damages many plants, significantly reducing farm crop yields and the “health” of trees and other vegetation. Burning gasoline emits significant quantities of a wide range of harmful gases into the atmosphere. For example, carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion. Carbon dioxide, a normal product of burning fuel, is non-toxic but contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is also known as global warming and it is probably the most dangerous threat to the human existence.

Raising the price of fuel would mean that people would use less petroleum and gasoline. They would find other alternative means of transport to save money, which would mean using less high-priced fuel for everyday purposes. For example, cycling is a healthy activity and it saves the earth too. Also, for a long journey, people could try to find friends together for car-pooling. Carpooling saves a lot of fuel and would save a lot of money too. But other things should be considered to reduce the use of these dangerous fuels. A government should implement strict rules of using cars, for instance no less than 4 persons should be allowed to drive a single car. The price should be increased in a thoughtful way because if the price is so high it will hamper the average people's life leading. There are so many people yet use public transportation for movement and the increased price will make their life miserable. The prices of many necessary daily ingredients also increase with the price of the fuel.         

Many environmental hazards like “smog” and global warming are increasing around the world due to the excessive use of petroleum and gasoline in our daily lives. Raising the price of fuel could make all the difference to the environment. It would force people to use petrol in a more responsible way and use it less, and therefore be the most effective solution to the problem of ever-increasing environmental hazards though it might have some side effects but those can be controlled by the proper initiatives by the Government.

(Approximately 501 words)
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
N.B: You should be able to pick up different points from this essay and organise your answer in your own style.
Model Answer 2: (Disagreement)
There are several reasons that are causing the environmental harms and this has become an urgent issue to discuss and bring a solution about. The number of ever increasing cars is one of the reasons that leads to affect the environment negatively and there are some assumptions that increasing the fuel price would solve this problem. But the reality would be different, and increased fuel price will cause lots of other problems while it would contribute very little to reduce the environmental pollutions and hazards. So this can’t be the best solution in any way.

First of all, the maximum numbers of cars are owned by the rich people and fuel price would not restrain them from using the cars. The price of fuel, in fact, increased significantly over the past 12 years and that has done nothing to reduce the car usages. On the contrary, the number of cars running on the roads has increased more than expected. Besides, the fuel price determines the market prices of other daily necessary products and increasing the price would only bring misery to the low and medium earning class population. Electronic wastages, industries, household electrical devices, deforestation, chemical wastages, unthoughtful activities of people are causing more damage to the mother earth than the gas omission by the cars. We should focus on those aspects as well before increasing the price of fuel just based on an assumption.

The main idea of increasing the fuel price is to reduce the number of cars running in the street and to restrain the car owners from using the cars less. But that would prove to be a ridiculous solution especially when car owners are mostly high earning class and they would not bother about the fuel price.

The best solution to address this utmost concerning issue is to introduce an environment friendly energy source like solar energy system, to improve the public transportation system & train system so that people mostly use these systems instead of always using their own cars, increasing the awareness of the people so that they do not directly contribute to harm the environment, and making strict rules so that deforestation, chemical wastages and other harmful ways of environmental pollutions get reduced.
(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)
Model Answer 3: (Disagreement)
Increasing the price of oil is one of the main strategies elaborated in order to act against the worsening of habitat condition. Nonetheless, such a solution could be not enough to stop the phenomenon.

The idea of raising prices of environmentally risky goods is not a recent hypothesis. It is named Pigovian tax, and it aims to reduce the use of such goods. It really affects consumption, balancing the advantage of using a certain product with the disadvantage of a growing cost to obtain it. Consequently, consumers tend to move toward less expensive goods. This tendency is advantageous because the State doesn't need to deal with enterprises: the loss of clients means a consequent interest in enterprises toward green energy. The market works as a stabiliser, more than an element damaging the environment. Therefore, this policy can be advantageous.

On the other hand, disadvantages are more influential than positive effects. Firstly, the effectiveness of the Pigovian tax lies on the ability of actors in finding a good to be used as a substitute. What if a country invested many resources in road transport? What if a State can rely on massive oil reserves? In short, such a choice must consider both the existence of alternative sources and the historical industrial evolution of the country. Moreover, the importance of such an asset as the one of energy makes the use of incentives and changing in prices an unreliable and dangerous tool. It could create too many damages for an excessively unpredictable policy.

All things considered, many doubts remain about the hypothesis of using prices as a lever to modify the way how people behave when dealing with energy and petrol. Some positive consequences are certainly undeniable, but risks are still higher than expected benefits. Consequently, betting on alternative solutions would be desirable.
(by - Francesco Finucci)
Model Answer 4: (Disagreement)
It is an irrefutable fact that to diagnose the ways for saving the environment is one the serious matters among the countries. Many nations are finding the solutions to this ugly growth. As it has been heard that increasing the price of fuel can be proved as an effective solution. However, I do not endorse this observation.

While spotlighting to the above aspect, I can explicitly say that this prediction can have adverse impacts on a society. Being price of fuel at the peak, the fairs get heavily increased. With that, the people's life would probably get more miserable. This practice will contribute to deteriorate the situation of poor people. For verification, it is illustrated that there are millions of people in the world, who go to their work by public transportation. It has been proved both in developing and developed countries, whenever the price of oil increases; the fairs of public transportation do not take enough time for reaching the climax.

Furthermore, there is no full proof surety that after raising the price of fuel, the car owners would abandon driving their vehicles. The dramatic increase in the folks' income has witnessed that the societies are richer than the past. If they can afford to buy a car then expenditures of oils are not beyond their approach. For instance, in both developing and developed countries, the total number of car holder has increased markedly.

Fuel is not used to run cars only. It is also used to run industries and machines. So increasing prices of it would hurt the industrial productions as well. By increasing fuel price Government would be in a great dilemma and would not be able to control the price of the daily commodity. The increased price of the fuel would only make problem to the poor people while rich people who mostly own cars would find a way to buy it. The main concern is the pollution prevention, not the fuel price. There are other ways of doing so rather than increasing the fuel price. Increasing fuel price would create some international crisis and nations who produce fuel would get benefits from that while the poor nations would struggle.

All things are considered, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that increment in costing of fuel is not an exceptional measure to reduce the environment hazards rather it is a reactionary work. There are many other solutions that can be applied. Like government should prompt eco-friendly vehicles and public transport by handovering them with extraordinary facilities. It should also make people aware of the menaces of pollutions.
(by Jaspartap Singh)
Model Answer 5: (Disagreement)
The requirement and consumption of fuel have increased manifolds to meet the demands of world population for industrial growth, power needs and transportation purposes etc. The demand for fuel is only going to increase in the coming years as projected and forecasted by the energy experts. Many governments are taking various measures to curb the demand for this commodity due to the heavy cost involved in import etc.

While some people believe that increasing the cost of the fuel would save the environment from more damages, others opine that that would only create more misery for the poor people.

Besides the financial constraints for many governments, a general but very important issue that needs to be addressed on war footing basis is the environmental hazards associated with the massive use of this commodity that is not only harmful to the mother earth but also poses great dangers to the human health. These dangers include toxic effluent dumped into the sea which can destroy sea-life, pollutants released in the air causing air pollution which can affect agriculture, ozone layer etc. Human beings can suffer problems from breathing to some life-threatening diseases as cancer etc.

So what option do we have? Perhaps one of the options but not the best one is to increase the cost of fuel which will have its own negative effects in the countries where poverty level and inflation is already high and the public miseries will increase. A better option might be to conserve the consumption of fuel by promoting energy conservation and creating a national policy suggesting various measures.

I would like to end my subject on the note that each country has to prepare a line of action by keeping the interest of its people and economy in mind.
[Written by - Mubashir Mehdi Noorani ]
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rating 4.00 (24 Votes)

In model answer 1 and 2, a few words used are very informal, which will reduce your score. Also, it has much irrelevant information, like deep insights into carbon dioxide, monoxide. Hence, no matter how many strong words you use, it will reduce your score.
Great essay. Easily understandable and at the same time, the vocab is rich. Model answer 1 given here is damn tough to understand and breaks the link of understanding the vocab tsunami!!
Nandakumar Venkataraj
The environment is threatened by many factors, but the most concerning of all is air pollution. The global population has increased to 7.8 billion recently, and the increase in population is alarming as every nation consume natural resources and contribute to environmental pollution. Many people support that increase in fuel price could decline transport usage and environmental hazards. I do not support this notion, as this could affect the lifestyle of people and the national economy.

Increasing the fuel price will affect the transportation cost of the commodities which will ultimately increase the daily expenses of ordinary people. Also, this will negatively affect the growth of all sectors and lead to poverty. I believe a strict government law on the usage of private vehicles could proliferate the usage the public transport and reduce the environmental pollution caused by private vehicles. In London, for example, toll prices are high for private vehicles in comparison to the fuel cost. This enforces people to utilize tubes, trains and other public transport. It mutually benefits the government and people. Thus it is eminent that an increase in fuel price will affect the growth of the country and it is not the right solution to save the environment.

Moreover, the population growth rate across the globe is 1.1%, which is evaluated by the UN to be 11 billion by end of this century. To match the needs of this population, manufacturing and production industries has proliferated rapidly in the last three decades. By-products from these industries are affecting the environment as air and water pollution. Measures to control the population will slash down environmental hazards and provide tangible benefits to the human beings of this world.

In conclusion, increasing fuel price is not an effective measure to curb the increasing environmental and air pollution. Rather, improving public transportation and checking uncontrolled industrialisati on could be far better ways to fight the issue.

Environmental degradation has been one of the most pressing concerns of nations across the world. Root causes and solutions are continuously being explored to address this issue, and one of the proposed remedies is the so-called price hike for fuel. I believe that this is one of the possible courses of action to address the issue but there are a lot more initiatives that we can look into.

The burning of fossils fuel remains to be the largest contributor to the global warming phenomena. Hence, it is believed that if fuel prices are increased this can somehow minimize hazards to the environment. It is assumed that if fuel price is high, many consumers will not likely afford it and will be forced to look for alternatives such as switching from cars to bicycles. However, car users are only a small percentage of the fuel-consumer community as the large proportion of these consumers are still the giant commercial factories and industries, which can certainly afford fuel at any price for as long as supply is available.

Instead of just focusing on making fuel unaffordable, it is best to emphasize environmental preservation. Firstly, leaders must be willing to strictly implement environmental laws and penalize those who go against it even if it means suspending operations of large companies. Secondly, people must be informed. A good number of people are still unaware of the dangers to the environment as a result of their daily practices such as the burning of plastics, disposing of wastes on rivers and seas, and down to the very practice of not conserving water.

In conclusion, although increasing fuel price is a possible solution to end environmental destruction, other methods may also be useful such as full enforcement of environmental laws and a massive information-education campaign on environmental preservation.

IELTS Mentor
You are welcome, Joyce. We hope you will learn from the corrections one of our teachers made on your essay. Take care.
Appreciate for marking my poor essay. Really appreciate much, and I will learn from it.
Essay Topic: To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.What is your opinion on the above assumption?Answer: Nowadays, global warming issue is of paramount importance to the humankind which relates to our lives and very existence on this planet. Unfortunately, this issue becomes aggravated by various pollution problems created basically by us. Likewise, the Greenland's icebergs are melting every day because of the exploitation of natural resources and luxury of human being. It is unavoidable that natural disasters will shatter us gradually in the form of earthquakes, tsunami and so on. Some people might think that increasing fuel price is the best way to mitigate the environmental hazards, whereas I think other methods should be implemented too. I will explain my points in this essay.Firstly, increasing fuel price is meant to reduce the air pollution. If yes, it would cut down the usages of motorised vehicles on the road. As a result, people would take public transportation or use bicycles to commute instead of driving their own cars. In fact, a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles could be observed in these years, especially in countries like the USA, China and so on. People will buy more private cars and keep using those provided that they can afford it. Hence, increasing fuel price will deter some middle-class families to buy new cars but will not affect the number of cars owned by rich people. Furthermore, increased fuel price would also increase the living cost and that would have more detrimental effects on a country. On the other hand, instead of increasing fuel price, the government should subsidise solar energy vehicles which will save energy and reduce the emission of Carbon dioxide. This action supports consumers to select an eco-friendly energy vehicle with the lower selling price, cut down air contamination indirectly. However, environmental problems also include noise, water pollution like chemical wastage and sea oil-leakages. This causes water contamination and damages the undersea natural habitats. These can be addressed in term of implementing and applying laws to restrain throwing harmful chemical wastage into river and sea. Finally, the government should enhance the facility in public transportation and make them comfortable for the commuters. This will dramatically decrease the reliance on our private cars.In conclusion, increasing fuel price is not the ideal method to tackle environmental problems. The government have to implement a variety of measures and place it into priority. Without a healthy earth, human will extinct.
Essay Topic: To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.What is your opinion on the above assumption?Answer: Earth is becoming polluted every day and it is predicted to be a big disaster for the whole world if not controlled now. Planet earth is facing multiple environmental issues including global warming, air, water and noise contamination and so on. Many people believe that an increased fuel price will address all environment degrading factors and in my opinion, this is rather a simple and flawed assumption. Besides, there are a number of different ways that can check the growth of global environmental hazards other than increased fuel prices.There are different types of pollutions surrounding our environment and many of them are not directly related to the fuel consumption. For example, water intoxication is caused by various waste and unprocessed discharge of factories. Similarly, the excessive use of horns and loud speakers around the hospitals and schools cause the noise pollution. In addition to that, cutting of trees or deforestation is the reason for the greenhouse effect. Furthermore producing electricity using atomic energy and leaving atomic wastages without recycling also have lethal and deadly consequences that may make our environment uninhabitable. So we should also look closely these issues of environmental degradation and damage. There are many different methods to address the global pollutions other than increasing the fuel price. The introduction of laws that govern the usage of various fuel items and other materials that cause the environmental damage could be a great step. Enhancing the awareness by educating people about the effect and consequences of environmental damage could be another great solution. People should be encouraged to use bicycles, reduce water consumption, save energy and participate waste recycling. Also, world leaders and governments should invest time and money to make eco-friendly energy generation methods such as wind energy and solar energy more available and easily accessible to mass people. Both the government and private sectors should take part in introducing policies and procedures that make sure that the green and pollution-free environmental is at the forefront.
Asmaa Saad
To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.What is your opinion on the above assumption?Environmental pollution has heightened since the edge of the industrial revolution. Scientists have analysed every factor that might be a cause of that and they have reached a conclusion that petroleum product that we use is a paramount reason for that. Now, the outraging debate is whether to raise the cost of fuel which will gradually reduce the natural hazard. Raising the nonrenewable source of energy prices will compress the globe towards finding the clean power sources. To articulate, many countries depend on petroleum products because its production cost is lower than generating clean sources - either from solar energy, the nuclear station, wind turbines, or geothermal energy. For example, Germany since 2015 has generated all its electricity from solar energy, which profoundly influences its economy and minifies the throw-outs of the industrial factory. In addition, many worldwide automotive brands have manufactured many cars working on the electricity. For instance, Tesla brand which basically equipped with all functions working with electricity. Meanwhile, increasing the price of the nonrenewable energy will push people towards rationalisation in the usage of buying cars. In developing countries, every family member has his own car which prominently increases the exhausting gases leverage to the ozone layer. Raising the prices will make those to search for the alternative transportation way, such as subways, electrical cars or even using car-pooling. Also, figures show that if we can’t be rational in using nonrenewable energy, the next generation will suffer from leakage in it and enormous environmental pollution which by default will have a negative reflection on their health.In conclusion, nature not only surrounds us but also is the root for all living being. We should save nature for our own existence and for saving nature, we have to reduce the use of fuels that harm it. So dealing with that we should either increase the prices or follow other helpful ways.
Rating 3.50 (5 Votes) What does it mean? Are the samples posted on the site the best?
Our environment had been suffering for decades - the increase in CO2 atmospheric content, or other poisonous gases, and the loss of wildlife and forests - are just some reasons which ring the alarm bells for our world to start taking some actions toward saving our priceless environment.

Burning fossil fuels to produce energy had been a global trend since the industrial revolution. This unconscious burning of fossil fuels which is increasing globally year by year has some unfavourable consequences on the environment, we burn them continuously to run our cars, to heat our houses, or even to charge our mobile phones, where do we think that electricity comes from? Our old energy-producing system is fully dependent on fossil fuels, we burn coal or natural gas to run turbines turning generators to produce which satisfies our needs, this burning increases the CO2 atmospheric content, which is the main global warming gas, thus leading to an enormous change in climate, rising the water levels, and other hazardous phenomena.

The mentioned dangerous phenomenon related to burning too many fossil fuels raises the argument of the need of the world to reduce its fossil fuels dependent energy system by increasing the price of the fuels. In my opinion, rising fuels prices would not be efficient since wealthy nations which have huge quantities of natural resources (fossil fuels or others) would not change their attitudes. What could be more effective in spreading the consciousness about how important our environment is, and how new renewable clean energy sources could be suitable sources to replace the old fossil fuel-dependent systems.

In conclusion, our environment is suffering from excessive fossil fuel burning and will continue to suffer if we do not make genuine steps toward more environmentally friendly energy-producing systems.

Jincy Jibins
Essay Topic: To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.What is your opinion on the above assumption?Essay: It is true that the environmental pollution is increasing faster than ever before and governments in many countries are trying to find some practical solutions for this menace. There is the view that higher level of environmental hazards can be reduced by increasing the price of fuel. However, I think that it is not the best idea due to various reasons as follows.To start with, people are required to travel more for their work purposes when compared to the past which nobody can avoid as it is essential to meet their all needs. For example, in the past, most of them were working only in their own hometown area, whereas now only minority belongs to this section. As a result, even if the cost of fuel is increased, people would be bound it to purchase it without any hesitation.Moreover, nowadays everybody has good wealth and their own vehicles. Although fuel has a higher price, people have no issues to buy it because of the greater economic status. For instance, unlike the past, at present people are using more number of private vehicles in spite of the higher cost of fuel, especially in western countries. This clearly emphases that the value of fuel has no relationship with rate of environmental pollution.On the contrary, there are those who argue that high price of petrol can bring down environmental hazards substantially as people are forced to choose some alternative methods to travel such as cycling, walking and use of solar energy. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that increasing price of petrol is not an ideal method to tackle environmental problems.In conclusion, environmental hazards have to be reduced considerably by opting appropriate measures for the healthiest future.
From the past until now, human destroyed nature and with increasing technological usages, industrialisati on and modernization, this demolition has occurred with more speed. The environment is a victim of human development and selfishness of mankind. Oil and their derivatives such as fuel and gasoline are some of the most important things for human while that are bad affecting the environment. The price of fuel is determined by supply and demand in international oil market and governments don’t of a country also have their own policies regarding the fuel price. I agree with this statement partially but from my experience and observation I think there isn’t sufficient way for solving ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world. I will try to explain and cover my all idea with some description and example as below. If governments want to decrease the fuel usages, they should try to generate or increase the capacity of other energy sources such as solar or wind energy. For example, in many countries, they have produced some hybrid cars that are working with electricity or compressed hydrogen instead of fuel. In these methods, each vehicle has a tank of hydrogen rather than fuel. Hydrogen and oxygen are a mixture with other materials and it generates water as a clean fuel. Or another example I heard in some restaurants in Brazil that can also be exemplary: scientists have invented a new method to supply electricity from the bicycle rising. For this purpose, they contrive some stable bicycle and generate electricity of restaurants with the power of cycling. If anybody wants to eat free meals, they can cycle for 20 minutes. If heads of countries produce alternative kinds of clean energy with lower prices and sufficient this method then the dependency on fuel would reduce and the need for increasing fuel price would not be necessary.
To solve the ever-increasing environmental hazards throughout the world, the best way is to increase the price of fuel.Good model answer for this writing task 2 question. Thanks, IELTS Mentor Team.