Some people argue that air travel should be restricted due to pollution and excessive fuel consumption. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, there is an influx of the notion that offering an antidote to contamination is feasible by an abduction to air commuting. I partially agree with this belief and my agreement and disagreement objectives will be discussed in the forthcoming paragraphs. First and foremost, the fossil fuels which are emitted to the atmosphere by aircrafts are pernicious for the ozone layer which unfortunately fortifies climate change adverse effects. Including but not limited to flora and fauna Extinction at an alarming rate due to inhabitant loss. Take the proliferation of National Geographic’s articles about significant population drop of a certain insect, for instance. Provided that legislators do not cease the consumption of fuels which are derived from oil, it is as if our planet is entangled in a nefarious mission of detriment. This is why supporting this utterance that air travel should be reduced seems logical. On the contrary, there is an economical aspect that refutes this belief. The tourism industry has played a vital role in multitudes of the country's economy circle. Therefore, banning airlines and lowering the number of flights will definitely give a rise to the prices. Thus, the penchant to travel would be negatively affected compared to the past which leads a recession to the mentioned industry. In short, one should consider this idea is not welcome from an economic point of view. To recapitulate, my personal sentiments are more on par with reducing aircraft flights, however, we cannot be blind to the fact that the economy would be volatile in correlation with this decrease. I honestly suggest that authorities open up certain venues to recapitulate air travel pollution.