The intensifying effects of climate change have brought commercial flight into a sharp focus. Two opinions are debated: Restricting international travel to minimise environmental impact versus those who claim the international travel benefits outweigh its environmental effects. This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my conclusion and standpoint regarding this issue.
The international flight utilises fossil energy as the aircraft fuel. Therefore, it releases tonnes of carbon emissions from the combustion process during the travel. The effect of carbon emissions can be observed through numerous climate change phenomena around the world, including the ozone layer damage. However, international travel is not the only factor that causes climate change. Several factors, such as deforestation and industrial pollution also contribute to climate change and are relatively easier to be solved. The deforestation rate in several countries was solved by reducing the use of wood-based products. Moreover, the government may oblige the industries to use emission control equipment to reduce pollution from their activities. Those solutions offer more fair solutions to minimise the climate change impacts.
Therefore, the air travel restriction seems to be a radical solution to solve the climate change issue. Several sectors will possibly be impacted by this restriction. For instance, the unemployment rate will increase rapidly, causing further social problems for several countries. Not to mention, logistic and supply chain problems will arise if air travel is banned and other domino effect occurrences. The best solution is possibly to invent renewable fuel for aircraft. Yet, it requires years of research work and huge financial support, which cannot be rushed. Thus, air travel benefits still outweigh its environmental impacts, and environmental stakeholders around the world should be able to prioritise their focus on more urgent and feasible environmental problems.