IELTS:should we discourage non-essential flights to reduce environmental problems.

Topic: A long-distance flight consumes the same amount of fuel and causes the same amount of pollution as a car does in several years' time. Some people think that to reduce environmental problems, we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourist air travel, instead of limiting the use of cars. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

Environment problems have become increasingly popular in many parts of the word today. Hence some people take flights into blame. It is my personal belief that restricting the use of planes is barely scratching the surface. The reasons for this are as follows.

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.

Great Work.
Good Luck

Environmental problems are one of the burning issues in many parts of the world. ---- I think this would be better.

Environment problemsissues("problems" is not incorrect, but "issues" sound better I feel) have become increasingly popular (???? .... popular is not ther right usage here beccause it gives a positive feeling where as environment pollution is a negative thing) in many parts of the word today.

This is what I suggest;
Environmental issues have become a major concern today due their serious negative implications on our planet.


.... I found this is confusing.... Before coming to this point, tell the reader that air travel has aggravated the issues.

Environmental problems involve such complex combinations of factors that no single solution can solve them completely.



I think your reasoning is misleading, too. There's no encouragement of using more cars as a way to protect the environment. Driving cars is also blamed for producing greenhouse gases too! That's why the trend now is to promote public transportation. Flights can not be replaced by cars. The topic using this comparison is simply to get the feeling that flights are really energy-consuming.


Great point :)


Hope this help:)