Prompt: Some people support the idea of imposing taxes on fossil fuels (oil, coil and gas) in order to reduce energy consumption. Other people disagree with this approach. Consider the debate and its arguments, and come to your own conclusion.

Humankind is heavily dependent on the natural resources in their day-to-day life. Fossil fuels are one of the most highly consumed resources. It is argued by many that, government should introduce taxation of the use of such resources while many others oppose this argument. This essay will discuss both sides of the argument and draw a conclusion. Ċ Assuming that the taxes are not imposed, the use of petrol, diesel and other fossil fuels will continue and burgeon with the increase in population. This may lead to the resources being exhausted completely. To illustrate, an article published in the Times now magazine states that, if the consumption of petrol in motor vehicle continue at the same rate, there will be no petrol by the year 2100. Subsequently, this argument has unfavourable outcomes. Ċ However, on the other hand, if the counterpart argument about laying taxation is considered. The society may see the surge in usage of fossil fuel, but will also affect the motor vehicle sector immensely, which in return will reflect on the economic growth of the country. Thus, this might be a suitable option but, is not the solution to the problem in the long run. In addition to this argument, the government should use the taxes collected to fund its research and development department to develop a cost effective hybrid vehicle which can meet the need of the modern lifestyle, and as well, reduce the consumption of the such natural resources. Ċ To conclude, the argument to oppose imposing taxes has no base to it. Whilst by application of fuel taxes, and putting it to better use of providing solution to such crises will be of significant good for humankind.