Introduction: Environmental degradation is arguably the most critical challenge of the 21st century. While some argue that drastically increasing fuel prices is the most effective method to combat this, I disagree that this is the best long-term solution. While it may reduce usage temporarily, it unfairly targets lower-income individuals and fails to address the root cause, which is a lack of green alternatives.

Body Paragraph 1 (Why price hikes are problematic): The primary drawback of raising fuel prices is the socio-economic impact. Fuel is a necessity, not a luxury; people need it to commute to work and transport goods. If governments merely increase taxes on petrol without providing alternatives, it will lead to inflation and a higher cost of living. This disproportionately affects the working class, who may not be able to afford electric vehicles or live in areas with poor public transport. Therefore, a price hike acts as a financial penalty rather than a constructive solution.

Body Paragraph 2 (The better solution): A more effective strategy would be for governments to subsidize renewable energy and improve public infrastructure. If electric cars were affordable and public transport was fast, reliable, and cheap, people would naturally switch away from fossil fuels without being forced financially. For example, countries like Norway have successfully reduced emissions not just by taxing gas, but by making electric vehicles cheaper and more convenient to own.

Conclusion: In conclusion, while increasing the price of fuel might yield immediate results, it is a blunt instrument that causes economic hardship. A superior approach involves investing in green technology and infrastructure, making sustainable choices the easiest and most logical option for everyone.

(286 words)

Examiner's Note: The essay takes a clear position ("I disagree") and maintains it. It uses complex grammar ("acts as a financial penalty," "disproportionately affects") and develops the argument logically.