There is a view that long-distance flight consumes more fuel than cars and brings more pollution to the environment, therefore non-essential flight should be discouraged instead of limiting car usage. Personally, I disagree with this idea as I believe drawbacks of limiting flight outweigh its advantages.
On the one hand, supporters of discouraging non-essential flight think that, long-distance flight requires more fuel compared to single cars’ fuel usage. Thus, in order to save fuel non-essential flight should be banned, and fuel should be directed towards cars as individuals need that for far more important purposes such as commuting to work, going to grocery stores.
On the other hand, others argue that, even though long-distance flight requires more fuel compared to cars, harmful emissions which contaminates air mainly comes from cars, as well as greenhouse gases produced in factories. Instead restricting flight might lead to severe consequences in economic of a country. Some countries’ economy heavily relied on money that comes from tourism if it is prohibited it could lead to economic crisis for these countries. For example, France, in 2025, it got profit around 77,5 billion euros from tourism. If flights are stopped the number of tourists will experience gradual decline, causing chain effect for hotels, restaurants, travel agencies. In addition to this, unemployment rates might saw growth as individuals who were once working in hotels, or travel agencies might lose their jobs as a result of a little number of visitors.
In conclusion, although discouraging non-essential flight might pave the way to save fuel for car usage, the drawbacks caused by the reduction of flight cause economic downturn for some countries. For this reason, I believe that instead of fully discouraging these flights government should introduce tax for environmental drawbacks, and use earnings to improve environment.