Composition - Is no air trafficgreat for the environment?

Sätze und kurze Texte, die korrigiert wurden
Laubfrosch

Composition - Is no air trafficgreat for the environment?

Beitrag von Laubfrosch »

Hier der 2. Teil zu meiner Aufgabe. Aufgabe ist:
"No air traffic is great for the environment. Do you agree?"

Ein ziemlich schweres Thema finde ich. Argumente gegen und für Flugverkehr zu finden ist nicht so schwer, aber diese müssen gleichzeitig einen Zusammenhang zur Umwelt haben, was die ganze Sache schwerer macht. Ich habe letztendlich aber doch noch 4 Argumente gefunden.

Diese Erörterung ist zum Glück nicht ganz so lang wie die anderen von mir. Hoffe es findet sich jemand, der sie sich mal durchliest und kommentiert ;)
The closure of the airspace over Europe shows us how much we depend on aircrafts. It shows us also that a life without air traffic isn`t manageable. Unfortunately aircrafts are big polluters because they produce much emissions. Could it be an option to relinquish aircrafts to help the environment?

Aircrafts need strong turbines to get up in the air. These turbines waste a lot of petrol wherefore they produce very much carbon emissions. On average an aircraft needs approximately 2000 liters of kerosine per 100 kilometers. Compared with a car this is gigantic. And because of that big consumption the emissions are big too. It would be better for the environment if we didn‘t go by plane anymore which leads me to my next argument.

If we don`t go by plane how will we travel? Railway could be an alternative especially electrical trains. A train which is powered by electricity don´t produces any pollution. Only the generating of this energy could produce that. For the future of the earth we depend on renewable energies. If we use that energy to run trains it will be an environmentally friendly alternative. But also today with our coal power stations trains are more environmentally aware than airplanes.

But the problem is that we depend on the airplanes. You couldn‘t travel from Hamburg to New York by train. An alternative could be ships but they are slow and also not very friendly to the environment. Thus the only way to get to New York is by plane. It`s also of economic importance that we can transport our letters and goods by plane. If we could not send our goods by plane it will need 4 or 5 weeks to send a package by ship to the USA or even longer if you want to send it to China. This would be fatally for the economy.

Summarized we can say that our whole life depends on aircrafts. They produce much emissions but our life would be worse if we didn`t have them. One possibility to travel, send goods by plane and save the planet at once could be that we only use a plane if there is no other way. If there are alternative means of transportation we have to use them instead of planes.

Wie immer schonmal vielen Dank!!!! :freu:

Gruß
Laubfrosch

joy

Re: Composition - Is no air trafficgreat for the environment?

Beitrag von joy »

Recently, the air traffic was badly affected by the ash cloud of Island’s active volcano eruption. So, in order to prevent air crashes, the closure of the airspace over Europe was ordered. Now we can see how much we depend on aircrafts (Pl ohne “s” – ich habe alle Weiteren geändert, ohne Markierung) It shows us also that a life without air traffic isnt manageable. Unfortunately, aircraft are big polluters because they produce (oder: emit) much harmful emissions. Could it be an option to relinquish aircraft to help the environment? (oder: protect)

Aircraft need strong turbines to get up in the air. These turbines burn a lot of kerosene, and thus produce very much carbon emissions. On average an aircraft needs approximately 2000 liters of kerosene per 100 kilometers. Compared with a car this is gigantic. In fact, this high fuel consumption means that the emissions are high too. It would be better for the environment if we didn‘t travel by plane anymore.

This leads me to the following question: “What is the best way to travel abroad, if we cannot go there by plane?
Railway could be an alternative way to travel, especially by electrical trains. A train which is powered by electricity doesn’t produces any pollution. However, the generating of this energy could produce that. For the future protection of the earth we need renewable sources of energy, such as wind or solar power. If we use that energy to run trains it will be an environmentally friendly alternative. But even the today’s coal powered trains are less damaging to the environment than airplanes.

But the problem is that we depend on the airplanes. You cannot travel from Hamburg to New York by train. An alternative could be ships but they are slow and also not very eco-friendly. Thus the only way to get to New York is by plane. It's also of economic importance that we can transport our letters and goods by plane. If we could not send our goods by plane it would take 4 or 5 weeks to send a package by ship to the USA or even longer if you want to send it to China. This would be fatally for the economy.

Summarized we can say that all our lives depends on aircraft. Plains produce much harmful emissions but our lives would be worse if we didn't have them. One possibility to travel or send goods by plane and save the planet at once could be that we only use a plane if there is no other way. If there are alternative means of transportation we have to use them instead of planes.


Hallo Laubfrosch
Viel Spass mit meiner Version, die, so hoffe ich, noch jemand anschaut.
Grüsse von :P
joy