Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Write at least 250 words.
This is an interesting topic that touches on environmental concerns and the balance between transportation needs and ecological responsibility. I totally agreed with that statement.
On one hand, it is true that long-distance flights have a huge environmental footprint. According to various studies, air travel is responsible for a significant portion of global warming, especially long-haul flights. For example, the carbon emissions from a single flight can exceeds the yearly emissions of some cars. This is especially concerning considering that the earth need to be saved from carbon emissions . In this context, discouraging non-essential flights, like those for tourism is necessary step to reduce the overall environmental impact.
On the other hand, limiting car usage especially in urban areas can also play a vital role in reducing emissions and promoting cleaner, more sustainable transport options. Cars are a significant source of air pollution and contribute to congestion in cities, leading to inefficiencies in energy use. Many governments are already focusing on transitioning to electric vehicles and improving public transportation to help reduce car emissions. However, limiting or taxing car use is often more feasible and politically acceptable in the short term because cars are more ingrained in people’s daily lives.
To sum up, it is proven that flight consumes huge amount of fuels but car have been able to drive with same amount of fuel in full year. So I agreed with the decisions of reducing of non-essential flights over limiting the daily uses of cars. However car also can play a significant role for the travelers who wants a flight over car.
Sentence Making
“I totally agreed with that statement” → I totally agree with that statement
“the carbon emissions from a single flight can exceeds” → the carbon emissions from a single flight can exceed
“the earth need to be saved from carbon emissions” → the Earth needs to be protected from carbon emissions
“discouraging non-essential flights, like those for tourism is necessary step” → discouraging non-essential flights, like those for tourism, is a necessary step
“So I agreed with the decisions of reducing of non-essential flights over limiting the daily uses of cars” → Therefore, I agree with the decision to reduce non-essential flights rather than limit daily car usage
“However car also can play a significant role for the travelers who wants a flight over car” → However, cars can also play a significant role for travelers who prefer driving over flying
Sentence Structure
“On one hand, it is true that long-distance flights have a huge environmental footprint” → On the one hand, it is true that long-distance flights have a significant environmental footprint
“This is especially concerning considering that the earth need to be saved from carbon emissions .” → This is especially concerning, considering that the Earth needs to be protected from carbon emissions.
“Many governments are already focusing on transitioning to electric vehicles and improving public transportation to help reduce car emissions” → Many governments are focusing on transitioning to electric vehicles and improving public transportation to reduce car emissions
“To sum up, it is proven that flight consumes huge amount of fuels but car have been able to drive with same amount of fuel in full year” → To sum up, it is proven that flights consume huge amounts of fuel, whereas cars can travel the same distance using less fuel over a year
Word Selection
“exceeds” → exceed
“need” → needs
“huge amount of fuels” → huge amounts of fuel
“wants a flight over car” → prefer flying over driving
Word Formation / Hyphenation
“non-essential flights” → correct
“daily uses of cars” → daily car usage
Capitalization
“earth” → Earth
Punctuation
“carbon emissions .” → carbon emissions.
“like those for tourism is necessary step” → like those for tourism, is a necessary step
“However car also can play a significant role” → However, cars can also play a significant role
Band score : 5.5
Flights are convenient to use then car which also saves time, that is why the number of flights have increased. The issue is flights uses too much fuel that car use in a year. So we ought to decline the number of flights. I completely agree with the statement.
In this fast paced life using car for travelling is too much trouble also there is always traffic in the road, which is why everyone prefer to use planes. The planes need a big amount of fuel for flying which is exactly the amount a car use in year but the panes use in one long flight. If we use less planes then there would be lesser flights. Environment is also affecting by the use of fuel.
To decline the number of flights firstly we have to stop providing flights that are uncessary then we should also limit the tourist using flights for travelling. If we do not take the essential steps then we will soon be out of fuel, which is why we have to be mindful of using fuel. If we limit using car rather then declining flights then the economy will drastically fall, afterwards there would caous around the world. Car provides us security also it is less pricely then using flights for travelling. As soon as possible the authority should stop providing non-essential flights.
In conclusion, government ought to limit using flights rather then car because the environment is affecting really badly also the pollution is increasing. Everyone should couparate with the authority.
Sentence Making
“Flights are convenient to use then car” → Flights are more convenient to use than cars
“that is why the number of flights have increased” → that is why the number of flights has increased
“flights uses too much fuel that car use in a year” → flights use more fuel than cars do in a year
“everyone prefer to use planes” → everyone prefers to use planes
“the panes use in one long flight” → planes use in a single long flight
“then we will soon be out of fuel” → then we will soon run out of fuel
“Car provides us security also it is less pricely then using flights” → Cars also provide security and are cheaper than using flights
“Everyone should couparate with the authority” → Everyone should cooperate with the authorities
Sentence Structure
“In this fast paced life using car for travelling is too much trouble also there is always traffic in the road” → In this fast-paced life, using cars for traveling is troublesome, and there is always traffic on the roads
“To decline the number of flights firstly we have to stop providing flights that are uncessary then we should also limit the tourist using flights for travelling” → To reduce the number of flights, we must first stop providing unnecessary flights, and we should also limit tourists from using flights for travel
“If we limit using car rather then declining flights then the economy will drastically fall, afterwards there would caous around the world” → If we limit car usage rather than reducing flights, the economy could drastically fall, causing chaos around the world
Word Selection
“then car” → than cars
“have increased” → has increased
“uncessary” → unnecessary
“pricely” → pricey / expensive
“caous” → chaos
“couparate” → cooperate
Word Formation / Hyphenation
“fast paced life” → fast-paced life
“using flights for travelling” → using flights for travel
“non-essential flights” → correct
Capitalization
No major issues
Punctuation
“for flying which is exactly the amount a car use in year but the panes use in one long flight” → for flying, which is exactly the amount a car uses in a year, but the planes use in a single long flight
“then we should also limit the tourist using flights for travelling” → then we should also limit tourists from using flights for travel
“also the pollution is increasing” → also, the pollution is increasing
Band score : 5.5
Air travel and private car use are both major contributors to carbon emissions, but long-haul flights in particular expend a significant amount of fuel in a short span of time. It is believed by some individuals that we ought to discourage non necessary air travels, rather than limited use of cars. I agree that reducing unnecessary flights would benefit the environment, because focusing solely on aviation is insufficient and that a balanced approach addressing both air and road transport is more effective.
Long haul flights do indeed produce disproportionately high carbon emissions. A single intercontinental journey can generate as much CO₂ as a typical car need over several years. Since many of these flights are taken for leisure purposes rather than essential needs, encouraging travelers to choose local destinations could meaningfully reduce global emissions. Authority could implement measures such as carbon taxes on flights, improved international networks, or public campaigns promoting sustainable tourism. These policies would help people reconsider the necessity of long-distance leisure travel without completely eliminating personal freedom. Last year in Britain found that 26% carbon emission has decreased while using less flights.
However, it would be misguided to shift responsibility solely onto the air transport sector. Cars collectively account for a far greater share of global emissions than commercial flights because they are used daily by billions of people. Although an individual journey by car releases less carbon than a flight, the cumulative effect is enormous. Therefore, policies such as expanding public transport, promoting electric vehicles such as Tesla model 3, BMW i7, Hyundai IONIQ 6 and so on and creating eco friendly cities are equally essential.
To sum up, I believe that reducing the use of airplanes can significantly decrease CO₂ emissions, which are higher than those produced by private vehicles, but this must be complemented by long-term reforms in road transport.
Although long distance flight consumes large amount of fuel less than a car consume whole year, while in other mind we should avoid the non-essential flights such as tourist flight rather than the limit use of cars. I believe unusual flights hampered the air it should restricted rather than imposing limitations on car usage.
On the one hand, discouraging unnecessary flights could be meaningful environmental benefits. Long distance aircraft burning larger quantities of fossil fuel during each journey, releasing greenhouse gases at highly altitudes where they could have intensifying warming effects. Unlike daily car commuting which often has no practical alternative international tourism is largely optional. Governments ought to reduce demand of such flights through higher aviation taxes, stricter carbon effect requirements, or improved promotion of local tourism. These measures would especially target frequent leisure flyers, who are responsible for a disbalanced large share of aviation emissions. And it can be solved by the reduce of air flight.
However, focusing solely on aviation while neglecting road transport would be both unfair and ineffective. Although cars emit less carbon emission than airplanes, they usually far more dangerous and collectively contributes a substantial portion of global carbon emissions. Moreover, many countries still rely heavily on petrol-powered vehicles, and public transport which is insufficient in many areas. Rather than the use of petrol depend cars they use electric cars such as Tesla, BMW EC, HNDA which of convenient with the environment also.
In conclusion, while limiting non essential flights could reduce emissions, it should not replace efforts to cut pollution from cars. A balance approach can help the environment as well as clean the weather.
Huge amount of fuel that a car use for many years and pollutes the environment, at the same time long distance flights burn same amount of fuel for travelling. Few individuals believe that we should discourage unusual flights, for instance tourists travel rather than preventing use of cars. I totally agree with it and in this climate changing world when the emissions are massive threat because of fuel, people have to think about it.
First and foremost thing is many people using non-essential flights this have to stop, since it cause several issues which are very effective for environment. For example, this irresponsible flights carry two or three even one individuals sometimes travels in this flights, when its costing massive amount of fuel which might be use for cars in important purpose. Moreover, it also effecting the economy of world which is also a great treat for people and specially when the huge amount of Carbon dioxide are producing by using fuel. Authorities are trying to prevent it but it is not happening because of this unusual flights.
Furthermore, cars are used for different purpose such as for travelling, helping, social services and also other purposes. So, it is very important for daily need and a single cars burns a silly amount of fuel per day which contains less amount of effect in pollution. As compared to side effects the importance of car is huge, though it still cause emissions. Without using cars people can not live a single day when their are some alternatives of flights, for instance ship and by road track can be use for travelling and that will be less costly.
In conclusion, Although, cars are effecting the environment but it is very least compared to flights. I firmly believe that individuals should discourage unusual flights rather than limiting the use of cars.
It is often argued that long distance fly can use a huge amount of fuel that a car consumes it for many years and it would cause pollutes the air. while other argued that we should discourage people use of uneseccery flights. I strongly believe that this is a positive decision because fossil fuels are non- renewable and are harmful for the environment.
To begin with, it is very damageable for environment to more use of fuel. a large amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere when fuels are burnt, which is responsible for air pollution and also global warming. Moreover, emissions of carbon dioxide and other dangerous elements can cause great damage to the environment.
Moreover, it would be a better decision for earth to discourage non-essential flights. A long distance flight can use a huge amount of fuel, while a car on the other hand would use it for many years, so if the use of unecessery flights such as tourists travel is limited then the consume of fuel will be reduced. people are now frequently travel which is not important just because of enjoyment, as a result the environment suffer much. Additionally, it will be better to use cars rather than long distance flight.
To conclude, long distance flight can cause many of harm for environment, i
Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that is used by a car for years and contaminates the air. It is thought by some individuals that non-essential flights ought to be discouraged, while others think that the use of car should be limited. I agree with the first one that is – discouraging non-essential flights, for example tourists travel because it can be more effective than limiting the car uses.
Since long distance flight needs more amount of fuel, air pollution happens more because of it. On the other hand, if people use cars for long distance travel ,the ratio of contamination can be reduced to a great extent. If people are encouraged for skipping non essential flights, the less fuel will be used.
Although some people believe that long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. However others people believe that we ought to be discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars.
I agree with this view, but I think both flights and cares need attention.
firstly, it is true that airplanes burn that a massive amount of fuel during long journeys. A single flight can consume more fuel than a car uses in several year. As a result, flight contribute to global warming and damage atmosphere .
However, others people believe that we ought to be discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars .
Some people argue that long distance flights burn a huge amount of fuel, much more than cars use in many years, and therefore non-essetial flights like tourist travel should be discouraged. While I understand this viewpoint, I believe that limiting flights alone is not the best soiution,and car usage should also be controlled.
Long distance flights have a serious impact on the environment. Aeroplanes release a large amount if carbon dioxide and another gases, while contribute to global warming. Many people fly for holidays or leisure, and these trips are not always necessary. If governments discourage non-essantial flights by increasing tricket prices or promoting local tourism,the number of flights may decrease. This would help reduce air pollution and protect the environment.
On the other hand limiting flights only is not enough.
Some people believe that long-distance flights should be reduced because they use a large amount of fuel and causes heavy air pollution. They argue that non-essential flights, such as tourist trips, should be discouraged instead of limiting car use. I partly agree with this view, but I think both flights and cars need attention.
To begin with, it is true that aeroplanes burn a massive amount of fuel during long journeys. A single flight can consume more fuel than a car uses in several year. As a result, flights contribute significantly to global warming and damage the atmosphere. Many flights are taken for holidays, short trips, or entertainment. These journeys are not always necessary, and reducing them could help lower pollution levels. Governments could promote virtual tourism, support local travel, or increase taxes on luxury flights to discourage unnecessary air travel.
However, focusing only on flights is not a complete solution. Cars are used every day by millions of people around the would, and together they they create huge amounts of pollution.