Several individuals claim that unimportant flights, like those for tourism, should be minimized because they significantly contribute to pollution, equating to the emissions produced by cars over several years. From my perspective, I partly concur with this belief based on some reasons that are elucidated in this essay.
On the one hand, there are some major rationales that explain why individuals endorse the reduction of non-essential flights. Travel dramatically contributes to climate change by emitting CO2 and nitrogen oxides( Nox) at high altitudes , which leads to the formation of ozone, a potent green gase and increases the stratospheric water vapor, both of which exacerbated global warming. The impact of these high-altitude emissions is more severe than ground-level pollution because they have a longer atmospheric lifetime and stronger warming effects.
On the other hand, the use of airplanes for tourism is indispensable for the economic advancement of numerous countries. To illustrate, international tourists contribute to 13% of Italy’s GDP, and this figure can reach up to 40% in other nations. If air travel were to be discouraged, it would result in a substantial income loss for many individuals, potentially leading to increased poverty and a decline in living standards. Moreover, a reduction in airplane usage would likely lead to a greater reliance on car travel, which could exacerbate traffic congestion and air pollution in urban areas, adding more issues to the living conditions of city dwellers.
In conclusion, there are some mixed opinions on determining whether unnecessary flights could be alleviated or not. Although reducing those flights could partly mitigate global warming and environmental pollution, they still affect people’s lives and the economic development of a country.