Many members of the public think that the most effective way of tackling the menace of air contamination is to hike the cost of fossil fuels, while others believe that disparate solutions should be chosen to counter pollution. I agree with the latter opinion.
On the one hand, people might think that by increasing the price of fuels, drivers would be compelled to limit the use of vehicles. Curiously enough, this is reasonable to certain extent because we tend to change a habit if economic deterrents are involved. Furthermore, this would also decrease extravagance as people would use motor vehicles only when they are absolutely necessary. However, this may have some side effects such as strain on essential services and commodities. For example, such a measure can make it difficult for ambulance services to function and we may see a rise in prices of goods as logistics require a lot of fuel.
On the other hand, other people are of the opinion that there are more ways to confront this challenge. So what can they be? The Government can implement an “odd even” scheme allowing cars on road on the basis of their number plates. Moreover, people can be offered incentives if they carpool instead of using their personal means of transport. In addition to this, the State can fine old cars that consume a lot of diesel. For example, it can provide vouchers or discounts to people on certain services if they are consistent in carpooling. Similarly, it can tax old vehicles heavily.
In conclusion, while increasing the cost of fuel is one way to deal with atmospheric pollution, I believe other ways are more efficient.