INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND ENVIRONMENT HAS NEGATIVE EFFECT
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND ENVIRONMENT HAS NEGATIVE EFFECT AGYr3
Travelling internationally has been becoming easier day by day. It’s argued by some that growing at
number of traveling abroad affects the environment negatively, therefore, it should be limited. I
firmly agree with this idea, because a significant number of international trips is redundant, and long
trips are extremely harmful for the environment.
Supporting my agreement to the given statement, I firmly believe that international travelling did
not used to be as effortless as today. However, raising at the technological improvements and the
travel agency rivalries had made travelling easy, cheaper, and more enjoyable. To cite an example,
especially most businessmen choose having a journey in terms of communicating in person, even
though hi-tech provides other countless possibilities make distances unimportant. For this reason,
putting certain restrictions on trips will reduce the number of unnecessary trips.
Explaining some of the another supporting points in favour this statement, it is true that much more
fossil fuels are used at long trips. Thus, global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly
increased mostly because of long-distance transports. For instance, our carbon footprint is mostly
increased by long-distance airplanes, because these huge vehicles burn more a huge amount of fossil
fuels. Therefore, long trips harm the environment by releasing more carbon into the air.
In conclusion, intercontinental travels have some huge negative impacts on the environment. I
believe that points are strongly supporting my viewpoint. Unless we decrease the number of
international trips and tend to other options, we will face numerous environmental issues in the
future. Consequently, restrictions should made to mitigate this global problem.
Travelling
internationally
has been becoming easier day by day. It’s argued by
some
that growing at
number of traveling abroad affects the environment
negatively
,
therefore
, it should
be limited
. I
firmly
agree
with this
idea
,
because
a significant number of international
trips
is redundant, and long
trips are
extremely
harmful for the environment.
Supporting my agreement to the
given
statement, I
firmly
believe that international travelling did
not
used
to be as effortless as
today
.
However
, raising at the technological improvements and the
travel agency rivalries had made travelling easy, cheaper, and more enjoyable. To cite an example,
especially
most businessmen choose having a journey in terms of communicating in person, even
though hi-tech provides other countless possibilities
make
distances unimportant.
For this reason
,
putting certain restrictions on
trips
will
reduce
the number of unnecessary trips.
Explaining
some
of the another supporting points in favour this statement, it is true that much more
fossil fuels are
used
at long
trips
.
Thus
, global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have
significantly
increased
mostly
because
of long-distance transports.
For instance
, our carbon footprint is
mostly
increased by long-distance airplanes,
because
these huge vehicles burn more a huge amount of fossil
fuels.
Therefore
, long
trips
harm the environment by releasing more carbon into the air.
In conclusion
, intercontinental travels have
some
huge
negative
impacts on the environment. I
believe that points are
strongly
supporting my viewpoint. Unless we decrease the number of
international
trips
and tend to other options, we will face numerous environmental issues in the
future.
Consequently
, restrictions should made to mitigate this global problem.
Do not write below this line