Some People Have Decided to Reduce the Number of Times They Fly Every Year or to Stop Flying Altogether - IELTS Task 2 Band 9 Model Essays

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 1

The growing decision by some people to limit air travel or abandon flying altogether reflects rising concern about aviation’s environmental footprint. In my view, the environmental advantages of this shift clearly outweigh the drawbacks for both individuals and businesses. This is because reduced flying significantly cuts carbon emissions and accelerates greener innovation, while the associated economic and personal costs are largely transitional and manageable.

The primary reason the benefits prevail is the disproportionate environmental damage caused by frequent flying. Aviation is one of the most carbon-intensive forms of transport, producing not only large volumes of CO₂ but also high-altitude emissions that intensify global warming. Even a modest reduction in flights by regular travellers can therefore generate substantial environmental gains. For example, business professionals who replace short-haul flights with rail travel or virtual meetings can dramatically lower their annual carbon footprint without sacrificing productivity. At a societal level, such behavioural change also exerts pressure on governments to invest in cleaner transport infrastructure and to regulate aviation more strictly. Although individuals may lose some convenience, this trade-off is minor when compared with the long-term benefits of slowing climate change, improving air quality, and protecting ecosystems that are vital for human survival.

Admittedly, reduced flying can create short-term disadvantages for certain industries, particularly airlines, tourism operators, and export-oriented businesses. However, these costs should be viewed as part of an inevitable economic transition rather than a permanent loss. History shows that industries adapt when consumer values shift. As demand for flights weakens, businesses are incentivised to innovate by developing sustainable aviation fuels, improving fuel efficiency, or diversifying into low-carbon travel alternatives. Moreover, companies increasingly rely on digital communication and regional supply chains, which often reduce costs while also cutting emissions. From an individual perspective, fewer flights may limit leisure choices or international mobility, yet this can encourage more local tourism and remote collaboration, both of which create new economic opportunities rather than destroying existing ones.

In conclusion, although reducing air travel poses certain challenges for individuals and businesses, these are outweighed by the profound environmental benefits. By lowering emissions and accelerating sustainable innovation, this development represents a necessary and ultimately positive adjustment to the realities of climate change.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!

Model Essay 2

The recent trend of people deliberately cutting back on air travel is often promoted as an environmentally responsible choice. However, I contend that the environmental benefits of this development do not outweigh the disadvantages faced by individuals and businesses. This is because voluntary reductions in flying have a limited real impact on global emissions, while simultaneously undermining economic connectivity and placing disproportionate burdens on workers, consumers, and firms that depend on aviation.

The first major reason the disadvantages prevail is that individual reductions in flying deliver only marginal environmental gains when measured against the scale of global emissions. Aviation accounts for a relatively small share of total greenhouse gases compared with sectors such as energy generation, construction, and heavy industry. When a minority of travellers choose to fly less, the overall reduction is often absorbed by rising demand elsewhere, particularly in fast-growing economies, resulting in little net environmental improvement. Moreover, airlines frequently respond to lower passenger numbers by cutting routes rather than emissions, meaning aircraft still fly but with lower occupancy rates, which can actually worsen fuel efficiency per passenger. From a critical perspective, this turns reduced flying into a largely symbolic gesture that shifts responsibility onto individuals while leaving the structural drivers of environmental damage untouched.

The second key issue is that reducing air travel creates substantial and uneven economic costs for individuals and businesses that rely on mobility. For many professionals, especially in international trade, academia, and specialised services, face-to-face interaction remains essential for trust-building and innovation. Limiting flights can therefore restrict career opportunities, reduce competitiveness, and slow the exchange of ideas. At the business level, airlines, tourism operators, and airport-linked supply chains employ millions of workers, many of whom have limited opportunities to transition into “green” alternatives. When demand falls abruptly, these workers bear immediate financial hardship, while consumers face higher prices due to reduced competition. In effect, the policy choice to fly less risks exporting environmental responsibility onto economically vulnerable groups without offering realistic substitutes.

In conclusion, while reducing flights may appear environmentally commendable, its actual benefits are limited and often overstated. Given the significant personal, professional, and commercial costs involved, this development imposes greater disadvantages on individuals and businesses than the environmental gains it realistically achieves.

Achieve your dream score with our detailed IELTS eBooks - your complete guide!