4 ms·

The solution seems quite obvious: a big tax on flights, reinvested in rail infrastructure. At some point we have to help the market find lower carbon solutions,

The solution seems quite obvious: a big tax on flights, reinvested in rail infrastructure. At some point we have to help the market find lower carbon solutions, what better way than replacing short haul flights with trains?

sokoloff 5y ago
If you want to tax net carbon emissions, I’m all ears and, unless you work very hard to come up with an intentionally terrible plan, I’m very supportive. If you instead want to tax specific conveniences to help inconvenient services survive despite their inconvenience and lack of improvement, well, let’s just say that I’m significantly less receptive.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Most of the major issues with Amtrak in the US come down to not actually having control over the track that's in use, and that's never going to be fixed without a real big money infusion.
- namdnay 5y ago
  I want to tax something that is very bad for the environment and fund something that is very good. The free market is great for many things, but not for core infrastructure. What’s missing in the US is a basic passenger rail infrastructure. Once you’ve built that, fine, let operators work in a free market environment
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If you’re still talking about the environment at the end of your first sentence, rail is not “very good”. At best it’s “less bad” for the environment; to that end, it seems like a broad carbon emission tax provides a better balance (and is easier to ramp up on a schedule needed to effect change) than a quilt work of individually targeted taxes against things you don’t value. Everyone emitting ancient carbon is a problem; tax it all.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      Rail is amazing for the environment. A Marseille to Paris on the TGV emits less than 2kg of CO2 per passenger. That’s 80 times less than a plane, and 20 times less than a car! And how is this CO2 miracle achieved? Public spending on core infrastructure, namely nuclear power plants and high speed rail We will need to tax CO2 to oblivion, but before we do so we need to make sure that people can still move around, that’s key to a healthy economy. Public transport is the only viable option for cheap mass low-CO2 transport
jazzyjackson 5y ago
surprisingly flying is not that much worse per passenger mile, really depends on occupancy. A full flight can be just as efficient as a half empty train. (EDIT: consider how many passenger miles you get from one flight from NYC to LA, vs running two 1000hp diesel engines for 4 days for a similar number of passengers) pollution is a different story, the new amtrak fleet is very clean burning, and doesn’t dump jet fuel into the ocean, so that’s a plus.
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  Where are your figures from? For electrified lines like the NEC emissions will depend a lot on the grid’s generation mix. For various routes from London the train emits 10-15% per passenger of an equivalent flight: https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    You're right, electrified lines are very good. The majority of Amtrak's routes are diesel. I don't keep notes on where I read what, but this BBC article is fairly thorough, and puts electric trains at 40 grams carbon per passenger mile, diesel trains at 90g, long haul flights at 102g, and short flights at 133g. It mentions that occupancy is a factor but doesn't say if those numbers assume full occupancy or are averaged out over actual ridership. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
    - laurencerowe 5y ago
      Routes but not passenger trips. The NEC has 260M passenger rail trips per year. Amtrak has 32M on its entire system 17M of which are on the electrified NEC. The diesel routes compete with cruise ships. They’re lovely but they’re not a transportation solution.
    - Symbiote 5y ago
      That's a typical BBC mess of statistics. "Some" diesel trains as as high as 90g, but you haven't quoted the "some" electric trains being as low as 6g.

sokoloff 5y ago

If you want to tax net carbon emissions, I’m all ears and, unless you work very hard to come up with an intentionally terrible plan, I’m very supportive. If you instead want to tax specific conveniences to help inconvenient services survive despite their inconvenience and lack of improvement, well, let’s just say that I’m significantly less receptive.

crooked-v 5y ago
Most of the major issues with Amtrak in the US come down to not actually having control over the track that's in use, and that's never going to be fixed without a real big money infusion.
namdnay 5y ago
I want to tax something that is very bad for the environment and fund something that is very good. The free market is great for many things, but not for core infrastructure. What’s missing in the US is a basic passenger rail infrastructure. Once you’ve built that, fine, let operators work in a free market environment
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If you’re still talking about the environment at the end of your first sentence, rail is not “very good”. At best it’s “less bad” for the environment; to that end, it seems like a broad carbon emission tax provides a better balance (and is easier to ramp up on a schedule needed to effect change) than a quilt work of individually targeted taxes against things you don’t value. Everyone emitting ancient carbon is a problem; tax it all.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    Rail is amazing for the environment. A Marseille to Paris on the TGV emits less than 2kg of CO2 per passenger. That’s 80 times less than a plane, and 20 times less than a car! And how is this CO2 miracle achieved? Public spending on core infrastructure, namely nuclear power plants and high speed rail We will need to tax CO2 to oblivion, but before we do so we need to make sure that people can still move around, that’s key to a healthy economy. Public transport is the only viable option for cheap mass low-CO2 transport

jazzyjackson 5y ago

surprisingly flying is not that much worse per passenger mile, really depends on occupancy. A full flight can be just as efficient as a half empty train. (EDIT: consider how many passenger miles you get from one flight from NYC to LA, vs running two 1000hp diesel engines for 4 days for a similar number of passengers) pollution is a different story, the new amtrak fleet is very clean burning, and doesn’t dump jet fuel into the ocean, so that’s a plus.

laurencerowe 5y ago
Where are your figures from? For electrified lines like the NEC emissions will depend a lot on the grid’s generation mix. For various routes from London the train emits 10-15% per passenger of an equivalent flight: https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm https://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  You're right, electrified lines are very good. The majority of Amtrak's routes are diesel. I don't keep notes on where I read what, but this BBC article is fairly thorough, and puts electric trains at 40 grams carbon per passenger mile, diesel trains at 90g, long haul flights at 102g, and short flights at 133g. It mentions that occupancy is a factor but doesn't say if those numbers assume full occupancy or are averaged out over actual ridership. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
  - laurencerowe 5y ago
    Routes but not passenger trips. The NEC has 260M passenger rail trips per year. Amtrak has 32M on its entire system 17M of which are on the electrified NEC. The diesel routes compete with cruise ships. They’re lovely but they’re not a transportation solution.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    That's a typical BBC mess of statistics. "Some" diesel trains as as high as 90g, but you haven't quoted the "some" electric trains being as low as 6g.