Sample IELTS Task 2 essay: raising petrol prices for traffic & pollution

In many cities today, traffic and pollution are getting worse and worse. Some people think that the best way to solve these problems is to increase the price of petrol. I do not completely agree with this idea, and I think there are also other measures that can be effective.

It is true that raising the price of petrol can have some good effects. When petrol is more expensive, some people will not use their cars so much because they want to save money. So maybe they will use the bus or walk instead, and this can reduce the number of cars on the road and also the pollution. This is the main advantage of this idea.

However, I do not think this is the best solution. The problem is that many people really need their car to go to work or to take their children to school, so even if petrol is expensive, they will still have to pay and use it. This is especially unfair for poor people, because they will suffer the most but rich people will not change their habits.

In my opinion, there are other measures that are more effective. First, the government should improve public transport, for example making it cheaper, faster and more comfortable, so people want to use it. Second, the government can build more cycle lanes and encourage people to ride bicycles.

In conclusion, although increasing the price of petrol can reduce traffic and pollution a little, I do not think it is the best solution. I believe that improving public transport and encouraging cycling are better ways to solve these problems.

As urban congestion and air pollution intensify, it is sometimes claimed that raising the price of petrol represents the single most effective remedy. While I accept that such a measure has some merit, I disagree that it is the best solution, and I believe a broader package of policies would prove considerably more effective.

There is a certain logic to the petrol-pricing argument. Because demand for fuel is to some degree responsive to cost, higher prices would discourage casual or unnecessary car journeys, nudging at least some motorists towards public transport or active travel and thereby easing both congestion and emissions. The accompanying tax revenue could, in principle, be reinvested in greener alternatives.

Nevertheless, relying primarily on this approach is misguided. For many people, driving is not a discretionary luxury but a daily necessity dictated by work or family commitments, so they would have little choice but to absorb the extra cost. The policy is also regressive, penalising lower-income households disproportionately while scarcely altering the behaviour of the wealthy. As a standalone measure, therefore, it is both inequitable and likely to disappoint.

Far more promising, in my view, is a coordinated strategy. The cornerstone should be a genuinely attractive public transport network, one that is affordable, frequent and reliable enough to make car ownership feel optional. This could be reinforced by extensive cycling infrastructure, congestion charging in city centres and incentives for electric vehicles, all of which tackle the problem from multiple angles simultaneously.

In conclusion, although increasing petrol prices may modestly reduce traffic and pollution, it is far from the optimal solution. A combination of superior public transport, cycling provision and targeted disincentives would deliver far more meaningful and equitable results.