People have greatly decreased the amount of times they fly each year or made the choice not to fly at all. I think this decision, although made with good intentions, does not provide substantial enough benefit to the environment to justify the inconveniences caused by it.
A few people not getting on airplanes will not impact the number of flights occurring. Demands for flights are at an all time high. People need to reach their destinations as quickly as they can. Individuals who choose not to fly will not be impacting the amount of carbon emissions from planes. The time wasted by not flying, however, will be costly. A majority of people who travel do so to meet their families and relax on their time off. If they choose to travel via methods that take longer, they are sacrificing the free time they can spend with their families over a decision that, in the end, does not make a difference to the harm caused by flying.
For businesses, not flying can be costly in different ways. Firstly, most meetings are very time sensitive and require sharp on the clock appearances. By not flying, people risk not reaching the destination in time, which could mean jeopardizing deals worth millions of dollars. Secondly, businesses need their employees to spend their time efficiently performing their jobs. If the employees spend more time traveling, that means less work is being done by them. Which can be easily negated by just flying them out.
In conclusion, I believe the onus for environmental damage should not be put on the consumers but on the companies that are causing these problems in the first place. Better environmental regulations can help negate the damage we do to the earth while not damaging the everyday person’s ease of living.