IELTS Writing Task 2 – Band 8.0 Sample

Both air travel and private cars contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It has been suggested that cutting unnecessary flights would benefit the environment more than restricting car use. I only partly agree with this view.

There are strong reasons to target non-essential flights. Mile for mile, flying is one of the most carbon-intensive ways to travel, and a single long-haul return trip can produce more emissions than a year of driving. Moreover, most flights are taken by a relatively small and wealthy minority, so reducing leisure trips and short business journeys would cut emissions substantially without affecting the daily lives of ordinary people. France, for example, has banned short domestic flights on routes where a train alternative of under two and a half hours exists.

However, it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact of private cars. There are well over a billion cars on the world's roads, and road transport as a whole produces several times more carbon dioxide than aviation. Cars also cause local problems that planes do not, such as urban air pollution, noise and traffic congestion, which directly harm public health. Limiting car use through better public transport and congestion charges can therefore deliver wider benefits.

In my view, the two policies should go hand in hand rather than compete. Governments can discourage frequent flying through higher taxes while also investing in railways, cycling lanes and electric buses to reduce dependence on cars.

In conclusion, although cutting non-essential flights would make a meaningful difference, I do not believe it would do more than limiting private cars. Tackling both sources of emissions is the only realistic way to protect the environment.