Sure, we agree aviation needs to cut emissions and nobody wants to punish travellers. But my opponent's case misses how lopsided short-haul flying is. For flights under 1.5 hours, takeoff and climb burn a huge share of fuel, so emissions per passenger-km can be five to ten times higher than rail. A flight from Amsterdam to Brussels or Düsseldorf dumps roughly 150-250 grams of CO2 per passenger-km; the train is closer to 30-40. And in a country as compact as the Netherlands, with a dense rail network, alternatives exist for most of these trips. Banning them isn't symbolic; it removes a genuinely wasteful slice of emissions and pushes investment into trains. That's why I'm for it.

Imagine a traveller flying Amsterdam to Brussels when a train gets them city centre to city centre. My opponent is right that time and cost matter, and some routes are connections. But those are design problems, not reasons to keep a wasteful flight. For sub-1.5-hour hops, takeoff and climb burn a huge share of fuel, so emissions per passenger-km can be five to ten times rail. A ban removes that genuinely wasteful slice and pushes investment into trains, which also creates jobs. Connections can be rerouted through rail-linked hubs. That's why the case for banning them is stronger.

Fair enough that a ban alone won't fix aviation's global footprint, and my opponent's right that 1.2% sounds small. But that's a global share, and the Netherlands isn't deciding global policy here; it's deciding whether to cut a slice of emissions it can remove cheaply. In a compact country with dense rail, short hops are the easiest tonnes to cut, and leadership matters because one country's ban nudges airlines and neighbours. A 1.2% cut is still real tonnes, and it protects rail investment. Connections can be rerouted. Small doesn't mean pointless.