It is often highlighted that a single long-distance flight consumes the same amount of fuel that a
car
might
use
over several years,
while
both
cause comparable levels of
pollution
.
This
has led some to argue that we should discourage non-essential
flights
,
instead
of focusing on limiting
car
usage.
While
I agree that reducing non-essential
flights
can help address global
pollution
, I believe that a balanced approach is required, targeting
both
air
travel
and
car
usage, as
both
contribute significantly to environmental harm.
There are valid reasons to discourage
people
from
non - essentialCorrect your spelling
show examples
flights
, especially the ones associated with tourism.
Air
travel
contributes significantly to global
pollution
, which in turn causes
rapidAdd an article
show examples
rise
ofChange preposition
show examples
global warming.
According to
AviationCorrect article usage
show examples
IEA database, the number of CO2 emissions between 2022 and 2024
haveChange the verb form
show examples
doubled, reaching an
all timeAdd a hyphen
show examples
high. Skyrocketing global warming, as a whole, has a very negative effect on
people
's health.
For example
: it causes confusion, increased cardiac output, elevated blood pressure and increased arrhythmias.
As a result
, in recent years, there
isWrong verb form
show examples
a major growth
ofChange preposition
show examples
deaths associated with
pollution
. Another reason to discourage
people
from non-essential
flights
is our
environmentReplace the word
show examples
loss
due to
the greenhouse effect. Growing
air
travel
pollution
has caused significant losses to our home:
climateCorrect word choice
show examples
change is already affecting Europe in various forms, depending on the region. It can possibly lead to biodiversity loss, forest fires, decreasing crop fields and higher temperatures.
As a result
, there is a big
riseCorrect your spelling
show examples
of more severe storms,droughts and poverty.
While
air
travel
may have a bigger and higher environmental cost per journey,
cars
remain the most widely used mode of
transportation
globally, and their impact is substantial, especially in urban areas. One of the solutions would be to limit the
use
of
cars
per household and
use
transportation
, which doesn't pollute our
environment
, to cover smaller distances, since a lot of households have more
thenReplace the word
show examples
one
car
, which substantially increases CO2 emissions and
people
need to get used to
travelingChange the spelling
show examples
with eco-friendly
transportation
.
This
could massively lower the
pollution
, causing a more eco-friendly
environment
. Another solution would be for
people
to
use
public transport
instead
of
cars
. Even though
cars
are our everyday transport, public
transportation
is really well developed in most of the European countries. There are a lot of alternatives
such
as
bussesCorrect your spelling
show examples
,
trolley busesCorrect your spelling
show examples
, metros, etc.
This
would
also
massively lower the CO2 emissions in our
environment
In conclusion,
while
discouraging non-essential
flights
can play a significant role in reducing
pollution
, it is not a solution in isolation. A better approach that addresses
both
air
travel
and
car
use
is needed to tackle
challengesCorrect article usage
show examples
we face. By promoting alternatives to
both
modes of transport and encouraging more sustainable
transportation
across the board, we can make meaningful progress in reducing
pollution
and combating climate change.