4 ms·

Flying in Spain and many parts of Europe is insanely and artificially cheap. I've seen bus passes more expensive, and the bus passes were the price I expected.

kergonath 5y ago
Yes. This is not sustainable.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Why?
  - __d 5y ago
    The economics are quite involved, and can be easily skewed depending on what externalized costs you choose to include in your analysis. Superficially, flying has relatively lower infrastructure costs because it only needs the two endpoints (no road, no track, no bridges, no tunnels -- all expensive items). That impacts both the initial capital cost, and the ongoing investment in maintenance. Similarly, planes are fast: above a fairly short distance, it's much quicker to fly (by jet plane) than to travel by train or road vehicle. But airports are difficult to access, being unwelcome in the middle of cities, and so there's a need to get to the airport as part of your journey. That part of the trip likely requires road or rail transport, and it's the most capital-intensive bits of the road/rail (ie. through urban areas). The fuel cost of planes is also higher per passenger-distance. And beyond just simply purchasing the fuel, it's much easier (for instance) to electrify a train or car than a passenger plane. So how you account for the carbon cost will make a big difference to your result. For the last 20 years or so, short-trip flights have been superficially cheap. The most obvious missing cost is the impact of using fossil fuel (and potentially that's even worse at high altitude), but there are other factors like the (ab)use of precarious labour, government subsidies for both fuel and facilities, noise impact, etc. Whether it's ultimately sustainable or not all depends on what costs you choose to factor in.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Thanks, almost exactly what I would have written!
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      I was expecting you to take a stance - either trains or planes, but your response was even better and painted a comprehensive high level picture. Thanks for taking the time. I agree with all these points, perhaps though I would challenge us about carbon-emissions with the following: If we want to progress as a civilization, is the idea to regress in and save energy expenditure in the short term; and/or in the long term become a space-exploring civilization with no limits on consumption? We kind of have an unlimited source of energy (the Sun) and if we could, we can do a lot more. Once Fusion is solved, we will have the ability to sequestrate carbon to offset everything we do on earth. I hope to see a day where talks about being miserable to save energy is completely out of the equation. Electricity and all forms of energy would be too cheap to meter for an average human. It would be amazing to see humans build a large scale fusion reactors and Dyson spheres around the sun and never have to think about energy consumption :). At the same time, I think we all should be disappointed in our approach towards energy production. We shouldn't have to ration it. Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding.
      - shafyy 5y ago
        > Once Fusion is solved, we will have the ability to sequestrate carbon to offset everything we do on earth There are lot of IFs in your statement. Sure, it's theoretically possible to harvest so much energy that we can regard it as freely abundant without any real external costs. But this is not the case today, and probably won't be the case for hundreds of years - if ever. * > Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding. * There's no such thing as large scale carbon sequestrations. It's unclear if this is a sensible solution to climate change in general. It makes much more sense to switch to renewables as quickly as possible and to limit emissions as much as possible. THAT's what a successful government should be responsible for, not for investing in false promises.
      - kergonath 5y ago

kergonath 5y ago

Yes. This is not sustainable.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Why?
- __d 5y ago
  The economics are quite involved, and can be easily skewed depending on what externalized costs you choose to include in your analysis. Superficially, flying has relatively lower infrastructure costs because it only needs the two endpoints (no road, no track, no bridges, no tunnels -- all expensive items). That impacts both the initial capital cost, and the ongoing investment in maintenance. Similarly, planes are fast: above a fairly short distance, it's much quicker to fly (by jet plane) than to travel by train or road vehicle. But airports are difficult to access, being unwelcome in the middle of cities, and so there's a need to get to the airport as part of your journey. That part of the trip likely requires road or rail transport, and it's the most capital-intensive bits of the road/rail (ie. through urban areas). The fuel cost of planes is also higher per passenger-distance. And beyond just simply purchasing the fuel, it's much easier (for instance) to electrify a train or car than a passenger plane. So how you account for the carbon cost will make a big difference to your result. For the last 20 years or so, short-trip flights have been superficially cheap. The most obvious missing cost is the impact of using fossil fuel (and potentially that's even worse at high altitude), but there are other factors like the (ab)use of precarious labour, government subsidies for both fuel and facilities, noise impact, etc. Whether it's ultimately sustainable or not all depends on what costs you choose to factor in.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Thanks, almost exactly what I would have written!
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I was expecting you to take a stance - either trains or planes, but your response was even better and painted a comprehensive high level picture. Thanks for taking the time. I agree with all these points, perhaps though I would challenge us about carbon-emissions with the following: If we want to progress as a civilization, is the idea to regress in and save energy expenditure in the short term; and/or in the long term become a space-exploring civilization with no limits on consumption? We kind of have an unlimited source of energy (the Sun) and if we could, we can do a lot more. Once Fusion is solved, we will have the ability to sequestrate carbon to offset everything we do on earth. I hope to see a day where talks about being miserable to save energy is completely out of the equation. Electricity and all forms of energy would be too cheap to meter for an average human. It would be amazing to see humans build a large scale fusion reactors and Dyson spheres around the sun and never have to think about energy consumption :). At the same time, I think we all should be disappointed in our approach towards energy production. We shouldn't have to ration it. Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding.
    - shafyy 5y ago
      > Once Fusion is solved, we will have the ability to sequestrate carbon to offset everything we do on earth There are lot of IFs in your statement. Sure, it's theoretically possible to harvest so much energy that we can regard it as freely abundant without any real external costs. But this is not the case today, and probably won't be the case for hundreds of years - if ever. * > Successful governments should be responsible for running sequestrators on tax funding. * There's no such thing as large scale carbon sequestrations. It's unclear if this is a sensible solution to climate change in general. It makes much more sense to switch to renewables as quickly as possible and to limit emissions as much as possible. THAT's what a successful government should be responsible for, not for investing in false promises.
    - kergonath 5y ago