▲ 141 ▼ Austria and France banned short-haul flights to boost train travel and reduce emissions. Did it work? (climatetrace.org) submitted 2 months ago* by inari@piefed.zip to c/climate@slrpnk.net 19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 101 points 2 months ago (9 children) TL;DR: yes! permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 18 points 2 months ago (5 children) did you get that by reading it and now we don't have to or that is your answer after not reading? because I have not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] classic@fedia.io 48 points 2 months ago (1 child) Climate TRACE emissions data suggest the policies did, in fact, deliver their hoped-for emissions reductions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago I'm not reading that! permalink fedilink source parent [–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago Yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) headlines asking a yes or no question usually means a No. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 5 points 2 months ago Here we have the exception though. It's a yes permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I'm left with a lot of questions though, as the scope of the article is quite limited. Short-haul flight are banned, so the gains seem obvious. But the article doesn't seem to detail if they're actually substituted by rail. Travellers could also be going by car, search for destinations further away, maybe not go at all. I guess it's quite hard to find an actual effect from a broader perspective, but if their expectations are true, travellers using rail should have a noticable increase. It's a shame this is missing in the article. Basically the article is saying that if you scrap a bunch of flights, emissions by aviations go down. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that seems pretty obvious. I'd like to know what the actual broader effect is of these measures taken. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago Planes are terrible for emissions permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 18 points 2 months ago (5 children) did you get that by reading it and now we don't have to or that is your answer after not reading? because I have not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] classic@fedia.io 48 points 2 months ago (1 child) Climate TRACE emissions data suggest the policies did, in fact, deliver their hoped-for emissions reductions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago I'm not reading that! permalink fedilink source parent [–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago Yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) headlines asking a yes or no question usually means a No. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 5 points 2 months ago Here we have the exception though. It's a yes permalink fedilink source parent
[–] classic@fedia.io 48 points 2 months ago (1 child) Climate TRACE emissions data suggest the policies did, in fact, deliver their hoped-for emissions reductions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago I'm not reading that! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago I'm not reading that! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 child) headlines asking a yes or no question usually means a No. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 5 points 2 months ago Here we have the exception though. It's a yes permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 5 points 2 months ago Here we have the exception though. It's a yes permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) I'm left with a lot of questions though, as the scope of the article is quite limited. Short-haul flight are banned, so the gains seem obvious. But the article doesn't seem to detail if they're actually substituted by rail. Travellers could also be going by car, search for destinations further away, maybe not go at all. I guess it's quite hard to find an actual effect from a broader perspective, but if their expectations are true, travellers using rail should have a noticable increase. It's a shame this is missing in the article. Basically the article is saying that if you scrap a bunch of flights, emissions by aviations go down. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that seems pretty obvious. I'd like to know what the actual broader effect is of these measures taken. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago Planes are terrible for emissions permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago Planes are terrible for emissions permalink fedilink source parent