It has been claimed that international travel has a negative environmental effect, therefore it should be restricted. I agree with this opinion because this creates challenges for nature; however, it can fund ecological initiatives and raise awareness among the tourists.
To begin with,/One reason to believe this is that most forms of transport need fossil fuel to operate, which is not eco-friendly and produces carbon emissions/greenhouse gases. For instance, being the most popular type of international transportation, planes are especially detrimental due to the high altitude of their flights. They emit directly into the upper atmosphere, where pollutants damage the ozone layer and thus contribute to climate change.
Another compelling evidence of the necessity to limit overseas travel is overexploitation of local resources. The rising number of tourists in all destinations has increased the demand for accommodation, airports, electricity, water and food supplies, leading to human intervention in nature. A fragile ecosystem, including coral reefs, marine habitats, or forest areas, becomes vulnerable to mass tourism.
However, opponents to limiting tourism claim that accumulated sums of money from travelling may be allocated to preservation of natural habitat. Many governments rely heavily on tourism revenue to create national parks and improve conditions to save endangered species. For example, THE PARK, one of the most notable natural reserve, maintains financial viability through selling tickets to visit the place. The organisation invests this money to sustain the unique ecosystem of the park.
In conclusion, although banning or limiting worldwide travel may be not only inefficient, but economically harmful, I am still convinced that it undoubtedly produces devastating environmental consequences due to air flights and the large number of travellers, and therefore it should be restricted.