Airplane uses more fuel and causes more pollution than car do. In such a case non-essential air travel should be discouraged in order to make the environment better rather than limiting the car use.
To what extend do you agree?
The impact of air travel on the environment is undeniable. Airplanes consume a significant amount of fuel and emit greenhouse gases, contributing to pollution and climate change. In contrast, cars are generally more fuel-efficient and produce fewer emissions per passenger mile traveled. Given these facts, it is reasonable to argue that non-essential air travel should be discouraged to protect the environment.
Limiting car use may not be as effective in reducing pollution as discouraging air travel since cars are already more environmentally friendly compared to airplanes. Encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as public transit or cycling can further reduce carbon emissions from cars. Additionally, advancements in electric vehicles offer a promising solution for reducing pollution caused by automobiles.
However, it is important to consider the practicality of discouraging non-essential air travel entirely. Airplanes play a crucial role in connecting people across long distances efficiently and quickly, which is essential for business purposes or emergencies. Completely limiting air travel could have negative consequences on global economies and personal lives.
In conclusion, while non-essential air travel should be discouraged due to its significant environmental impact, completely limiting car use may not be the most effective solution. Instead, promoting sustainable alternatives like public transit and electric vehicles can help mitigate pollution caused by cars while maintaining the necessary convenience provided by airplanes for long-distance travel needs.