# FILE NAME: 00002377.soc
# TITLE: Should taxes on fuel be increased to reduce pollution? [c946d436c44612a2cf7404df92724dbd]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Fuel prices should not be increased to reduce pollution. The increase in taxes would hit the poorest in society hard, who would be unable to afford to travel. The wealthy would not feel the pinch and would continue to pollute. It would also be a very unpopular decision with working class people who would struggle to pay higher taxes and would disincentivise them when it comes to using less fuel and caring about pollution, when they see the wealthy that use the most, not being discouraged from polluting the planet. The wealthy would continue to use private jets and other industrial businesses, such as natural gas companies. Other major sources are the use of electric batteries, which are created using extensive mining, harming the Earth more than a typical petrol or diesel car. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We agree that the current levels of pollution are a major concern for the health of the planet and the people living on it.  We agree that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to this pollution.  We agree that the use of fossil fuels needs to be reduced, but we disagree that this can be achieved by increasing the taxes on fuel.  We believe that this would be unfair to those who are not in a position to afford to use public transport and would have to rely on their cars to get to work and other places.  We believe that this would be unfair to those who live in rural areas where there is no public transport and they would be forced to use their cars.  We believe that this would be unfair to those who are elderly or disabled and would find it difficult to use public transport.  We believe that there are more effective ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels and therefore pollution.  We believe that there should be more investment in public transport and that it should be made more accessible to those who live in rural areas.  We believe that there should be more investment in electric cars and that the government should provide incentives for people to buy them.  We believe that the government should provide incentives for people to
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - No, the taxes on fuel should not be increased to reduce pollution as it would hit the poorest in society hardest and would not encourage the wealthiest to reduce pollution as they would not feel the impact of the tax increase. The taxes on fuel are already very high and further increases would discourage people from using their cars, leading to an increase in public transport usage. This would be good for the environment but would require a huge investment in public transport. There are more effective and less harmful alternatives to reduce pollution by motor vehicles such as improving public transport to encourage people to use them, and incentives towards swapping to electric vehicles.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of increasing taxes on fuel, but with some caveats.  It was felt that this would be a good way to reduce pollution, but that it would need to be done in conjunction with improving public transport.  It was also felt that the increase in taxes would need to be gradual, to allow people to adapt to the change.  It was also felt that it would be important to ensure that the increase in taxes on fuel would be used to improve public transport and that it would not be used to subsidise the wealthy, who would not be affected by the increase in fuel prices.
2: 1,3,2,4
1: 4,2,3,1
1: 4,2,1,3
1: 1,2,3,4