To solve the worsening traffic and pollution problems, some people claim that the best way to do this is through increasing the petrol price. Superficially, the proposal sounds attractive and sensible, but when carefully weighing it, it is far from being reasonable and practical.
Prohibitive petrol prices aim to do something to stop the increasing use of cars. Some people hold that view that the consumption of the petrol would decline by increasing the price the petrol, ultimately save energy, cut carbon dioxide emission and pollution and improve the traffic situation.
Other people argue that the idea of increasing the price of petrol may create more problems than it solves. Firstly, controlling the price of petrol on purpose is a brazen infringement of commercial rules of market economy and possibly would results in economic crisis. The price should be decided by the need and supply rather than government policy. Moreover, people’s daily life will be inevitably affected by the so called best solution. It could make profound changes in modern lifestyle and bring people a lot of inconvenience. For example, people might prefer staying at home and watching TV to visiting their old parents and friends or do some aerobic exercise. This may lead to a series of problem, such as lack of communication with the outside and poor health. In addition, it is unfair considering that rich people would still drive freely because they could afford to do so.
In fact we have other much more effective measures to take. For instance, producing new type of “green” cars which use solar energy would reduce the pollution. Furthermore, Government should develop an efficient mass transit system and encourage people to use pubic transport like bus, train and underground to relieve the traffic congestion. I maintain that the increase of price of petrol is the last choose for us. (300词)
Recently, the result of a survey indicating that people pay much more attention to applied science while basic science is neglected to some extent has aroused public focus. Some people think the result demonstrates the statement. However, others firmly believe the result of survey is doubtful.
Those who are in favor of the view are supported by a lot of facts. One of the facts is that more young men opt for applied science as their majors in the university. A report published by MIT in 2003 shows the number of enrollments in applied science had risen steadily during the last ten years, on the contrary, the figure of enrollments in basic science had fallen by 35% since 1995. In addition, the concern of university authority and the teaching resource investment on subjects of basic science gradually decreased. Only 30% of annual budget was spent on basic sciences, compared to 70% on applied science on average. Finally, the government and international corporations set up all sorts of funds to subsidize the development of applied sciences. Yet the investment on the basic science is even considered as a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Actually, the basic science is useful as much as the applied science which aims to solve specific problems. The ignorance of basic science could lead to the loss of applied science’s foundation. Some effective measures should be taken to stop this tendency. First, to attract young people to study basic science, the university should provide more scholarships. Secondly, the university and the government should offer more financial support for basic science. Finally, enterprises should be encouraged to invest in the research project on basic science.
Overall, I tend to side with the former view. In my opinion, the attention on basic research is far from being enough. Unless the government and society realize the significance of basic science and adopt proper policies, the situation will be not improved.