Airplanes during long-distance flights, like transoceanic flights, use an enormous amount of fuel that is enough for years of driving with a normal car, therefore, they cause a lot of air pollution. Some people believe that making limitations against non-vital flights is more important than decreasing car use. I disagree with them because one flight can transfer tens of people, and of course, there is no direct car route between some destinations. In this essay, I will discuss how flights are more cost-effective than their alternatives and why we should not compare this phenomenon with car-use air pollution.
Despite the fact that one airplane uses hundreds of times more fuel than a car, commercial flights can transfer large amounts of people; we should estimate how many cars are needed for transferring an airplane’s passengers. It is clear that using flights can save a large amount of fuel. For example, imagine we want to use 200 cars instead of a one-hour flight between Mashhad and Tehran.
Another important point we should consider is the difference between airways and roads. Airways are straight lines, but roads are longer. And there are no straight roads between many cities. Especially on long-distance routes, it makes a lot of difference. For instance, between Kyoto and New York, flights go in a straight line between these cities in a few hours, but it can take days to travel this way by car.
In conclusion, although cars have less air pollution than airplanes, considering the number of passengers on a plane and the distance airplanes travel compared to cars, we find that airplanes are more environmentally friendly than cars. I recommend discouraging private flights with few passengers, and taxing vehicles that are more fuel-consuming can be helpful to save the environment.