4 ms·

> What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home should only be for the rich or very rich. If we reduce the number of people doing a thing, then

> What you're essentially saying is, vacationing far from home should only be for the rich or very rich. If we reduce the number of people doing a thing, then by definition, the rich will be the last ones left doing it, because that's what makes them rich, yes. > If you have fewer than 3 people in your car however, flying puts out less carbon. As far as I can tell this isn't the case. It probably depends on whether you're talking about massive American cars or a 100g/CO2 car that's more common in Europe though. But yeah, people won't make those journeys. It really took off recently (oho) and should just go away again. We don't need Ryanair flights around Europe for student budgets.

Aloha 7y ago
Europe is a very different world than the United States, the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus) - a change like this would essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class. I'll point out, we don't have as many short range flights as Europe does, and no equivalent to Ryan Air here.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Average trip distance in the US is not that much longer than in Europe. It certainly doesn't justify driving a truck instead of a smaller car.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  You can go on vacation in your state too ;-)
  - vinay427 7y ago
    In my experience, a lot more Americans who can afford to travel know more people in other regions of the country that they would like to meet than people in most any European country know people in other regions of the continent. It isn't just about choosing to take a pleasure vacation or not, but seeing close family and friends that often aren't in the same state.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Not as useful when a primary point of the vacation is to get out of a snowbound winterscape and onto a warm beach. Or to visit family who lives in another state.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Can you quantify "essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class"? If flying cost twice as much, then people would, at the limit, be able to fly half as often as they do now. If they valued their vacation more than other stuff they could just do it anyway, assuming we're talking about the same "middle class" (e.g. not the poor that spend to their max). But yeah, the whole point is to reduce luxury travel. Jetset vacations are a luxury. We might be able to make them cheap and clean in the future, right now offsetting has a real cost.
- irq11 7y ago
  ”the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus)“ The current shinkansen reaches 200mph, with in-development versions going faster. Distance from NYC to LA is 2790 miles (by highway; the straight-line distance is shorter). That’s a bit under 14 hours at 200mph. That’s pretty much the worst case; most people aren’t flying cross-country on a regular basis, and regional flights (e.g. Columbus to Chicago) are a big business. Obviously real trains would be slower than peak shinkansen speeds, but like most train opponents, you are severely exaggerating your argument.

Aloha 7y ago

Europe is a very different world than the United States, the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus) - a change like this would essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class. I'll point out, we don't have as many short range flights as Europe does, and no equivalent to Ryan Air here.

adrianN 7y ago
Average trip distance in the US is not that much longer than in Europe. It certainly doesn't justify driving a truck instead of a smaller car.
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
You can go on vacation in your state too ;-)
- vinay427 7y ago
  In my experience, a lot more Americans who can afford to travel know more people in other regions of the country that they would like to meet than people in most any European country know people in other regions of the continent. It isn't just about choosing to take a pleasure vacation or not, but seeing close family and friends that often aren't in the same state.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Not as useful when a primary point of the vacation is to get out of a snowbound winterscape and onto a warm beach. Or to visit family who lives in another state.
esotericn 7y ago
Can you quantify "essentially put vacations out of reach of the middle class"? If flying cost twice as much, then people would, at the limit, be able to fly half as often as they do now. If they valued their vacation more than other stuff they could just do it anyway, assuming we're talking about the same "middle class" (e.g. not the poor that spend to their max). But yeah, the whole point is to reduce luxury travel. Jetset vacations are a luxury. We might be able to make them cheap and clean in the future, right now offsetting has a real cost.
irq11 7y ago
”the US is a county in which long distance rail is decidedly non-viable, nor does anyone have enough time to take 3 days to travel 1500 miles (which is how long it takes driving or by train - and even longer by bus)“ The current shinkansen reaches 200mph, with in-development versions going faster. Distance from NYC to LA is 2790 miles (by highway; the straight-line distance is shorter). That’s a bit under 14 hours at 200mph. That’s pretty much the worst case; most people aren’t flying cross-country on a regular basis, and regional flights (e.g. Columbus to Chicago) are a big business. Obviously real trains would be slower than peak shinkansen speeds, but like most train opponents, you are severely exaggerating your argument.