IELTS and TOEFL Speaking and Writing Topic: Non-Essential Flights Debate
IELTS and TOEFL Speaking and Writing Topic: Non-Essential Flights
Vocabulary for the IELTS and TOEFL Speaking and Writing Topic: Non-Essential Flights Debate
In today’s video, we’ll explore a frequently asked IELTS and TOEFL question:
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?
This lesson will help you improve your vocabulary and pronunciation for both the Speaking and Writing tasks. You'll find two example answers to inspire your own response and help you structure your arguments effectively.
What you will learn?
Key vocabulary to enhance your response
Example answers for both perspectives
Useful phrases and expressions
Download the PDF: For the full transcript of this video, including a complete advanced vocabulary list with definitions, click the link below.
Here is the full transcript of the video: Response 1: Agreeing with the Statement
Here is your text with advanced vocabulary in bold and advanced verbs in italics:
It is often claimed that long-distance flights consume as much fuel as a car does over several years and significantly contribute to air pollution. Some argue that, rather than restricting car usage, society should focus on limiting non-essential flights, such as leisure travel. I strongly agree with this perspective, as reducing air travel would likely produce more immediate and substantial environmental benefits compared to limiting car use.
A key reason to discourage non-essential air travel is the excessive fuel consumption and environmental harm caused by flights. For example, a single transatlantic flight can generate as much CO2 as a car does in an entire year. This stark contrast demonstrates that air travel is far more energy-intensive and polluting, especially when used for non-essential purposes. Reducing air travel would significantly cut global emissions, providing greater environmental benefits than focusing on limiting car use.
While the automotive industry is progressing with sustainable alternatives, like electric vehicles, aviation faces more significant barriers. Aircraft emissions are hard to mitigate, and although biofuels show potential, they cannot yet replace conventional aviation fuel at scale. Therefore, curbing non-essential flights offers a more feasible and immediate way to reduce aviation-related emissions.
Critics may argue that restricting flights could harm industries like tourism and international business, which rely on air travel. Additionally, cars remain essential for daily life, especially in areas with inadequate public transport.
In conclusion, although both cars and air travel contribute to pollution, I firmly believe that limiting non-essential flights should be prioritized due to their greater environmental impact. Reducing air travel offers a more effective means of mitigating global emissions and addressing climate change.
Response 2: Opposing the Statement
The assertion that long-distance flights consume the same amount of fuel as a car does over several years and contribute to air pollution has sparked considerable debate. While some argue for discouraging non-essential air travel, particularly tourism, I disagree. In my view, imposing stricter limits on car usage would be a far more effective and practical strategy for mitigating pollution and addressing the environmental challenges we face today.
Automobiles are essential to daily life and contribute significantly to both local and global pollution. The regularity of car use, such as for commuting and running errands, makes their cumulative environmental impact much greater than that of occasional flights. In urban areas, cars exacerbate air pollution, traffic congestion, and noise, severely affecting quality of life. Addressing car usage would lead to more substantial and sustainable reductions in pollution.
One promising solution to reduce car emissions is the growing popularity of electric vehicles (evs), which produce zero tailpipe emissions. Additionally, urban areas benefit from expanding shared transport options, such as carpooling, bike-sharing, and ride-hailing services. These alternatives can reduce the number of cars on the road, alleviating traffic congestion and lowering pollution.
Investing in public transport systems—such as buses, trams, and metro lines—also offers a viable alternative to private car use. Cities like London and Tokyo demonstrate that effective, affordable, and convenient public transportation can reduce car ownership and lower environmental impact. Expanding these networks, especially in rural areas, would further reduce reliance on cars.
While air travel contributes to global warming, its overall impact is limited compared to cars. Flights are infrequent, and fewer people engage in tourism or international business than use cars. Moreover, restricting flights could negatively impact the global economy, particularly industries reliant on tourism and international trade.
In conclusion, although both cars and air travel contribute to pollution, limiting car usage should be the priority. With the availability of alternative, eco-friendly options like evs, public transport, and shared mobility solutions, addressing automobile emissions presents a more effective approach to long-term environmental sustainability.
#IELTS #TOEFL #IELTSSpeaking #IELTSWriting #TOEFLSpeaking #TOEFLWriting #EnglishVocabulary #LearnEnglish #AdvancedVocabulary #IELTSPreparation #TOEFLPreparation
