Environmentally speaking, promoting cars is friendlier than encouraging flights, as the fuel consumption of a single flight equals to what a car takes for a year or so.

·        To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

That the fuel consumption of a single flight trip is enough to keep a car running for a year does not make promoting cars sensible, even if it may seem alright in environmental terms. It is not so, as a matter of fact. I cannot agree with the opinion.

The first thing with which I am going to disagree with the view is that environmental concern is not just fuel consumption. Rather, we all know that our Planet is pressed by countless other concerns generated by automobiles and their allied industries. For example, establishing a plant consumes hundreds of hectors of land, huge material consumption, both natural and manufactured. Coupled with these are the allied pollutants and temperatures it raises.

Well, if cars are promoted, we would come to live in a world seething with pollution, congestion, scrap, terrestrial noise, waste and high mercury readings every passing day. Private cars are much bigger a threat than flights. Let me substantiate it still further. In fact, personal cars consume much less fuel, but a single user takes some 20 to 30 square foot of street space, burns a liter of fuel every 10 or 15 kilometers, and the suffocating gases these cars muffle out can blacken the Planet much faster then flights.

In short, flights do consume huge quantities of fuel; they pollute, and put the environment in trouble, but not as much as cars do. Besides, the services they do in terms of human and material movement can never be equated to cars’. In my opinion, we must learn to live with much fewer cars for the sake of our environment.

275 words

Ajaypeesdoc.3.3.13