One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause the same amount of pollution. So, some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourist travel, rather than limit the use of cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree? hay nhất giúp bạn có thêm tài liệu tham khảo để viết bài luận bằng Tiếng Anh hay hơn.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 1

The environmental impact of long-distance flights has ignited a debate on whether non-essential air travel, such as tourist trips, should be curtailed in favor of reducing automobile use. This essay will examine the validity of prioritizing the limitation of flights over cars.

Those in favor of restricting non-essential flights argue that the sheer volume of fuel consumed by a single long-haul flight equates to the fuel a car would use over several years, thus, by reducing flights, a significant decrease in carbon emissions could be achieved quickly. For example, in Vietnam, where tourism is a major economic contributor, flights to popular destinations like Da Nang and Phu Quoc are frequent. If these flights were limited, proponents argue, the reduction in greenhouse gases could be substantial. However, this stance fails to consider that the alternatives, such as car travel to these locations, could actually increase overall emissions due to the extended travel times and the inefficiencies of road transport over long distances.

However, I believe that focusing solely on limiting flights is a reductive approach and overlooks the broader benefits of global connectivity. Restricting tourist travel specifically could have deleterious effects on economies like Vietnam's, where tourism supports millions of livelihoods. Instead, enhancing fuel efficiency standards for both planes and cars and investing in sustainable aviation technologies might yield better long-term results. Moreover, if non-essential travel were discouraged, it would be imperative to ensure that alternative modes of transportation are made more environmentally friendly and accessible. Otherwise, the intended environmental benefits might be offset by increased reliance on less efficient travel options.

In conclusion, while the argument to limit non-essential flights to reduce environmental impact holds merit, a more holistic approach that includes improving transportation technology and infrastructure across the board would likely be more effective. Encouraging responsible travel and advancing green technologies should go hand in hand to address the pressing challenge of climate change.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 2

The environmental impact of long-distance flights, which consume as much fuel as cars over several years and produce equivalent pollution, has led some to advocate for abandoning non-essential flights, such as those for tourism. I completely agree with this viewpoint, as reducing air travel can significantly benefit the planet and alleviate noise pollution.

Firstly, flying is detrimental to the environment because it significantly contributes to global warming, pollution, and a large carbon footprint. The high rate of fuel combustion in aircraft increases carbon emissions, which directly affects the ozone layer's erosion and subsequently leads to global warming. A study published in Nature Communications found that the total climate impact of aviation, including non-CO2 effects, is around 4% of human-induced global warming, making it a significant contributor. By reducing non-essential flights, we can lower these harmful emissions and mitigate their effects on climate change.

Secondly, aircraft can cause substantial noise pollution, especially for those living near airports. Residents in these areas face numerous adverse effects, including sleep disturbances, impaired performance, and communication interference, as well as cardiovascular and psychological issues. The noise problems created by aircraft are a significant nuisance and health concern for these communities. By abandoning non-essential flights, the frequency of flights and consequently the level of noise pollution would decrease, improving the quality of life for people living near airports.

In conclusion, abandoning non-essential flights is a more efficient and effective approach than restricting car usage, as it would significantly reduce both environmental and noise pollution.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 3

The environmental impacts of long-distance flights and cars have become a topic of intense debate, as commercial flying is known to release gigantic amounts of emission into the environment. In this, I partly disagree with the assertion that discouraging non-essential flights should take precedence over limiting car use to mitigate pollution.

On the one hand, there are reasons to prioritize reducing flights. Supporters of this policy, firstly, argue that airplanes consume significantly more fuel and emit higher levels of pollutants per journey compared to cars. As a matter of fact, a single transoceanic flight can produce as much carbon dioxide as an entire year’s worth of car travel for an individual does. Additionally, emissions from aircraft, which are released at high altitudes, can have a more immediate and detrimental impact. This is because these gases would reach the top layers of the atmosphere more quickly, thus hastening the occurrence of the greenhouse effect. The issue of climate change, as a result, may become exacerbated faster than conventional projections.

The argument for limiting car use holds stronger merit when considering overall environmental impact, however. Notably, cars are operated daily by billions of people worldwide, resulting in a massive cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This daily usage far exceeds the occasional nature of long-distance flights. Environmentally-friendly advancements in automotive technology, furthermore, are not progressing sufficiently quickly, with many old and inefficient vehicles still in use, especially in regions with lagging transportation infrastructure. This stands in stark contrast to the aviation sector, where fuel-efficient technologies and alternative fuels are increasingly adopted by industry leaders, which has the effect of driving down the number of emissions per flight over time. It could, therefore, be seen why reducing car use remains a top priority with respect to mitigating pollution.

In conclusion, I disagree that non-essential flights are a more pressing concern to the environment than automobile usage is. While the environmental toll of aviation is significant, the pervasive impact of cars demands a greater focus on limiting car emissions.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 4

It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in several years, and the amount of pollution it produces is also more. Therefore, some people suggest that non-essential flights, including international travel, should be discouraged. I disagree with this statement. I feel that even though cars produce less pollution and use less fuel, still we should focus on limiting the number of cars. Discouraging flights would lead to many other problems.

At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global warming, it is right to take action to save the planet Earth. However, simply discouraging flights is not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many businesses, like hotels and leisure centres, are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go broke, and many people would be without jobs.

Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap airfare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunity to learn from different cultures and have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural communications between countries.

What we should do is to limit the use of cars. The number of cars is increasing at a very fast pace. This is creating too many problems. Cars are using too much fossil fuels; they are creating a lot of pollution; they are leading to traffic congestion on the roads, and they are also causing accidents.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, travelling by air should not be discouraged. Instead, the use of cars should be limited.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 5

Although long-distance flights exhaust a much greater amount of fuel as compared to cars, banning non-essential flights is no better way to control pollution than limiting the number of cars.

In the first place, although an individual flight may cause much more damage to the environment as compared to a car that travels the same distance, the total pollution caused by the increasing number of cars is much greater. For example, millions of new cars are crowding the streets every day and their numbers seem to be soaring, even in developing countries like India. The amount of pollution that they cause can, in no way, be compared to much fewer non-essential flights used for tourism, business and private use. Hence, abandoning such flights cannot be effective in minimising the impacts of pollution. Whereas, considering the enormous damage caused to the environment by millions of new cars, their usage should be limited.

Moreover, many people make use of private chartered flights because of the non-availability of seats on regular flights, especially when large groups of people travel together for the purpose of tourism or business. For example, during peak tourist seasons regular flights are often heavily booked and charted aircrafts are the only way to tide over the crisis. So is the case with businessmen, who travel on short notice. This would mean that banning the so-called nonessential flights would hamper the development of business and tourism, apart from not being an effective way to control pollution. On the other hand, if government can limit the use of private cars, many people can depend on the public transport system, which would substantially reduce environmental damage.

However, in certain instances, rich businessmen, politicians and celebrities use private aircrafts for their regular travel. Although there is an argument that privacy and safety are of prime importance to such people, many believe that their usage is nonessential in nature. But the effects of restricting such flights would be minimal, since their numbers are very few.

In conclusion, controlling the use of cars is a much better way to fight pollution than restricting a few non-essential flights.

One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause - mẫu 6

It is argued that unimportant flights, like those for tourism, should be minimised because they significantly contribute to pollution, equating to the emissions produced by cars over several years. I mostly disagree with this opinion.

I concede that reducing the frequency of non-vital air trips can decrease carbon emissions substantially, which is a significant contributor to global warming. By discouraging leisure travel, this can lead to cleaner air and a healthier environment due to less fuel consumption. For instance, reducing the number of tourist flights to popular destinations can significantly lower the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the aviation sector, thereby mitigating the adverse effects of climate change and improving air quality in regions heavily affected by air traffic.

However, I believe this discouragement may be questionable because it can violate personal freedom in choosing one's mode of transportation. Limiting the ability to fly can be seen as an infringement on individual rights, restricting people's freedom to explore new places and experience different cultures. If such a restriction were enforced, it could lead to social unrest and protests in many countries, significantly polarising nations.

Additionally, this suggestion overlooks the substantial number of cars on the streets, which collectively contribute significantly to pollution. Even though a single flight has a larger carbon footprint than a single car, the cumulative effect of millions of cars running daily is also a major environmental concern. To illustrate, in urban areas, the emissions from thousands of cars can create significant air quality issues

In conclusion, while reducing non-critical flights can have notable environmental benefits, it is vital to consider the implications on personal freedom and the large count of vehicles on the streets. Therefore, I somewhat believe that this reformation should not be encouraged, and a balanced approach should be implemented.

Xem thêm các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay khác:

• Parents are the best teachers. Do you agree or disagree?

• It has been said that "Not everything that is learned is contained in books". Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In your opinion, which source is more important? Why?

• A company has announced that it wishes to build a large factory near your locality. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new influence on your community. Do you support or oppose the factory establishment? Explain your position.

• If you could change one important thing about your hometown, what would you change? Use reasons and specific examples to support your answer.

• Compared to the past, more people are now studying abroad because it is more convenient and cheaper than before. Do you think this is beneficial to the foreign student’s home country? Will this trend change much in the future?

• Hơn 20.000 câu trắc nghiệm Toán,Văn, Anh lớp 9 có đáp án

---