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 to limit the use of cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
You should write at least 250 words.
Ideas related to this essay
Fact: flights/fuel= car/many years
Main purpose: reduce env problems
proposed measure: discourage non-essential flights, not controlling cars.
Reason 1: non-essential flights =no plants or trees in the sky= direct fuel emission on ozone layer= can further damage and ultra violet rays = skin cancer. However, if cars= it takes time for a care to meet the same amount of pollution that a flight makes = by then, the plants and trees absorb pretty much and then it goes to the atmosphere.
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay Sample
Sample Answer 1:
It is irrefutable that the fuel consumed by one long-distance flight is consumed by a car in
several years’ time, 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 totally disagree whit 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, to simply
discourage 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 air
fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the
purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities 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 of 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, traveling by air should not be discouraged.
Instead, the use of cars should be limited.
Model Answer 2:
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.
First of all, environmental problem is the issue of such complexity that no single solution is likely to have a phenomenal influence on it. Although long-distance flights could generate a considerable amount of greenhouse gases, compared with some factories, I believe this is just a dip in the ocean though. Rather than introducing legislations to limit using flights, I feel that people should move attention on more effective ways to reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide such as planting more trees or exploiting clean energy sources.
Secondly, I would contend suggestions like encourage people to use more cars to alleviate hothouse gases emission is totally misleading. Even if cars consume less fossil fuel than flights, the uncontrolled numbers of vehicles will cause more problems (e.g. traffic congestion, road accidents etc.). Moreover, more cars mean more infrastructures need to be done by governments. Of course, this will add a huge financial burden on countries.
In addition, there is no proper definition to define non essential flights. Although I certainly agree that flights for politic reasons and businesses are crucial. It is by no means to deny the importance of tourist air travel. Despite the economic prosperity that brought to many countries by air travelers, people can emancipate pressure from travel through nations to nations. More importantly, people of different cultures could get more chances to know each other.
In conclusion, I reaffirm my position that travel by plane should not be constrained. Even though there are some negative impacts on the environment,I think they would be insignificant when compare with its role in promoting the world economy and cultural interaction.
Submit your Essay here in the comment section, we will add your essay in our post.
(Collected; Source: Internet)