#bf_samples_2
Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Long-haul flights are believed to use the same amount of fuel per flight that a single automobile would use in many years of service. This has naturally led to the idea that deterring people from such unnecessary travelling as holidays is more effective in curbing the level of air pollution than limiting the use of car. I disagree with this view since it causes a great economic damage. On the contrary, I believe that regulating industrial processes more rigidly is a key to this issue.
Discouraging people from travelling can lead to economic distress for a host country. Some countries build their economy around their potential for tourism. Hence, a drop in the number of tourists could jeopardize the daily stable income of many involved in the industry. For instance, places such as Nevsehir in Turkiye create jobs almost exclusively based on tourism. With fewer holidaymakers visiting this place, and many other similar tourist destinations across the globe, the household living off the seasonal influx of tourists may simply be deprived of a constant source of livelihood.
Not only does discouraging international tourism affect the economy of a host country, but also airlines may have to lay off some of their personnel. In other words, a fall in the number of international tourists directly leads to reduced number of flights, thereby displacing many in the industry. This, yet again, adds to the level of unemployment. A salient example is airline companies that have scheduled flights to Maldives who reported that with the surge in the number of tourists travelling to Maldives, they have been able to take on more flight personnel. Once halted or reduced, most of the new contractees would be left out of work.
What seems to be a better measure to me is establishing a stricter monitoring over how factories operate. After all, it is environmentally-detrimental ways that factories are run that has caused imminent strain on ecological resources, including air, water and soil, around them. Therefore, if these plants are controlled, and supported to switch to cleaner operations where needed, a more successful attempt to alleviate the level of air contamination can be accomplished.
In conclusion, dissuading long-haul international leisure travels for the sake of environment puts host countries’ economy under a great risk as the rate of redundancy is inevitable. However, a better solution than limiting such journeys or personal use of cars could be a more concerted effort to align industrial processes with environmental agenda.
Word count: 411
Band score estimate: 8.0 - 8.5
©️@BFIELTS
Long distance flight consumes the amount of fuel that a car uses for many years and pollutes the air. Some people think that we should discourage non-essential flights, such as tourists travel, rather than limit the use of cars.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Long-haul flights are believed to use the same amount of fuel per flight that a single automobile would use in many years of service. This has naturally led to the idea that deterring people from such unnecessary travelling as holidays is more effective in curbing the level of air pollution than limiting the use of car. I disagree with this view since it causes a great economic damage. On the contrary, I believe that regulating industrial processes more rigidly is a key to this issue.
Discouraging people from travelling can lead to economic distress for a host country. Some countries build their economy around their potential for tourism. Hence, a drop in the number of tourists could jeopardize the daily stable income of many involved in the industry. For instance, places such as Nevsehir in Turkiye create jobs almost exclusively based on tourism. With fewer holidaymakers visiting this place, and many other similar tourist destinations across the globe, the household living off the seasonal influx of tourists may simply be deprived of a constant source of livelihood.
Not only does discouraging international tourism affect the economy of a host country, but also airlines may have to lay off some of their personnel. In other words, a fall in the number of international tourists directly leads to reduced number of flights, thereby displacing many in the industry. This, yet again, adds to the level of unemployment. A salient example is airline companies that have scheduled flights to Maldives who reported that with the surge in the number of tourists travelling to Maldives, they have been able to take on more flight personnel. Once halted or reduced, most of the new contractees would be left out of work.
What seems to be a better measure to me is establishing a stricter monitoring over how factories operate. After all, it is environmentally-detrimental ways that factories are run that has caused imminent strain on ecological resources, including air, water and soil, around them. Therefore, if these plants are controlled, and supported to switch to cleaner operations where needed, a more successful attempt to alleviate the level of air contamination can be accomplished.
In conclusion, dissuading long-haul international leisure travels for the sake of environment puts host countries’ economy under a great risk as the rate of redundancy is inevitable. However, a better solution than limiting such journeys or personal use of cars could be a more concerted effort to align industrial processes with environmental agenda.
Word count: 411
Band score estimate: 8.0 - 8.5
©️@BFIELTS