Marine Labonne

(N étudiant: 42013200) 07/nov/2022

L1 - LLCER anglais EAD

ESSAY: EXPRESSION ÉCRITE

As US president Joe Biden reminded us recently; “We are now in a

decisive decade for tackling climate change”. Indeed, more and more solutions
and decisions for this global issue are being raised and put in place, all with the
same goal, drastically reducing the impact of climate change on our planet.
Today, the aviation industry is in process of deep change and one of the major
reasons why regards the short low cost flights and their impact on the
environment. The key question is thus whether their benefits outweigh their
drawbacks and if it is worthwhile to maintain their authorization. Saying that
these kinds of flights are constantly associated with negative outcomes would be
denying the facts. Today's low-cost short flights are proposing brand-new
methods and are prepared to take on challenges to survive this ongoing
environmental crisis.

First of all, the first point that I would like to point out in favor of my
perspective would be the recent multiple advances that low cost flights
companies have made. Indeed tho the ideas of those companies’s work being
exclusively bad for the environment; some of them actually are helping to make
progress. Despite being "less essential" than large national airlines, short and
cheaper flights are now essential for testing new prototypes. These days, new
technologies are becoming more and more prevalent on these trips; as a result,
cutting their work would somehow undermine the goal of protecting the
environment.Today, for instance, the travel from London to San Francisco
produces 5.5 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, which is an astonishing number. In
addition, this already significant quantity represents twice the annual emissions
of a family car in the UK. It is becoming important to implement new techniques
and technologies that would significantly, and ideally, lower such figures.
Furthermore, recent results are already promising thanks to the intervention of
shorter and cheap flights. For instance, Ryanair, a well-known low-cost flier
committed to environmental protection, progressively reduces its ecological
impact. In fact, the low cost business has seen a huge reduction of 55% in fuel
use over the previous decade. With such drastic results, low cost companies
currently testing those new techniques should in the long term allow bigger
companies to follow them.

Furthermore, it's important to note that the length of the flight significantly
affects how much pollution it contributes. Therefore, we may deduce that short
flights don't have a significant impact on the environment. According to current
data, long-haul flights (longer than 4000 km) account for nearly half of all
aviation CO2 emissions in Europe with 47%, whereas short-haul flights (shorter
than 500 km) only represent 5.9% of burnt fuel. Long-term CO2 emissions are
thus less affected by short trips than by longer flights. Besides, it's important to
realize that ending short, inexpensive flights would practically have no impact on
the current climate issue. The UK heavy aviation industry has risen by 70% since
1990 and by 11% alone in 2004, and experts don’t expect less than the double
within the next 25 years. Now, to better represent the kind of impact longer
flights have we can put forward the fact that a single stepover results in an
augmentation of 35% of CO2 per passenger. Adopting draconian steps in
response to larger and more expensive flights would be the first thing that should
be done. Therefore It really is undeniable that more costly prices are not always
indicative of a greener mode of transportation.

Finally, if one believes that the sole reason short, inexpensive flights
should be banned is to protect the environment, they have obviously not
considered the larger implications this would have. Along with significant
environmental benefits, there are also serious economic ones. The 'low-cost'
aspect may be explained by the fact that there is no tax on the kerosene used, but
also—and most surprisingly—because of the technical advances already in place.
In fact, the majority of low cost airlines no longer employ pricey ticket
processing equipment in favor of paperless and online-only options. For instance,
the $27.2 billion low-cost carrier South-West Co accounts for more than 17.7%
of US airlines, enabling it to provide the most up-to-date services in technology
while also promoting environmental sustainability. Additionally, providing cheap
airline tickets directly leads to an increase in passengers, namely families and
immigrants. Due to logical progression, this suggests more travelers in the
targeted nation and positive effects on its local economy. Last but not least, in
addition to the economical and environmental advantages, low-cost airlines also
offer social advantages, such as the creation of more job opportunities and the
exposure of more people to different cultures.
 However, one could argue that short low cost flights certainly don't present
just advantages. Low cost airline firms are taking a lot of risks in response to the
growing challenges posed by today's necessity to become green.

One of the first things to put forward is that the utilization of more suitable
alternatives, such as the train, would be one of the key points that is brought up
often. The first thing that most people think of in this situation is that there is no
other option than to sacrifice the inexpensive short flights and take the train,
which is generally considered to be a greener option. In fact, utilizing a local
train would produce an average of six times fewer GHD emissions than flying.
Additionally, it is clear that there would be a substantial difference between the
price of a railway ticket and a plane ticket. But as the travel lengthens, all the
advantages listed above will somehow deteriorate. Before stating that long-
distance trains will be much more environmentally friendly than short-haul
airplanes, many aspects must be taken into account. The management of traffic,
the energy used by the rail system, the number of passengers and their weights,
as well as the overall quantity of CO2 that a train would release, would all have a
significant impact on the final figure. Additionally, for the majority of
passengers, comfort, speed, and cost (because several train switches may
occasionally be needed) are not negligible factors. Finally, a lot of airlines are
starting to become aware of that better option and occasionally are willing to
sacrifice their services for environmental sake. For instance, EasyJet has decided
not to conduct any flights where a rail option would take less than three hours.

From the same point of view, it is true that domestic flights would still
represent an important first step towards limiting climate change, even with
improvements being made and a switch to a greener but more expensive fuel
alternative. In spite of the fact that we've previously mentioned the main
advantages they offer (comfort, time, and occasionally money), it's important to
remember that domestic flights in the UK carried an estimated 23 million
passengers in 2017. Furthermore, according to current research, domestic flights
in the UK presently generate 4,416 tonnes of CO2 per week, which is about
equivalent to the annual energy use of 529 households. It is obvious that short
flights have drawbacks given the enormous numbers that have been produced.
However, it is important to take into account the numerous steps now in place to
lessen such effects. For instance, in response to these enormous statistics, the UK
government opted to enact one of the highest tax rates in the country: a 13-pound
fee per passenger for domestic flights. The tax revenue is intended to support
initiatives like long-term tree planting or even the purchase of new fuels that
attempt to reduce the impact of CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, it has been established that short, inexpensive flights

provide a number of long-term benefits but also significant disadvantages. When
used wisely, low-cost businesses might really help the environment and change
unpopular beliefs, demonstrating that money shouldn't be a barrier to a greener
way of life. Budget airlines shouldn't take much longer to truly become more
desirable to travel and surely surpass other land travel choices, given the benefits
they provide over larger national airlines. However, the reality is that we will
never be able to travel totally without having any negative effects on the
environment which made us wonder: Are humans willing to give up their desire
to travel in order to preserve the environment?