So, given that we're already talking about the possibility of international travel in the Covid thread, I saw this article today and foundit interesting, as it'll have to be decided how airlines will operate in a post-Covid world. Should they go back to normal or is this crisis a chance to implement radical new measures, such as a carbon tax on frequent flyers?
QuoteElite minority of frequent flyers 'cause most of aviation's climate damage'
Small group taking most flights should face frequent flyer levy, says environmental charity
An "elite minority" of frequent flyers cause most of the climate damage resulting from aviation's emissions, according to an environmental charity.
The report, which collates data from the countries with the highest aviation emissions, shows a worldwide pattern of a small group taking a large proportion of flights, while many people do not fly at all.
In the US, 12% of people took 66% of all flights, while in France 2% of people took half of the flights, the report says. In China 5% of households took 40% of flights and in India just 1% of households took 45% of all the flights.
It was already known that 10% of people in England took more than half of all international flights in 2018. A global study reported by the Guardian in November found that frequent-flying "super emitters" who represent just 1% of the world's population caused half of aviation's carbon emissions in 2018. Almost 90% of the world's population did not fly at all that year.
The coronavirus pandemic has slashed the number of flights taken but campaigners fear government bailouts of airlines will cause aviation to return to its pre-pandemic growth trend.
Possible, the group that produced the new report, is calling for the introduction of a frequent flyer levy, whereby the first flight in a year incurs little or no tax and it therefore does not penalise annual family holidays. But the levy then ramps up for each additional flight.
"If left unchecked, emissions from polluting industries like flying threaten to crash the climate," said Alethea Warrington, a campaigns manager at Possible. "This report shows [that] while the poorest communities are already suffering the impacts of a warming climate, the benefits of high-carbon lifestyles are enjoyed only by the few. A progressive tax on aviation would treat frequent flying as the luxury habit it is."
Leo Murray, a director at Possible, said there were "desperate efforts by politicians to return aviation to its former planet-burning growth trajectory by throwing public money at airlines".
Murray added: "Air travel is a uniquely damaging behaviour, resulting in more emissions per hour than any other activity, bar starting forest fires. So targeting climate policy at the elite minority responsible for most of the environmental damage from flights could help tackle the climate problem without taking away access to the most important and valued services that air travel provides to society."
Finlay Asher, a former airline engineer turned climate activist, said: "As an engineer working on future aircraft technology, I quickly realised that technology development is moving too slowly compared with growth in air traffic. The only way to reduce emissions from the sector in time is government policy to fairly limit demand for flights. Without that, no amount of technology will help."
Data in the report shows the US, China and the UK had the highest national emissions from aviation in 2018, while British and Australian citizens had the highest per capita emissions from flying, after people from Singapore, Finland and Iceland.
Michael Gill, executive director at the International Air Transport Association, which represents the world's airlines, said: "Taxes have proved to be an ineffective way to tackle emissions. The focus instead should be on practical means to mitigate the CO2 impact of aviation, while still enabling people to fly for business and family reasons."
"Airlines are investing billions in cleaner aircraft, sustainable aviation fuels and the use of carbon emissions trading or offsetting as part of a long-term strategy to cut 2005-level emissions in half by 2050.
"We would also dispute the description that frequent flying is a 'luxury habit'. Many, if not the majority, of frequent flyers are business people who need face-to-face contact with clients and staff, particularly over the coming months as business returns to normal."
I wonder if, in the post-covid world, business travel will really be back at its old habits, given how remote meetings have become so prevalent.
Why would airlines want to charge their frequent fliers more?
They wouldn't be. Government would.
Taxing fuel and tickets like any other form of transportation would take care of the problem as well. Flying is too cheap.
Quote from: Maladict on March 31, 2021, 06:44:03 AM
Taxing fuel and tickets like any other form of transportation would take care of the problem as well. Flying is too cheap.
Those are already taxed to a certain degree, what this organization is proposing is a specific tax on frequent flyers on top of that. I don't think it's ikely or even feasible to be introduced (it'd present so many complications), but I can see their point about putting more of the environmental cost of aviation at the feet of those employing it the most.
Is it true that air travel amounts for 4% of global emissions?
In other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?
I'm a little skeptical of the premise. The article seems to imply that people who fly disproportionately frequently are responsible for a disproportionately greater environmental impact. I would be interested to see some independent statistical studies that support this conclusion.
Carbon tax should be a flat tax, not a progressive tax. If you fly one mile you pay X, if you fly two miles you pay 2X. Each of those miles flown causes an equal amount of global warming. The first mile flown by an ocassional holiday traveler is not any more virtuous from the atmosphere's point of view than the 10,000th mile flown by a business traveler.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
I'm a little skeptical of the premise. The article seems to imply that people who fly disproportionately frequently are responsible for a disproportionately greater environmental impact. I would be interested to see some independent statistical studies that support this conclusion.
This.
Your weight should be taken into consideration, the unit for taxation purposes is the travellerkilogrammile .
I used to have the golden Lufthansa card years ago and in my worst year spent about 250 hours total in aircrafts. Of course always business, a few times first class. Flying domestic German flights in business etc. At first it was an adventure, then it became normal, then annoying. I certainly did my share of climate destruction. :(
While I miss private air travel, I certainly don't want to go back to that kind of business travel. I think business travel will never come back in the same way as before the pandemic. Its expensive and destroys the climate. And most things can be done via Teams.
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 06:14:12 AM
I wonder if, in the post-covid world, business travel will really be back at its old habits, given how remote meetings have become so prevalent.
There are two sides to this coin though. Yes the increasing comfort with remote meetings will allow some previously in person meetings to be done remotely.
But on the other side, I've seen a lot of jobs being now hired on a geographically dispersed basis. For example, I was talking to a director in Denver who was just hired to lead a team in Atlanta. Everyone is remote now so it doesn't matter, and the plan is that when things get back to normal he will continue living in Denver, and leading the team remotely, only coming to Atlanta once a month or so to meet with the team in person.
I'm actually interviewing for a position in Washington state that would have a similar arrangement--my theoretical future boss says that I'd just come to Washington for a few weeks to onboard, then after that we'd meet in person about once a month--alternating with me coming to Washington and her coming to Atlanta.
I know someone in the US who's recently been hired and had something similar. The current plan is that he'll only actually travel down to HQ once a quarter.
I think business travel will fall because a bit like working in the office if there's a commute - it's not actually that popular with the people who do it and most companies have been forced to adapt. There'll still be some but I think it'll be a lot lower than it was.
I think salesmen will always fly.
THis is definitely something we are thinking about, and me in particular. The company I work for is in Minneapolis. Pre-covid, with my role, I was planning on travelling to Minneapolis once a month for about 10 days each time.
Now? Maybe once a quarter once things return to normal.
Quote from: Tamas on March 31, 2021, 08:02:47 AM
Is it true that air travel amounts for 4% of global emissions?
2.4% globally, 3.8% in the EU according to the latest data available from before the pandemic. It's the 2nd largest source from transportation after road vehicles, and is one of the fastest growing ones (4-5% annually since 2010), reaching 1 billion CO2 tonnes in 2018 globally. If it was a single country it'd be in the Top 10 of worst offenders, between Japan and Germany.
QuoteIn other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?
It is not, but feel free to keep your prejudices showing and not reading what is posted.
Quote from: The Larch on March 31, 2021, 09:58:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 31, 2021, 08:02:47 AM
In other words, is it fair to say, that all of this matters little to nothing outside the context of ensuring air travel is de-crowded for the benefit of the upper middle class and above?
It is not, but feel free to keep your prejudices showing and not reading what is posted.
He raises a good point.
So often when it comes to climate change, the focus seems to be on things that don't really matter all that much.
Lets look at some numbers from the US EPA. These are global estimates.
Transportation is 28% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Air transport is 9% of that. So that means that air transport contributes about 2.5% of total global greenhouse emissions.
If FF account for 50% of all passenger flights, then that means 1.2% of all global emissions. Actually, it is less than that, since that 9% of air transport also includes freight, which is not broken out separately. Lets leave that aside for now, but note that means that 1.2& is the upper bound.
Lets say we could cut that in half with a targetted tax. That won't reduce that from 1.2% to half that, since cutting the number of passengers in half of a particular type will not cut the number of flights in half, since the airlines still have to service the routes. So AT BEST, we could trim something like less than one half of one percent of global emissions by going after those bastards who are flying around all the time.
That seems like something that is maybe worth looking at, but focusing on it seems to be missing the larger picture, badly. In fact, it strikes me as the kind of thing where we are targetting a group we can all feel good about sticking it to, rather then actually thinking about what is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50% range we need to be looking at.
Also note that greenhouse gas emissions for air travel has stayed largely flat, at least compared to other sectors.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions (https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions)
Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!
What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.
Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 10:14:37 AM
Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!
What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.
Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....
I think the simple plausible explanation is usually the correct one. I think many people, even the ones who should know better, are prone to making decisions that make them feel good about solving a problem, rather than trying to pragmatically understand whether they are effectively solving a problem. I personally also don't view this shortcoming very charitably; it's another manifestation of people's selfishness sabotaging societal good. In this case people are prioritizing their feel-good as opposed to their material gain at the expense of society, but the mindset is the same.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 10:12:02 AMHe raises a good point.
Can't give a detailed answer now as I must go offline for a while, but I'll come back to this later today. Let's say that while I agree with part of your reasoning, I disagree with the conclusion you draw.
Quote from: BerkutThat seems like something that is maybe worth looking at, but focusing on it seems to be missing the larger picture, badly. In fact, it strikes me as the kind of thing where we are targetting a group we can all feel good about sticking it to, rather then actually thinking about what is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 50% range we need to be looking at.
The opening article of the thread only presents frequent flying as something worth looking at. It does not suggest focussing on it and makes no claim that this the biggest issue to solve regarding greenhouse gases.
When looking at flights as something to address, frequent flyers seem to be the obvious target. We don't want to take away the annual vacation flight from normal people after all. I don't think it is "sticking it to a group", but rather the most democratic approach. Make sure that all can still fly occasionally by limiting the heaviest users.
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2021, 11:45:39 AM
When looking at flights as something to address, frequent flyers seem to be the obvious target. We don't want to take away the annual vacation flight from normal people after all. I don't think it is "sticking it to a group", but rather the most democratic approach. Make sure that all can still fly occasionally by limiting the heaviest users.
We aren't "taking away" the annual vacation. We're making the cost reflect the harm caused.
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2021, 11:45:39 AM
Make sure that all can still fly occasionally
So if we don't tax the heaviest users, the alternative is to ban all air travel?
Quote
by limiting the heaviest users.
I thought the goal was to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.
We all agree on the goal, namely reducing greenhouse gases and that less flights can contribute a bit towards that, even if it is overall just a small percentage of all emissions.
We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.
The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2021, 12:05:16 PM
We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.
The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.
What is legitimate about the second approach? Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?
The logic of progressivity seems to be based on the premise that 1 vacation a year is a necessity, whereas traveling a quillion miles a year is a luxury.
The problem is that if you start carving out "necessities" you end up taxing a much smaller base. Is a daily 30 minute commute each way a necessity? Is heating and cooling a median sized detached single family home a necessity?
The second is that business travel is not a luxury. I would be miserable traveling that much. I think you said the same Zanza.
a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not? i see it doing so in two ways; one, lower income earners (which i'm using synonymously with less frequent flyers, which may be wrong) are flying for vacation or leisure time, so taxing them at an equal rate isn't equivalent to taxing a business traveler since a business travel isn't going for vacation or leisure. secondly if in a flat tax a lower income person would pay that tax personally, while a business travelers cost is covered by work. if you want to use taxes to limit travel a higher rate for a business traveler would make sense because companies have a higher threshold for costs incurred.
Quote from: HVC on March 31, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?
Well no, it should affect them flatly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2021, 12:36:46 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 31, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?
Well no, it should affect them flatly.
He means: it would cost them a higher % share of their income than a rich person.
This is getting into the problem of how do you distribute the costs of carbon and energy transition which is going to be very difficult and very contentious. Flying is arguably more straightforward compared to, for example, home energy standards or cars or food.
We're all sensitive here - but I suspect this will end up being the next zero-sum area that sees big populist campaigns.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
What is legitimate about the second approach? Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?
No, but we as society can legitimately decide to distribute the economic burden unequally if we consider that more fair. Same concept as progressive income taxes or tax breaks for certain behaviours we want to support, e.g. saving for retirement versus immediate consumption. Our tax laws make such distinctions all the time. Why not here for emissions as well?
Quote from: HVC on March 31, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not? i see it doing so in two ways; one, lower income earners (which i'm using synonymously with less frequent flyers, which may be wrong) are flying for vacation or leisure time, so taxing them at an equal rate isn't equivalent to taxing a business traveler since a business travel isn't going for vacation or leisure. secondly if in a flat tax a lower income person would pay that tax personally, while a business travelers cost is covered by work. if you want to use taxes to limit travel a higher rate for a business traveler would make sense because companies have a higher threshold for costs incurred.
These are in fact good points.
My only issue would be with the practical reality of how to charge frequent fliers more. That sounds like a pain in the ass to track.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2021, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2021, 12:05:16 PM
We also seem to all agree on pricing the external effects flying causes by taxing this external effect. Classical liberal economic approach I guess.
The only question open seems to be whether it should be a flat price, i.e per air mile regardless of how many air miles you have per year, or progressive, i.e. growing prices for more air miles, in order to make frequent flyers pay more than occasional flyers. Both seem to be legitimate approaches.
What is legitimate about the second approach? Does our planet decide to warm up more from one ton of CO2 emitted due to a business traveler as opposed to one ton of CO2 emitted due to someone flying in for Christmas?
If we are going that route, we are fucked.
The reality is that we do in fact have to look at a ton of CO2 differently, based on who is emitting it and why.
This is the argument that the wealthy countries, or rather elements within the wealthy countries, use to justify bailing on any accord. "Why should the US have to agree to limits when Bangladesh does not!!!!!"
Taxation here is like all taxation where the goal is to modify behavior. Getting caught up on the "fairness" of it is a pointless endeavor. Fairness is not the goal - reducing emissions is the goal, and the fairest way will often, if not always, be a non-started for a variety of reasons.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2021, 12:40:08 PM
Flying is arguably more straightforward compared to, for example, home energy standards or cars or food.
I get the impression that at least for cars a lot of countries have tax breaks or other privileges for electric cars over combustion engine cars already. For home energy standards in Germany you certainly get tax breaks or even direct subsidies on e.g. modernizing houses with new energy standards etc. I would guess that exists elsewhere in some form as well.
Food is tricky. Very emotional subject. A carbon adjustment for food would be a very delicate political project. Reducing choices there for consumers by pricing in externality sounds like a sure way to lose elections.
Quote from: Zanza on March 31, 2021, 12:58:04 PM
I get the impression that at least for cars a lot of countries have tax breaks or other privileges for electric cars over combustion engine cars already. For home energy standards in Germany you certainly get tax breaks or even direct subsidies on e.g. modernizing houses with new e eggy standards etc. I sould guess that exists elsewhere in some form as well.
I think cars can get a bit emotional too. In the UK certainly there is still a bias to motorists in infrastructure and despite broad public support new, say, cycling infrastructure on the road tends to be very controversial. Or, rather, subject to a very organised campaign of middle-aged men - Jeremy Clarkson-ish types.
On housing I think it's just going to be cost of renovating old housing stock and the UK is particularly bad at this. But there's lots of energy efficiency improvements that could be made and I think it'll be contentious getting the balance right on landlords, councils, government, individuals paying for it. In the UK basically the tenant doesn't pay for anything structural, but it's not likely to lead to an increase in rent so landlords are very reluctant to invest even if there are subsidies on it.
QuoteFood is tricky. Very emotional subject. A carbon adjustment for food would be a very delicate political project. Reducing choices there for consumers by pricing in externality sounds like a sure way to lose elections.
Yeah. I think it's important and it's a large part of carbon emissions, but it is going to be difficult - lab grown products/alternatives are really great now and getting better. But that's not enough on its own.
And obviously all of this is probably easier for countries like the UK or Germany which do not rely hugely on heavy industry or raw material extraction for their economy/jobs. The distribution and politics in, say, Australia or China are going to be very different and far more challenging.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 12:55:23 PM
If we are going that route, we are fucked.
The reality is that we do in fact have to look at a ton of CO2 differently, based on who is emitting it and why.
This is the argument that the wealthy countries, or rather elements within the wealthy countries, use to justify bailing on any accord. "Why should the US have to agree to limits when Bangladesh does not!!!!!"
Taxation here is like all taxation where the goal is to modify behavior. Getting caught up on the "fairness" of it is a pointless endeavor. Fairness is not the goal - reducing emissions is the goal, and the fairest way will often, if not always, be a non-started for a variety of reasons.
It has nothing to do with fairness, but rather with pragmatic considerations. I think taxing externalities is a good thing, but I think the focus of externalities taxes should be on maximizing their effectiveness towards achieving that goal. I find it hard to see how anything other than a flat tax on carbon is going to maximize the effectiveness of reduction of carbon emissions, the nature doesn't care where one ton of carbon dioxide is coming from. You can always redistribute the taxes collected from carbon taxes as a negative head tax, if you want to address the income inequality issue. Introducing progressive taxation into everything strikes me as a rabbit hole, because not only are you going to sabotage the effectiveness of taxes on externalities, but you're also going to make everything unnecessarily complicated as fuck.
Quote from: Berkut on March 31, 2021, 10:14:37 AM
Another example of this is focusing on stupid shit like straws. We have to switch to biodegradable straw to save the oceans!
What percentage of plastic in the ocean comes from fucking straws????? How about we talk about the real problems, instead of the stupid shit that makes people feel like they are doing something, even when they are not.
Sometimes I wonder if half of these "campaigns" are funded by the companies that are the real problem, as a way to distract. But that way goes madness....
The "Straws" thing arose from asking what small and easy to do things could be done that would have minimal detrimental effect on our lives, but have significantly larger environmental impact. It isn't meant to solve anything on its own, rather be an example of changes that can be made to reduce waste while maintaining standard of living.
Of course people went overboard on it and treated it like a crusade, but the idea itself is reasonable even if some people lose sight of the point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2021, 12:36:46 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 31, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
a flat tax would disproportionately effect lower income earners, would it not?
Well no, it should affect them flatly.
Just to be clear, I believe we're not talking the Steve Forbes flat tax...but a "flat" cost per/mile (i.e., 1$ tax per mile). That would affect lower incomes harder.
Slight bump to point out a new development wihch might be one of the things to do in the near future to adress this issue:
QuoteFrance to ban some domestic flights where train available
MPs vote to suspend internal flights if the trip can be completed by train within two and a half hours instead
French MPs have voted to suspend domestic airline flights that can be made by direct train in less than two and a half hours, as part of a series of climate and environmental measures.
After a heated debate in the Assemblée Nationale at the weekend, the ban, a watered-down version of a key recommendation from President Emmanuel Macron's citizens' climate convention, was adopted.
It will mean the end of short internal flights from Orly airport, south of Paris, to Nantes and Bordeaux among others, though connecting flights through Charles de Gaulle/Roissy airport, north of the French capital, will continue.
The climate commission set up by Macron had originally recommended the scrapping of all flights between French destinations where an alternative direct train journey of less than four hours existed.
This was reduced to two and a half hours after strong objections from certain regions and from Air France-KLM, which, like other airlines, has been badly hit by local and international Covid-19 restrictions on travel.
A year ago, the French government agreed a €7bn loan for AF-KLM on the condition that certain internal flights were dropped, but the decree will also stop low-cost airlines from operating the banned domestic routes.
The chief executive of Air France-KLM, Benjamin Smith, has said the airline is committed to reducing the number of its French domestic routes by 40% by the end of this year.
The transport minister, Jean-Baptiste Djebbari, told MPs: "We have chosen two and a half hours because four hours risks isolating landlocked territories including the greater Massif Central, which would be iniquitous."
The measure, part of a climate and resilience bill, was passed despite cross-party opposition. The Socialist MP Joël Aviragnet said the measure would have a "disproportionate human cost" and warned of job losses in the airline sector. Other MPs, including from the Green party, complained that watering down the climate convention's recommendation had made the measure meaningless.
Mathilde Panot, of the hard left La France Insoumise, said the measure had been "emptied", while her colleague Danièle Obono said retaining the four-hour threshold would have made it possible to halt routes that "emit the most greenhouse gases".
The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir had called on MPs to retain the four-hour recommendation and give the new law "some substance ... while also putting in place safeguards that [French national rail] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices or degrade the quality of rail service.
"The Covid-19 pandemic is exacerbating pre-existing environmental and social crises. It must lead us to rethink our health policies in order to face the challenge of future health crises of infectious origin."
It added that banning domestic flights if a direct train alternative of fewer than four hours existed it would have a "real impact" on reducing CO2 emissions and would not adversely affect travel times or prices.
"On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes," it said. "Our study shows that ... the government's choice actually aims to empty the measure of its substance."
Details of the exact routes that will be halted will be published in the official decree. Flights from Paris to Nice, which takes about six hours by train, and Toulouse, four hours by train, will continue.
France's new law will be watched closely by other countries. Austria's coalition conservative-green government introduced a €30 tax on airline tickets for flights of less than 217 miles (350km) last June and a ban on domestic flights that could be travelled in less than three hours by train.
Meanwhile, the Netherlands has been trying since June 2013 to ban short domestic flights. In 2019, Dutch MPs voted to ban flights between Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and Zaventem airport in Brussels, a distance of 93 miles. However, the ban was seen as breaking European commission free-movement regulations and was not implemented.
This might be a particular French case, as they have a well developed high speed train network already, maybe Germany could pull something like this as well. In Spain since high speed trains have been available some domestic routes which used to be jam packed have gone down considerably, so this could be the next step for those particular ones for which a solid alternative exists. I did not know about measures already implemented by Austria, or the intended Dutch ones, so it's good to see that there's movement already.
I've also seen today that big environmental NGOs are starting a campaign requesting private companies to reduce business trips once Covid restrictions are lifted, which also goes in the same direction.
The bill has been changed to 4h to 2h30. It remains unclear whether connections from smaller airports to Paris will be included.
Otherwise, yes, it does not make much sense to waste one hour to get to Orly or Roissy CDG to go to Bordeaux, Lyon or Nantes (2 hours by train).
However, the busiest domestic air line, Paris-Toulouse, is unaffected since by train it still takes 4 hours and a half (fasted) by going through Bordeaux. It's still much of an improvement compared to the 6 or 7 hours trip through the old line by the day train.
Domestic air lines have been closed previously following the opening of new high-speed lines. Some of the former were subsidized as well, not to mention the lack of any tax on kerosene, unlike diesel or gasoline.
It won't change anything for football players taking private flights for very short trips but that is beyond the scope of this bill.
PS: added some details
That is some damn fine climate posturing right there! SEE WE ARE ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE!
Excuse me while I go snack on some dolphin safe tuna.
Quote...while also putting in place safeguards that [French national rail] SNCF will not seize the opportunity to artificially inflate its prices...
If the competition has been made illegal a price hike wouldn't strike me as artificial.
Another very interesting climate policy from France - trade in your car for a €2,500 subsidy to buy an electronic bike. They're taking the view, which I strongly agree with, that "For the first time, it's recognized that the solution is not to make cars greener, but simply to reduce their number."
As Duncan Robinson (Charlemagne in the Economist) put it France is the least decadent country in Europe - they're still trying to do things. Sometimes very good (climate, EU reform etc), sometimes very bad (numerous mini-conflicts in the Sahel) - but at least they want to do something.
That is exactly how I feel about recycling plastic. It is total bullshit.
If we managed to recycle as much as it is possible to recycle, it would be like 25% of all plastic produced.
In 2014 the world produced 367 million tons of plastic. Of all plastic disposed of, 18% was recycled. So 66 million tons.
In 2015 the world produced 381 million tons of plastic. Assuming we recyle that same 18%, that is 68 million tons.
Produced another 14 million tons for the year, and recycled 2 more tons. The amount produced continues to go up at that same rate, year after year.
"Recycling" is a way that industry can continue to produce more and more shit that is destroying the environment, while pretending like something is being done.
"Recycling" is not even close to a solution. We have to figure out a way to stop making so damn much of it.
And that doesn't even begin to understand the recycling itself is actually of questionable utility anyway. It is nearly impossible to do well, and the cost is very high, and its debateable how much of a carbon footprint is even reduced by it.