Friday, 21 January 2011
Essay 29 (Non-essential Flights)
A long distance flight consumes as much fuel as a car consumes in several years time, and causes the same amount of pollution as cars. So some people think we should abandon non essential flights (such as for tourism), and it is more efficient than restricting the car. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Although long distance flights exhaust 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, 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 in 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 pollutions than restricting a few non-essential flights.