• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -111 months ago

    You cant just go and compare europe and america to the whole world. Have you ever seen South East Asian train networks? I know the article is related to the former but I think having a global perspective on this is way more important. Many places need to be accessible by plane. Global travel is not practical by train

    • @arandomthought
      link
      English
      1511 months ago

      I think no one is arguing for completely banning air travel (or maybe only very few people are). But in the long run we need to make train travel more affordable and airtravel less so. The problem right now is that the environmental impact is treated as an externality that the person buying the ticket doesn’t have to pay for, but we all have to.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -311 months ago

        That is exactly my point though, it is impractical. Air travel contributes very little to overall emissions compared to cars or construction. I am all for expanding and subsidising trains but making air travel more expensive will only affect the common person. I travel alot between asia, europe, and america, airfare is already insanely expensive.

        Some places need airplane accessibility, once again from a global perspective.

        • Jajcus
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Common person is not traveling a lot via plane (especially between different continents)! That is rich people privilege and when it is subsidized then everybody else, including the common people you mention, pays for that.

        • @arandomthought
          link
          English
          611 months ago

          I assume you travel for work? Then it is only fair that the company pay the full price.
          If you travel for fun, then you should also pay the full price, there’s no need to subsidize your hobby. If you travel for family (which I don’t assume because you mention three continents) then that’s tough, I agree. But just because we have gotten used to reaching remote places fast doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. We have spoild ourselves on the cost of the common good and now we’re facing the consequences.

          And I also agree that changes have to be made for cars and construction, too. It’s not an “all or nothing” situation, we can take measures in all three of these fields.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            011 months ago

            Thank you for your considered response. I indeed travel for family, which forces me to spend an insane amount of money on travelling costs for the privilege of seeing my children once in a while.

            Again, I agree that we should make trains more affordable but not at the expensive of long distance air travel.

            Airplanes contribute 2.5 - 3.5% of total emissions

            • @arandomthought
              link
              English
              111 months ago

              I see. That’s rough and I wish you much strength for your situation as well as the fortune to afford these travels. It sucks that money is the only way to realistically filter who “deserves” to make these journeys but sadly that’s the system we’re living in.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Your point was that air travel uses less infrastructure.

      And of course I can point to a high throughput airport and to a high throughput train station and conclude that the airport is using way more infrastructure in comparison.

      Also nobody asked for „global travel“ by train.

      And what about the SE Asian train network? Do you mean China, lol? Why must „many places“ be accessible by train edit: plane? This is not an argument.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -311 months ago

        And your point still does not support that trains are more expensive on long disances without being subsidised by tax money. Short distance train travel is not the problem. We need long distance air travel. Who do you think occupies the economy seats. Its not the fat cats

        China, japan etc

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          The question was: „Why are planes cheaper than trains in Europe?“

          Your answer was: „because infra“.

          I showed you this is wrong because you underestimate the infra needs of air traffic and also neglect the long term savings.

          Because that’s why you install infra: it saves money in the long run.

          Nobody – except you – is talking about „global air traffic“. Nobody.

          So, if you want to burn straw men apply for a job as a fire fighter, and if you want to be a professional goal post mover, IDK, call FIFA maybe?

          But stop pulling out „arguments“ out of your ass. Thank you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      true point: planes should be used only for intercontinental travel: for exemple dedicate 2-3 airport hubs in all europe, and the rest of it should only be accessed by train. look up european sky on flightradar: it is always rush hour up there, and probably not so many intercontinental flights. Air travel should also be limited cross country only in Asia’s case: and the number of flight hubs should be reduced to a minimum and leave the rest of the country to be accessed through train