Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: the only effective way for the government to encourage energy conservation is to increase the price of gasoline and electricity.

It is critically important that we consider that there are many ways of dealing with environmental responsibility. I don’t believe that the only way to encourage energy conservation is to increase the price of gasoline and electricity. I feel this way for two reasons, which I will explore in the following essay. The first thing to consider is that the world’s population will need to be conscious and change habits that are usual but not sustainable. Besides, as a long term impact we need to think in changes that will pursue as time goes. My personal experience is a compelling illustration of this, when I worked in a junior company, I took part in a project where big companies were encouraged to conserve energy by agreements that were created to rule the waste of energy with their not conscious operations. When focusing on agents that have a big impact on consumption, the conservation would be in large scale. Moreover, when changing the way of acting in a social responsibility way, those organizations would influence society to change habits and start thinking about the long term impact of not conserving energy. Furthermore, the government could encourage the population to choose clean energy. For instance, one way of doing it would be reducing taxes for products such as solar boards and installation services making it more attractive for the population. As energy consumed in my house is already by solar board, I can say that using this solution, there is a significant reduction in energy bills. On the other hand, the installation cost requires a big investment, even though this disbursement brings back faster it's yield. In conclusion, energy conservation might be a long term change. This is because those who have money would keep wasting energy. Otherwise, this measure wouldn’t change their habit because they care about the environmental causes, but because people would spend more money with it, not pursuing it's impact.
Submitted by Andrea deVasconcelos on
What to do next: