Cutting down on the number of trips made by plane or completely giving up air travel has recently become a trend. The perceived advantage of this development is a significant reduction in both air and noise pollution, while disadvantages range from limited mobility for individuals to a dramatic loss of profits for businesses. In my view, the expected benefits won’t outweigh the negatives, as the environmental improvements will be modest, while financial and practical consequences for individuals and businesses will be severe.
The primary argument of those justifying this trend is that a decrease in air trips will lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions. Planes release considerably more carbon dioxide per kilometer than any other form of transportation, so moving away from the former towards the latter seems to be an environmentally friendly choice. The advocates of this proposal believe that cars, trains and bikes are more sustainable means of transportation. Travelling by car, in particular, tends to be a far more common choice. Cars are faster than bikes and can reach many more destinations than trains, which are limited by rail tracks. However, in this scenario, global warming will still remain a challenge, as most cars still run on gas, also releasing harmful fumes into the atmosphere. When most people abandon planes in favor of cars (for the reasons mentioned earlier), the volume of traffic on roads and the pollution levels that come with this will spike. In this highly likely case, CO2 emissions may return to, or even exceed, previous levels.
Many also look forward to a drop in noise pollution levels. Planes produce a significant amount of noise when taking off and landing as well as when in the air, disrupting wildlife, especially birds. Pigeons, eagles and even falcons can struggle to navigate near airports, sometimes being drawn into turbine engines, which can result in fatal accidents. However, transitioning to cars, trains or bikes would not eliminate harm to wildlife. Road or rail accidents still occur- for instance, deer being hit by vehicles. While such accidents may occur less often, they remain common enough to question whether the environmental benefit of abandoning air travel would be substantial.
The negatives for the general public and the business sector, on the other hand, will cause tangible damage. First, there is a much greater number of physical obstacles, such as buildings and natural features, on the land than in the air where movement is unrestricted. Therefore, alternative means are generally slower and offer less direct access to distant location compare to flying. Consequently, business executives and employees who regularly commute between cities would face reduced mobility. This will have a grave impact on international corporations that have to promptly respond to swift changes in the market, as they need their key negotiators to be present at meetings that commonly take place in different cities. If employees drive or take a train instead of flying, they may take too long and miss out on potential deals or lose leverage. As a result, most global companies risk losing potential revenue, which is a significant issue for multinational enterprises.
To sum up, flying less frequently or completely giving it up will lead to only minimal changes in the current state of the environment, while reduced mobility and a loss of profit are a real challenge for businesses and individuals. Therefore, I firmly believe that the negatives of this trend clearly outweigh the expected environmental benefits.