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

Feeling concerned about the pollution damages on the environment over recent years, governments worldwide seek ways to tackle the issue. Opinions widely vary as to whether limiting air transportation on the grounds of its massive emissions and fuel usage is beneficial or not. Personally, I partially disagree with the mentioned notion, which will be discussed in this essay. Admittedly, it is undeniable that aircraft produce enormous pollution and consume huge amounts of fuel; as such banning air travel, especially in short journeys, can reduce the severity of the situation. However, air travel is not the only source of pollution, and this legislation may bring adverse effects for both individuals and countries. There exist several reasons linked to why air travel restriction is not advantageous. In the first place, limiting air travel would have devastating consequences on the global economy. Indeed, budget airlines have provided the opportunity to travel throughout the world because air flight can be considered the fastest means of transportation. In other words, people can reap the timing benefits of air travel for both recreational and business travel. Thus, curbing air travel would reduce the revenue, which in turn collapse countries' economy that relies on the travel and tourism industry. Added to this, restricting air travel would lead to unemployment in this sector, which causes negative effects on individuals' standard of living and countries' economy. It goes without saying that using other vehicles due to air travel restrictions can worsen the situation. In conclusion, it seems that at first glance, the idea of banning flights with the aim of decreasing pollution sounds appealing; however, I reaffirm again that aircraft are not the only source of emissions, and this policy would be impractical due to the above-mentioned reasons.