One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a car uses in several years’ time, but they cause the same amount of pollution. So same people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourist travel, rather than to limit the use of cars. TASK: To what extent do you agree or disagree

Despite the fact that fuel emissions from the car and flight are the same, vehicles consume five times less gases than aeroplanes, and to solve this problem the government proposes cancelling unnecessary flight such as a tourist trip rather than restricting the use of cars. I personally disagree with this statement as it will cause great resentment among people as well as it is not the biggest dilemma nowadays. First and foremost, it is not solving this problem, as it is two main ways of moving. Furthermore, individuals, travel for different reasons it would be medicine, work, studying, exploring, developing as well as they will always travel to relax and diversity their surroundings. As an example, we can take the period during the quarantine, when all flights were cancelled and the situation with our pollution did not advance and as a result individual moving by car. Apart from air pollution, there are numerous problems connected with the environment, such as climate change, water pollution, unsustainable waste generation, natural disasters and so on. Last but not the least, I am convinced that to change our environment we should firstly change ourselves. For instance, we could handle this complication if we could increase control over industrial waste-discharge and adopt more environmentally friendly materials and production equipment. In conclusion, I would like to say that both cars and aeroplanes have a negative effect on our globe, but it is not a positive way to be discouraged tourist air travel instead of limiting the use of private cars.