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 will not outweigh the negatives, as the environmental improvements will be modest, while financial and practical consequences for individuals and businesses will be severe.
Although reducing air travel may decrease aircraft emissions, the environmental impact is unlikely to be substantial. In reality, most travellers would replace flights with cars, as driving provides greater flexibility than trains and is significantly faster than cycling. Because private vehicles are already the dominant mode of transport and the majority still run on gasoline, a large-scale shift from planes to cars would simply transfer emissions from the sky to the road. As road traffic increases, carbon output may return to previous levels, or even rise further, diminishing any long-term environmental gain.
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 locations compared 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.