Some people are of the opinion that discouraging non-essential flights, instead of restricting the use of cars, is an essential measure, as both kinds of transport, with the same amount of fuel, could generate the equivalent level of pollution. Personally, I partly agree with this perspective, based on some rationales explained in this essay.
On the one hand, there are some negative impacts coming from the overuse of long-distance flights. Some studies indicate that the amount of CO2 and other emissions released into the air is extremely tremendous, twice as much as that of cars, leading to the formation of ozone layer, and an increase in greenhouse gases. Therefore, some non-essential flights, should be limited to ensure the sustainable development of people’s livings, contributing to mitigating environmental problems, like global warming effects.
On the other hand, maintaining long-distance flights is not a wasteful activity, because they could offer several values to society. Playing a vital role in sustaining the economic growth of many regions around the world, these travels are related to some aspects of each nation, such as domestic business, foreign investment, and tourism attraction as well. For instance, in Vietnam, the tourism contributes around ten percent to the rate of GDP annually, creates a large profit for the government, and also a significant number of jobs for local people. Moreover, the reduction in usage of airplane could result in the greater reliance on automobiles, exacerbating some problems in many places, like traffic jams, air pollution, making people’s experience uncomfortable.
In conclusion, I hold the view that, although long-distance flights, versus cars, could cause an equal affect on air pollution, they should be kept because they could bring benefits to the society.