Long distance flights use more fuel than cars and pollute the environment. We should discourage non-essential flights instead of limiting the use of car. To what extend do you agree or disagree?
Nowadays, the environmental degradation has become an unavoidable issue every country has to face. However, whether restraining the unnecessary flights rather than limiting the use of the car remains a controversial topic. My view is that both of the oil-consuming transportation should be limited.
First, it is obvious that not all travel is necessary. The state-of-the-art Internet technology has enabled people to meet and chat face-to-face, which means that people do not need to bother moving long distance to get together. So, in this way they can communicate and do business without leaving a carbon footprint.
Moreover, short-distance flight and domestic flight can be replaced by more fuel-efficient transport options like trains and coaches. For example, people find that the time consumed by the two types of transportation are more or less the same, due to the fact that though airplane is far more faster than ground transportation, the airports are usually located in the rural areas so that people still need taking time to get there. If this kinds of flights are superseded, the fuel consumed per capita will be dramatically pruned.
That is not to say that we should drive more. There are several methods to reduce carbon emissions like taking public transit, carpooling and riding a bicycle. If all walks of life in the society lead a low carbon lifestyle, we will live in a more comfortable environment.
In sum, we should harness the modern technology, coupled with other efforts, to limit the unnecessary travel, whether flight or driving. In order to protect the nature, we must make some sacrifices. Only by doing so can we ensure that we can obtain an optimal win-win solution beneficial to environment and life.