Many people argue that non-vital flights should be restricted because it can cause pollution, which is similar the emissions of cars in several years. Personally, I disagree with this school of for certain reasons.
On the one hand, there is a primary reason why non-essential flights ought to be discouraged. Airplane travels can contribute to the release of negative substances to the environment. This is because the impact this type of transportation may account for 3% of toxic gases, which might deplete the ozone layer and cause poor air quality. If the number of air travels were reduced, annual greenhouse gas emissions would be mitigated.
However, I believe that this reduction would have an adverse effect on socio-economic conditions. To illustrate, international tourists contribute to 13% of Italy’s GDP, and this figure can reach up to 40% in other nations. If such a restriction were enforced, it could lead to social unrest, and poverty in many countries.
Nonetheless, the negative consequences of using cars should not be overlooked. A reduction in unimportant flights can prompt a huge demand for car travel, which in turn causes many severe problems. For instance, the amount of toxic gases emitted from cars in China’s cities makes up 10% of harmful emissions. This proportion can deteriorate living standards and city dwellers’ well-being.
In conclusion, I still maintain that non-critical flights should not be reduced; nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the potential risks of them.