Get updates by email:

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.


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

5 comments:

shinojcc said...

Hi,

well done...the knowledge is pretty good...looking for more essays on top of this..

Thank you for your effort.

Anonymous said...

your essays are awesom

Anonymous said...

Mr.Andrews,
In the third paragraph of the essay you have written 'apart from not being an ineffective way to control pollution'. I think 'apart from being an ineffective way' or 'apart from not being an effective way' is correct. It may be a typo.But I have to say that this is a very good essay.

Anonymous said...

good essay

Anonymous said...

can we begin a sentence with" but"