It is frequently suggested that unnecessary air travel should be stopped rather than limiting road accessibility as the pollution produced and the number of fuel used are the same. In my opinion I am opposed to this point, and the following paragraphs will explain why.
There are solid reasons to support non-essential flights, particularly considering their large contribution to the national economy. Expanding flights creates more opportunities for local tourists, boosting economic growth. In recent years, the aviation industry has been developing strongly as demand for air travel has increased. People travelling to Da Nang or Ha Noi, for example, would prefer an one- hour flight rather than spending a day on a car or rail. Furthermore, travelling by plane for only 1-2 hours will not cause fatigue for passengers, saving energy and time for other activities and tasks.
Moreover, I believe that reducing the number of non-essential flights is not the best way to reduce harm to the environment. It’s clear that people’s need for cars is increasing day by day and cannot be replaced. Obviously, the number of automobiles on roadways considerably outnumbers the number of long-distance aircraft. Personal vehicles, such as automobiles and motorcycles, are the main means of transportation, especially in towns and urbans. Therefore , their total pollutants greatly exceed those of non-essential aircraft. However, in recent years, major automobile manufacturers have been investigating a generation of environmentally friendly electric cars, with the hope of reducing pollution in future decades.
In short, besides their significant contributions to tourism and economic development, long-distance flights still considerably affect the environment like other means of transportation. I believe that in the near future, the government will provide practical and effective solutions to this problem.