Some people argue that the use of fossil fuels of taxes helps energy consumption to minimize, while other have a counter measure . this essay will discuss both of views and give a logic conclusion.
On the one hand, those who support taxation of fossil fuels promote the idea that funds might be prohibitive ,which appears to yield consumption and lower emission. An illustration of this point, Sweaden strives to follow the suit thereby lower consumption. Moreover, government generate oppurtunity to used to subsidy renewable energy such as solar and localized biofuel reactors. To the supporters of the idea, these benefits might be convincing.
By contrast, furthermore, propenents of one side would justify their view, in case of higher funds, this would create difficulty in those who the last afford to reside. This contributes to pay high the entire energy market when they meet challenges meaning financial burden, poor lifestyle. Furthermore, opponents of high taxation claim that it is well-known to have right to pass the law ,but for promising interfering in the entire energy market, which would be impossible. The argument also appears to be threat for people during poverty.
In conclusion,I would tend to side with the opponents of fossil fuel of tax and I maintain that government pass the law regarding energy fund highly when it must think about subordinate.