In contemporary society, there has been a marked increase in the number of individuals who have decided to reduce or totally reject the notion of travelling by plane. Personally, I tend to contend that this tendency has a plethora of benefits, as it could help us reduce carbon emissions produced by humans and decrease the total amount of waste released into marine ecosystems. However, reducing or even cancelling all flights at once would cause a substantial impact on the world economic system; therefore, the best option is to maintain a balanced approach.
Proponents of rejecting flights often highlight the environmental damage caused by air travel, particularly its effects on oceans and the volume of greenhouse gases produced annually. Indeed, a significant portion of the waste produced by aircraft, such as fuel waste, plastic packaging, and other pollutants are either indirectly released into the oceans or to broader ecological harm, due to the extra expenses caused by hard-to-manage waste disposal and the complex logistics involved in handling aviation-related pollutants. Therefore, reducing the number of people travelling by airplane is a ubiquitous way to reduce environmental issues.
On the other hand, planes currently play one of the most crucial roles in the global economy and have become an indispensable part of it. Therefore, rejecting them might cause irrecoverable gaps in the world economy. For instance, over 85% of global technologies like phones or laptops are transported by plane, as neither cars nor ships can deliver as much or as fast as planes do. Moreover, conferences organized by corporations or countries require participants to arrive quickly, and planes are the best option for this purpose.
All in all, while denying airplane travel might be beneficial for the environment, especially for marine ecosystems eliminating air travel entirely would damage economic structures. Thus, a more reasonable solution is to find a compromise that balances environmental concerns with economic demands.