161–170 of 578 posts
About time. Traveling is killing the planet. One of major causes of climate change. We need to take it seriously. I'm glad France is willing to take a bold and brave step to support the environment.
This is simply rent seeking. It won't reduce flights, it's too small to incentivize any fuel efficiency changes, it's passed on to the consumer so it won't alter airline behavior, and while the article claims the revenue will go towards financing trains, it doesn't state how that will be implemented. Are they going to reduce fees on trains accordingly? Are they going to improve train efficiency? Are they going to bui…
> I just don't see how this helps. Just curious, what would be your favorite solution(s) of the climate crisis?
This is simply rent seeking. It won't reduce flights, it's too small to incentivize any fuel efficiency changes, it's passed on to the consumer so it won't alter airline behavior, and while the article claims the revenue will go towards financing trains, it doesn't state how that will be implemented. Are they going to reduce fees on trains accordingly? Are they going to improve train efficiency? Are they going to bui…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they’re expensive compared to flying the equivalent route/distance.
But save you from the pain of getting to/from CDG.
Traveling by train through Paris is a PITA as it often involves a station transfer via bus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that invalidates the idea. I can't fly everywhere , I still have to do the last mile some other way. In the sane way I don't expect the train to pick me up out side my house. Further I don't expect to go to my local airport and expect to be able to travel to any other airport direct, so why should the same apply to train travel?
Because a lot of immigrants use air travel and they don't really have an alternative. A 2-day adventure involving trains, cars, ferries,hotels is much more environmentally (and physically) costly than a $300 flight.
Based on what?
Sea travel is really quite efficient, so are trains, especially when we're talking about French trains powered by French nuclear.
And why are immigrants a reason that its regressive? Low paid eastern Europeans aren't going to be flying around Europe, well paid international businessmen probably will.
Edit: Ignore the "And why are immigrants a reason that its regressive", I'm confusing my threads. The point stands though. Poor immigrant doesn't necessarily correlate with having to fly.
At the same time people are shamed for buying salad in a plastic bag when the big lever is somewhere completely different. Had the same thought yesterday when I saw:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took a plane from Lisbon to Paris for 35 euros last week. That feels incredibly cheap to me, especially compared to high-speed train. I routinely pay twice as much to get not even half as far by TGV. Making train more competitive by taxing planes more might not be a terrible idea. I say might because I can't pretend to even begin to understand all the implications of this tax but hopefully whoever came up with it d…
On distances like Lisbom to Paris trains can't compete on time, not only on price. There is no way a train can be made faster with the current technology (hyperloop: let's wait and see.) I think nobody goes from Lisbon to Paris and back by train to spend a weekend there. Of course if flying costs more people will fly less.
Last I checked we didn't even have more than one or 2 routes to Spain by train, due to different gauges, and spain has different gauges from france.
If you want to go from Paris to Lisbon by train expect a whole day of travel if not more, with multiple changes
About time. Traveling is killing the planet. One of major causes of climate change. We need to take it seriously. I'm glad France is willing to take a bold and brave step to support the environment.
There are much worse polluters, sure, travel is a contribution to greenhouse gasses, but I guess fuck people for wanting to take a plane somewhere
Though the tax is small, so this seems more like a money grab than anything else
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From Wikipedia: «Fascism ... characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy». There are people who see the enforcement of the green agenda in these terms, like this: you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it, and it gets forced on the economy through the power of the state. I personally think that such a view is…
>>"[..]you can't speak publicly against it, you can't act openly against it,[..]" By this, I suppose you mean that, if you do it, you will get some angry answers in your direction, but, is that not true about anything deserving to talk about? It works in the other direction too: I have heard pretty harsh insults against ecologist (yeah, sometimes they are even called fascists). >>"[..] and it gets forced on the econo…
Yes, a state is an instiute of enforcement, violent if needed. Nothing new here indeed. People just tend to see enforcement of ideas they like as good, and of the ideas they don't like, as evil. Nothing new here either.
I just tried to explain the train of thought that may have led to the original (flagged) comment.