5 ms·
A one-person switch doesn't cancel a flight, or change the world, just as a one-person boycott doesn't get Nestle to change a recipe. Yet trains are far less e
by NeedMoreTea 7y ago
A one-person switch doesn't cancel a flight, or change the world, just as a one-person boycott doesn't get Nestle to change a recipe.
Yet trains are far less emitting than aircraft, so the more people that join the sooner flights will be cancelled or routes dropped as unprofitable. Increasing carbon taxes are inevitable, so that will further speed any changes.
- superqwert 7y agoWhat evidence are you citing here?
- lawlessone 7y agowhen less people pay for things it becomes less profitable.
- superqwert 7y agoYes, but the evidence is required for this claim: "Yet trains are far less emitting than aircraft"
- NeedMoreTea 7y agohttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/specific-co2-emissions-per-passenger-3#tab-chart_1 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/specific-co2-e... Rail: 28 kg/passenger km Air: 144 kg/passenger km 2014 figures.
- mikojan 7y agoIs anybody denying that? I found a study by Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath suggesting that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation. However, even than rail generally appears to be less damaging than air by far. What are your sources?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoEvery kg less that's carried means less fuel burnt. Sure each one person reduces the fuel usage by only a small amount. But, you can't have less air travel without people stopping flying. It's going to happen incrementally.