CAM 20 TASK 2 (2 PARTS): STOP FLYING
Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether.
Do you think the environmental benefits of this development outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses?
Sample Answer
Nowadays, some concerned individuals have made a decision to curtail or even completely abstain from air travel in the name of environmental awareness. In my opinion, the ecological gains of this proposal are far outweighed by the drawbacks for individuals and businesses.
There are certainly valid environmental benefits to reducing or avoiding airline travel. Civilian aircraft operate by burning fossil fuels, producing by-products such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Abstinence from air travel, at least partially, would reduce the volume of these toxic emissions released into the atmosphere each year. This could, in theory, ameliorate the detrimental effects of ozone layer depletion, improve air quality, and even alleviate respiratory diseases such as lung cancer. However, this line of reasoning is flawed, since aviation-related emissions constitute only a small proportion of total global greenhouse gases. In fact, other sources such as automobiles, industrial manufacturing, and even Bitcoin mining generate far greater levels of harmful emissions, rendering this theory relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of environmental reform.
To reinforce my stance, I argue that the modest environmental merits are vastly eclipsed by the far-reaching consequences for individuals. For example, a student studying abroad or an employee working overseas would be forced to rely on alternative modes of transportation whenever returning home for family reunions. These alternatives—trains, buses, and ships—are often considerably slower and less convenient, resulting in wasted time and frustration. Professionally, if people choose to prioritise ecological concerns over career opportunities, they may face restricted geographic mobility, which could limit access to jobs and hinder professional growth. Culturally, less travel inevitably means fewer opportunities for cross-cultural exchange, which could lead to reduced understanding, intolerance, and weakened international harmony.
From a business perspective, this shift in personal travel behaviour could disrupt operations and the global supply chain. Many industries rely heavily on frequent international travel, and limitations in this area could result in miscommunication, workflow disruptions, and even service failure. A prime example would be companies in the logistics sector—without access to efficient air transport, these firms would struggle to deliver goods to overseas clients. This incapacity would damage customer satisfaction and undermine corporate revenue, ultimately hurting long-term profitability.
In conclusion, while limiting air travel may offer tangible environmental benefits in terms of lower emissions, these are significantly outweighed by the personal, professional, cultural, and corporate drawbacks. Promoting this idea on a larger scale may hinder individual growth, isolate global communities, and stifle business development, rendering it well-intentioned but ultimately impractical.
Marking by Chat GPT Plus
 |
TỪ VỰNG HAY
Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether.
Do you think the environmental benefits of this development outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses?
Sample answer:
Nowadays, some concerned individuals have made a decision to curtail or even completely abstain from air travel in the name of environmental awareness. In my opinion, the ecological gains of this proposal are far outweighed by the drawbacks for individuals and businesses.
There are certainly valid environmental benefits to reducing or avoiding airline travel. Civilian aircraft operate by burning fossil fuels, producing by-products such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Abstinence from air travel, at least partially, would reduce the volume of these toxic emissions released into the atmosphere each year. This could, in theory, ameliorate the detrimental effects of ozone layer depletion, improve air quality, and even alleviate respiratory diseases such as lung cancer. However, this line of reasoning is flawed, since aviation-related emissions constitute only a small proportion of total global greenhouse gases. In fact, other sources such as automobiles, industrial manufacturing, and even Bitcoin mining generate far greater levels of harmful emissions, rendering this theory relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of environmental reform.
To reinforce my stance, I argue that the modest environmental merits are vastly eclipsed by the far-reaching consequences for individuals. For example, a student studying abroad or an employee working overseas would be forced to rely on alternative modes of transportation whenever returning home for family reunions. These alternatives—trains, buses, and ships—are often considerably slower and less convenient, resulting in wasted time and frustration. Professionally, if people choose to prioritise ecological concerns over career opportunities, they may face restricted geographic mobility, which could limit access to jobs and hinder professional growth. Culturally, less travel inevitably means fewer opportunities for cross-cultural exchange, which could lead to reduced understanding, intolerance, and weakened international harmony.
From a business perspective, this shift in personal travel behaviour could disrupt operations and the global supply chain. Many industries rely heavily on frequent international travel, and limitations in this area could result in miscommunication, workflow disruptions, and even service failure. A prime example would be companies in the logistics sector—without access to efficient air transport, these firms would struggle to deliver goods to overseas clients. This incapacity would damage customer satisfaction and undermine corporate revenue, ultimately hurting long-term profitability.
In conclusion, while limiting air travel may offer tangible environmental benefits in terms of lower emissions, these are significantly outweighed by the personal, professional, cultural, and corporate drawbacks. Promoting this idea on a larger scale may hinder individual growth, isolate global communities, and stifle business development, rendering it well-intentioned but ultimately impractical.
Vocabulary
- curtail or even completely abstain from air travel – giảm hoặc ngừng hoàn toàn đi lại bằng máy bay
- ecological gains – lợi ích môi trường
- valid environmental benefits – lợi ích môi trường chính đáng
- toxic emissions – khí thải độc hại
- ameliorate the detrimental effects – giảm thiểu tác động tiêu cực
- ozone layer depletion – sự suy giảm tầng ozone
- alleviate respiratory diseases – giảm bệnh hô hấp
- aviation-related emissions – khí thải từ ngành hàng không
- modest environmental merits – lợi ích môi trường nhỏ
- far-reaching consequences – hậu quả sâu rộng
- prioritise ecological concerns over career opportunities – đặt môi trường lên trên sự nghiệp
- fewer opportunities for cross-cultural exchange – ít cơ hội giao lưu văn hoá
- global supply chain – chuỗi cung ứng toàn cầu
- damage customer satisfaction – ảnh hưởng tới sự hài lòng của khách hàng
- stifle business development – kìm hãm phát triển kinh doanh
Dàn ý
Introduction:
Nêu thực trạng một số người chọn giảm tần suất hoặc ngừng đi máy bay để bảo vệ môi trường.
→ Nêu quan điểm: Lợi ích môi trường là có, nhưng không lớn bằng thiệt hại cho cá nhân và doanh nghiệp.
→ Vấn đề chính:
Việc giảm đi lại bằng máy bay có thể giúp giảm khí thải, nhưng ảnh hưởng tiêu cực đến cuộc sống cá nhân, công việc và kinh doanh.
→ Cần đánh giá khách quan để không gây ra hậu quả không mong muốn.
Body 1: Lợi ích môi trường (nhưng hạn chế)
- Máy bay thải ra khí nhà kính → việc giảm đi lại giúp giảm CO2, bảo vệ không khí, sức khỏe.
- Tuy nhiên, lượng khí thải từ hàng không chỉ chiếm phần nhỏ so với ô tô, nhà máy, khai thác tiền điện tử…
- Vì vậy, lợi ích là thật nhưng không đáng kể nếu so với các nguồn ô nhiễm khác.
Body 2: Tác động tiêu cực tới cá nhân
- Sinh viên/nhân viên xa nhà bị bất tiện, tốn thời gian nếu không đi máy bay.
- Hạn chế di chuyển = hạn chế cơ hội nghề nghiệp, khó phát triển cá nhân.
- Ít đi lại quốc tế = giảm tiếp xúc văn hóa, dễ dẫn đến thiếu hiểu biết và khoan dung.
Body 3: Tác động tiêu cực tới doanh nghiệp
- Nhiều ngành như logistics, du lịch, ngoại thương phụ thuộc vào đi lại quốc tế.
- Không thể di chuyển = gián đoạn công việc, giảm doanh thu, mất khách hàng.
- Ảnh hưởng dây chuyền đến chuỗi cung ứng và hiệu suất toàn doanh nghiệp.
Conclusion:
Việc hạn chế đi máy bay mang lại lợi ích môi trường nhất định, nhưng không thể bù đắp cho những mất mát về cá nhân và kinh tế.
→ Cần có cách tiếp cận toàn diện hơn thay vì hy sinh sự phát triển vì hiệu quả môi trường nhỏ lẻ.
