5 ms·

Ask HN: Solving climate change idea, and question, high speed train

13 points by antocv 7y ago

Im seeing many friends traveling by air and renting a car at their destination, and these air travels are usually 3-4h by air but take 6-8h door-to-door, about 2000km if done by road. By car it would take on average 24h of continous driving to go north to south in Europe. Ridiculous. Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most? Cars are limited to 150km/h and humans cant drive more than 3-4h anyway. Driving 9h continous would still only reach 1350km. High speed trains going average of 280km/H would do this in quality-time of 5h. How can we improve the quality of high-speed train travel in EU? Offer this "take your (electric) car with you" would kick any air-offer off the table. Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU?

milsebg 7y ago
The same reason why cell phone roaming in the EU was such a desaster before the regulation. It's too many different players (each country has one ore more railroad companies). Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks would by far be greater than for any other player just operate an airline. At the same time, the demand for climate friendly travel is not high enough, given that everyone acts selfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods). Politicians say that air traveling should not be cheaper than railroad traveling. However, I expect that they will come up with regulations which just makes flying as expensive as railroad traveling.
- antocv 7y ago
  All good points. Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats? Reading a bit more on this, seems EU had proposed already 1996 a common European signaling system as you say to integrate the various railroad companies diverse ssytems, and a bunch of other directives for a EU high speed rail. And yet in 2019, France still of course runs their own, Sweden their own with a ERTS type 2 on some lines, and many others not advancing at all since 1996. Different signalig/control systems, different electrification systems, and some small gauge differences in Ireland and Spain. > Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? Tax the air-lines and put the money in pan-european high-speed rail, from Lissabon to Tallin, Amsterdam to Athens.
  - milsebg 7y ago
    > Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats? They both are individual countries, so they don't face that problem. > How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? If you tax air-lines first, and then use the money to build an alternative, even in the most optimistic scenario, you'll end up in a situation where long-distance travels become substantially more expensive at least for a few years. Climate activists claim that long-distance travels are not a human right, but ironically, free movement is one of the core values of the EU. And making travels more expensive would exclude more people than today from exercising their right as a EU citizen. The only realistic option to make the switch from air to train a meaningful option for long-distance travels, would be to 'internalize' the environmental costs, i.e. a CO2 tax (or certificates). However, to calculate this in a fair manner, this would become so high, that you would face a tremendous economical recession. To me, it never made sense to spend so much resources (brain, time and money) to reduce emissions, because we cannot go to zero and we have already polluted the planet. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend all this money to "repair" the damage we've already done? Maybe solar panels with artificial photo synthesis? Or GMOs with a higher rate of carbon storage?
    - antocv 7y ago
      We must do both. We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. And use the taxation money to invest in scrubbing, cleaning and more efficient ways of travel such as high-speed trains. Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.
      - milsebg 7y ago
        > Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair. That's way too simple, imho. Things come with side effects, usually. Of course, we should not pollute more than necessary, but the fact that there /is/ pollution is just a side effect of having - a civilisation - an economy - better overall health (and, thus, more humans) - ... This all makes it possible to pay for welfare. In that sense, collecting taxes would be just externalizing the costs (of being dependent on welfare, thus being unproductive) to others. The question, if we should do both is not a question of what sounds more fair, more justified or whatever. If it would turn out that "repairing" is more cost-efficient than "preventing", then why bother with the least effective measure? > We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. Some emissions are simply unavoidable. E.g. producing meat produces methane. So, taxing it would certainly bring down the demand for high-emission products (because of their now higher price) but as long as these products still exists, you won't go to zero.
lm28469 7y ago
> Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most? We kind of do, it's just not very common. You can take the train from hamburg to vienna with your car for example, and I know there are a few other lines. You can also simply take the train and rent an electric car when you get to your destination, seems easier and more convenient to me. I don't think the future of "solving climate change" involves owning private cars, even electric, and carrying it around in trains, there is no way this would be scalable to the amount of people traveling by plane. > Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU? The real problem is that plane tickets are so subsidised than it's nearly impossible to make the other means of transportation competitive, and in the end that's all people care about, money. If you want to travel inside France or Germany (for example) you're good, but as soon as you cross borders and don't want to go your destination country's capital you're doomed. Taking the train from Berlin to a major TGV station next to my hometown takes 9 hours and cost 150 euros. By plane it takes 3 hours total and cost <35 euros. I'd take the train if it was half of its current price. The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...
- milsebg 7y ago
  > The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ... That's exactly what I talked about in other comments. To you, these 4 day trips are the most wasteful usage of resources. To others, it may be the over-consumption of fashion. To a single person, a weekend in Paris could mean the world, maybe because it saved their relationship and prevented a burn-out or.... If you extrapolate that argument (and if you don't, you'd need to explain where to stop why), you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world and yet would still have a huge environmental debt of the co2 we've already blown out. Not to mention 8 billion human beings which produce co2 and methane per their bare existence. Humans, in general, react to immediate rewards (which is why addictions are a thing at all). So it would be nearly impossible to build climate policy upon abdications without risking revolts. All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. The solution to car accidents was not less traffic, but better cars. The solution to food shortage was not caloric restrictions but better agricultural tech (also worldwide, humans are suffering less and less from hunger), the solution to IPv4 shortage was not restriction, but a better protocol. The solution to handicaps in humans was not euthanasia, but development of medical devices. All that aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Why should it be different for emissions?
hellwd 7y ago
Because in EU, to reach the consensus or any agreement on anything, between all countries and then to review that 1000 times through million of EU Commissions, takes decades :) They first have to love each other, to have common goals and then maybe something will happen. Right now most of the EU countries are there because of the cheap loans, donations, cheap work force and free exchange of resources. Once that flow is stopped, EU will be the past. EU is simply not operating as a one unit, it's not balanced union, that's why I think there has to be some mindset change in order to move the EU forward and to bring big projects to reality.

13 points by antocv 7y ago

milsebg 7y ago

The same reason why cell phone roaming in the EU was such a desaster before the regulation. It's too many different players (each country has one ore more railroad companies). Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks would by far be greater than for any other player just operate an airline. At the same time, the demand for climate friendly travel is not high enough, given that everyone acts selfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods). Politicians say that air traveling should not be cheaper than railroad traveling. However, I expect that they will come up with regulations which just makes flying as expensive as railroad traveling.

antocv 7y ago
All good points. Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats? Reading a bit more on this, seems EU had proposed already 1996 a common European signaling system as you say to integrate the various railroad companies diverse ssytems, and a bunch of other directives for a EU high speed rail. And yet in 2019, France still of course runs their own, Sweden their own with a ERTS type 2 on some lines, and many others not advancing at all since 1996. Different signalig/control systems, different electrification systems, and some small gauge differences in Ireland and Spain. > Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? Tax the air-lines and put the money in pan-european high-speed rail, from Lissabon to Tallin, Amsterdam to Athens.
- milsebg 7y ago
  > Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats? They both are individual countries, so they don't face that problem. > How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? If you tax air-lines first, and then use the money to build an alternative, even in the most optimistic scenario, you'll end up in a situation where long-distance travels become substantially more expensive at least for a few years. Climate activists claim that long-distance travels are not a human right, but ironically, free movement is one of the core values of the EU. And making travels more expensive would exclude more people than today from exercising their right as a EU citizen. The only realistic option to make the switch from air to train a meaningful option for long-distance travels, would be to 'internalize' the environmental costs, i.e. a CO2 tax (or certificates). However, to calculate this in a fair manner, this would become so high, that you would face a tremendous economical recession. To me, it never made sense to spend so much resources (brain, time and money) to reduce emissions, because we cannot go to zero and we have already polluted the planet. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend all this money to "repair" the damage we've already done? Maybe solar panels with artificial photo synthesis? Or GMOs with a higher rate of carbon storage?
  - antocv 7y ago
    We must do both. We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. And use the taxation money to invest in scrubbing, cleaning and more efficient ways of travel such as high-speed trains. Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.
    - milsebg 7y ago
      > Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair. That's way too simple, imho. Things come with side effects, usually. Of course, we should not pollute more than necessary, but the fact that there /is/ pollution is just a side effect of having - a civilisation - an economy - better overall health (and, thus, more humans) - ... This all makes it possible to pay for welfare. In that sense, collecting taxes would be just externalizing the costs (of being dependent on welfare, thus being unproductive) to others. The question, if we should do both is not a question of what sounds more fair, more justified or whatever. If it would turn out that "repairing" is more cost-efficient than "preventing", then why bother with the least effective measure? > We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. Some emissions are simply unavoidable. E.g. producing meat produces methane. So, taxing it would certainly bring down the demand for high-emission products (because of their now higher price) but as long as these products still exists, you won't go to zero.

lm28469 7y ago

> Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most? We kind of do, it's just not very common. You can take the train from hamburg to vienna with your car for example, and I know there are a few other lines. You can also simply take the train and rent an electric car when you get to your destination, seems easier and more convenient to me. I don't think the future of "solving climate change" involves owning private cars, even electric, and carrying it around in trains, there is no way this would be scalable to the amount of people traveling by plane. > Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU? The real problem is that plane tickets are so subsidised than it's nearly impossible to make the other means of transportation competitive, and in the end that's all people care about, money. If you want to travel inside France or Germany (for example) you're good, but as soon as you cross borders and don't want to go your destination country's capital you're doomed. Taking the train from Berlin to a major TGV station next to my hometown takes 9 hours and cost 150 euros. By plane it takes 3 hours total and cost <35 euros. I'd take the train if it was half of its current price. The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...

milsebg 7y ago
> The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ... That's exactly what I talked about in other comments. To you, these 4 day trips are the most wasteful usage of resources. To others, it may be the over-consumption of fashion. To a single person, a weekend in Paris could mean the world, maybe because it saved their relationship and prevented a burn-out or.... If you extrapolate that argument (and if you don't, you'd need to explain where to stop why), you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world and yet would still have a huge environmental debt of the co2 we've already blown out. Not to mention 8 billion human beings which produce co2 and methane per their bare existence. Humans, in general, react to immediate rewards (which is why addictions are a thing at all). So it would be nearly impossible to build climate policy upon abdications without risking revolts. All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. The solution to car accidents was not less traffic, but better cars. The solution to food shortage was not caloric restrictions but better agricultural tech (also worldwide, humans are suffering less and less from hunger), the solution to IPv4 shortage was not restriction, but a better protocol. The solution to handicaps in humans was not euthanasia, but development of medical devices. All that aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Why should it be different for emissions?

hellwd 7y ago

Because in EU, to reach the consensus or any agreement on anything, between all countries and then to review that 1000 times through million of EU Commissions, takes decades :) They first have to love each other, to have common goals and then maybe something will happen. Right now most of the EU countries are there because of the cheap loans, donations, cheap work force and free exchange of resources. Once that flow is stopped, EU will be the past. EU is simply not operating as a one unit, it's not balanced union, that's why I think there has to be some mindset change in order to move the EU forward and to bring big projects to reality.