The impact that the growing demand for more flights has had on the environment is a major concern for many countries. Some people believe that one way to limit the number of people traveling by air is to increase tax on flights. To what extent do you think this could solve the problem?

Due to, the recent upsurge in global warming which has been attributed to frequent air travel, some nations are concerned with the best method to solve

this

problem.

Although

certain folks presume that tax increment is the most effective way to tackle the environmental damages, I think offering aids to developing countries and visa restrictions will prove more effective.

Firstly

, you can agree with me that one major reason for increased flight usage is migration in search of greener pastures.

For instance

, owing to the poor state of Nigeria, most adults relocate overseas in search of greener pastures but we had alternatives, individuals will stay rather than relocating. Clearly, if developed nations invest in developing countries, the condition would be more favourable

thus

reducing frequent overseas trips.

Therefore

, it is not an issue double tax return will control.

Secondly

, restricting Visa access is another key method to mitigate the increasing demand for flights.

For example

, my neighbour was denied access to Dubai

last

summer,

consequently

, she spent her holidays in Enugu state. Obviously, restricting unnecessary trips is a good way to curtail

the

Remove the article

apply

show examples

frequent plane usage.

Hence

, offers

m

Add an article

a

show examples

ore efficient approach than the high level of taxes on airline firms. To conclude, the impact of environmental damages caused by flight populations calls for concern. Even though, some people argue that the best way to limit it, is by enforcing an outrageous tax on flights but I strongly believe that foreign aids to less-developed nations and visa restrictions will be a better option to explore.