Some people think that air travel should be reduced to protect the environment. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.
Air travelling has become more prevalent in the contemporary era, as it is a more convenient and reliable mode of transport for people around the globe. At the same time, strata of society believed that commuting by planes from one place to another place would be depleted to protect the environment. I completely disagree with the notion of combating environmental effects by the reduction in air travel. since the aforementioned idea devels deeper into impending paragraphs with the illustration.
To commence with, living in this fast-paced era, people rely on technology which reduces their time to do things. Air travel is the most effective and convenient mode of transportation to reach the destination. Adding to it, as it is a fast and reliable source to commute with an immense facility such as people can explore the top view from the sky and enjoy their hustle free journey. Moreover, significant advantages to businesses expand at the global level. As a result, inter-continent trade increase and boost the economy of developing countries while effective use of air transport. Which can ultimately help nations to increase revenue doing import and export of intensive goods in a safe manner. As an illustration, during covid-19, India and China are able to provide covid testing kits and vaccines to nations.
Additionally, airways play a crucial role in natural disasters or catastrophic events that happen on earth. To elaborate more, facing the global warming effect or in any situational event created by humans, it is a plausible way, to some extent get rid of this repercussion in effective ways. For example, in The USA, last ten years, try to reduce ignite in the jungle and protect wildlife and human habitat. They use high-speed aircraft to combat this situation and succeed in it.
To conclude, it can be reiterated that immense use of airways would cause nature, whereas technology and ingenious people could help to find definite solutions. It is rational to find an alternative way rather than a ban.