The best way to solve the world’s environmental problem is to increase the price of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Environmental protection is always a controversial topic. Some people suggest higher fuel prices as the solution to environmental issues. From my perspective, even though increasing the prices of gas or coal might reduce consumptions, the natural environment can not benefit from the increased fuel prices at all.

Some may argue that rising prices on dirty energy could force both individuals and organizations to turn to clean ones. The idea sounds reasonable. However, there are still some practical problems needing to be solved. First of all, not all countries or regions can access clean energy like solar, hydro or wind resources. Second, although clean fuel technology has been developed for decades and achieved some compliments already, it is still not mature enough to replace the traditional fuel such as gas, diesel or coal. For example, nuclear energy has been considered as a clean, safe and economical energy. Nevertheless, even Japan, the country with the highest percentage of nuclear energy reactors, still relies on fuels for over 50% of energy supply. Therefore, to raise the price of fuel is not a feasible way.

Moreover, opposite to people's expectations, I believe that increasing fuel prices will negatively impact environmental protection. Almost all developing countries lack the means of finance and technologies to construct or switch to new clean energy. In this case, the increased prices on fuel will put these countries in hardship, which will lead to more exploration of natural resources, such as deforestation or overharvesting. Consequently, both the environment and the country suffer. Another worse situation caused by the price increase is those countries whose economy is based on fuel selling businesses. Inevitably, these countries will over-explore nature to earn more profit from better prices. As a result, the environment will be damaged in order to take more resources. For instance, the area of dessert in gulf countries has been expended for 50% due to the exploration of oil.

In conclusion, to adopt higher prices on fuel is not a practical way to solve environmental issues. On the contrary, it will cause worse situations to the environment.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (1 vote)

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...reased fuel prices at all. Some may argue that rising prices on dirty energy coul...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, still, therefore, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, on the contrary

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 24.0651302605 42% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1859.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 346.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37283236994 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04941784276 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 176.041082164 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560693641618 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 506.74238477 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 16.0721442886 131% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.3222382447 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.5238095238 106.682146367 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4761904762 20.7667163134 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190391821303 0.244688304435 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.061795556343 0.084324248473 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660525211324 0.0667982634062 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141823590345 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0465763208717 0.056905535591 82% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 50.2224549098 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 78.4519038076 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.