You should tell your reasons in your second  paragraph. You wrote ' It is not helpful, but even worse', so you have to outline your analysis which shows why you think it is not helpful.

Do you want to say: 'I completely disagree with this policy. Initially, it is clear that it would render people' lives more tough, rather than improving the environment effectively' ?

You are welcome. I am sure that you can make great progress through frequent practices. And I am seeing that it is exactly the thing you are doing now. Your rewrite is good though with some minor errors.

1、'In this cutting-edge world':  ' cutting-edge ' means ' advanced' . Could we say ' advanced world ' ? The answer is no. You could say ' cutting-edge science' or 'cutting-edge technology' or 'cutting-edge therapy' , but not 'cutting-edge world' .

2、'I will indicate for several reasons'：' indicate' is a transitive verb, so don't put 'for' after it. ' indicate several reasons' is the right one.

3、'The government provides(example: ' provide help/fund/service) some irreversible (example: 'irreversible damage/effect') policies to solve the problems' : unsuitable world used—— ' the government implements some politics to……’

4、‘Secondly, boosting the price of routine diet is only makes people hard to stay alive, but also force them to live in under the poor line. ’ ： boosting the price of routine diet is only making people hard to live in comfort, forcing them to live/struggle in the poor line

'NOT ONLY……BUT ALSO': 1、She is not only serious, but also cold-blooded. 2、Not only his mother is angry, but also his father is annoyed.

'ONLY': 1、She is only a student. 2、She has only two pounds in her pocket. 3、The government only focus on the growth of GDP.

thanks for you correction! you know what.

Its really helpful, I think I should consider my essay after I finish it, because it may seems weird sometimes. 

By the way, your rewrite ones is exquisite that is one I try to make it!

and here is my rewrite:

Before the world became technical and modern, the government and scientist had explored the natural resources and exploited the property in order to better people’s life. After nearly exhausting the natural resources, the government tends to increase the price of fuel to help the environment. However, I feel that is not the best way to preserve the Earth. In this essay, I will indicate for several reasons why I disagree with this opinion.

In this cutting-edge world, human beings are suffering from the artificial disaster and calamity, such as global warming and resource exhausting etc. The government provides some irreversible policies to solve the problems. For example, boost the price of taxes, fuel, routine diet and everything resources in the market. After implementing, it is not helpful, but even worse.

More exactly, I am absolutely disagreeing that the priority is to make life to be more difficult instead of helping the world consciously. For instance, the government did not realize that the number of the demands in the world is way more than the numbers of resources we have nowadays, so I think the policy should act wisely. Secondly, boosting the price of routine diet is only makes people hard to stay alive, but also force them to live in under the poor line. Form the last point of view, I think that the government and scientist can cultivate a new technical system to create numerous new bio-fuels and genetically modified food for people using instead of wasting more and more resources.

To conclude, personally, I believe that the policy should not only focus on the problem itself, but also find out some solution to compensate shortage of ideas. The famous scientist Albert Einstein have said, “the greatest danger in modern technology is not begin to think like people, but that people to think like machine”.  

To conclude, personally, I believe that the policy cannot (should not) only focus on the problem itself, but find out some solution（solutions） to rescue the world ( I think saying that 'rescue the world' is going too far. Perhaps 'rescue the natural resource' is more appropriate, what do you think?). The famous scientist Albert Einstein said (have said), “ (')t he greatest danger in modern technology is not begin to think like people, but that people to think like machine”.  

1、If you want to use 'only', you should write ' I believe that the policy should not only focus on the problem itself, but also find out……

2、or ' I believe that the policy should not focus on the problem itself, but some solutions……

In this cutting-edge world, the government and scientist try hardly to explore the natural resources and exhaust the resources in order to better citizen’s life ( I know what you want to express, but don't you think that it is a little weird. 'the government exhaust natural resources because they want to better citizen's lives'. It is a little ambiguous). The government tends to increase the price of fuel to help the environment, but I feel that (that it) is not the good ( 'best' could be better) way to preserve the world. In this essay, I will indicate that I disagree for several reasons. ( I will indicate several reasons for why I disagree with this opinion)

Personally, I think your intro needs a little rewrite, mainly because the first sentence has none connection with the second one. I mean, in the second one, you wrote 'government takes step to solve environmental problem, but your first sentence didn't refer what exactly the problem is. Besides, I think ' in this cutting-edge world' doesn't have a strong link with ' government try hard to……' Here is my rewrite, hope you don't mind. If I have any mistake, please tell me.

Nowadays, the environmental challenge is severe. After nearly exhausting the natural resources, government and scientists begin to rethink their previous behaviors. In order to improve the environment and better the citizen' lives, government today tend to increase the price of fuel. This, in my vies, however, is not the best way for preserving the natural resources. In this essay, I will indicate several reasons for why I disagree with this method.

In this cutting-edge world, the government and scientist try hardly to explore the natural resources and exhaust the resources in order to better citizen’s life. The government tends to increase the price of fuel to help the environment, but I feel that is not the good way to preserve the world. In this essay, I will indicate that I disagree for several reasons.

In present-day world, human beings are suffering from the disaster and calamity, such as global warming and resource exhausting etc. The government provides some irreversible policies to solve the problems. For example, boosting the price of fuel, routine diet and everything resources in the market. It is not only helpless, but even worse.

More exactly, I am absolutely disagreeing that the priority is to make life to be more difficult instead of helping the world consciously. For instance, the government did not realize that the number of the demands in the world is way more than the numbers of resources we present have, so I think the policy should act wisely. Secondly, boosting the price of routine diet is only makes people hard to stay alive, but force them to live in under the poor line. Form the last point of view, I think that the government and scientist can cultivate a new technical system to create numerous new bio-fuels and genetically modified food for people using instead of wasting more and more resources.

To conclude, personally, I believe that the policy cannot only focus on the problem itself, but find out some solution to rescue the world. The famous scientist Albert Einstein said, “the greatest danger in modern technology is not begin to think like people, but that people to think like machine”.