4 ms·

Germany’s Ultra-Cheap Train Ticket Saved 1.8M Tons of CO2

coffeebeanHH 4y ago
Doesn't matter for a big chunk of society here. They only see that it came with costs and keep forgetting that all the dirty car travel received a ton of money and attention while public transport was kept behind dirty socks in the basement. Seems unlikely that we'll follow that path in the near future. I mean it is something society would benefit from...
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  > I mean it is something society would benefit from... Car drivers would also benefit from the quieter roads. Perhaps if a US scheme was called the "USA Open Road Plan" it would get traction?
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  It was also a time of record petrol prices, I believe, so people may have looked at ways to cut spending. Anyway, my take is that it is not realistic or sustainable to have the State subsidise people's daily activities and this scheme was 'generous' to the point of being a PR stunt (the aim being to show how the government was helping with the cost of living). CO2 emissions should be cut systemically and sustainably.
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
https://archive.ph/cNVTC https://archive.ph/cNVTC
mamonster 4y ago
The big question here is by how much the use accelerated the depreciation of the public transport infrastructure in comparison tothe CO2 save, which unfortunately the article does not even attempt to answer.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Insignificant. The trains were full but there weren't many extra trains — I can't remember hearing of any at all, in fact. Trains are generally depreciated by time and by number of km driven, not by now full they are. And extra energy use is very close to zero for mostly-level railways (steel wheels on level steel tracks have that advantage). Train seats are worn out by passengers, of course, but that's a very small part of a train.
  - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
    I guess the real question is could the €2.5 Billion have been better used to reduce CO2 and the impact of more expensive fuel bills on the public.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      Indeed. And related, can a cheaper similar scheme be designed with much the same effect? I have the impression that a lot of people are studying the effects of the scheme and trying to find answers to both.
    - mamonster 4y ago
      Did it cost 2.5 billion? I haven't looked at carbon capture in ages, but last figures I saw for direct from air capture were about 200 USD a tonne. I know people dislike carbon capture but here it looks like a 2x at least
      - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
        This Guardian article said it would cost €2.5 billion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public... But it should be said the aim wasn't to reduce carbon - it was to reduce use of fuel and ease the cost of living due to rising fuel costs.
        4y ago

Doesn't matter for a big chunk of society here. They only see that it came with costs and keep forgetting that all the dirty car travel received a ton of money and attention while public transport was kept behind dirty socks in the basement. Seems unlikely that we'll follow that path in the near future. I mean it is something society would benefit from...

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> I mean it is something society would benefit from... Car drivers would also benefit from the quieter roads. Perhaps if a US scheme was called the "USA Open Road Plan" it would get traction?
mytailorisrich 4y ago
It was also a time of record petrol prices, I believe, so people may have looked at ways to cut spending. Anyway, my take is that it is not realistic or sustainable to have the State subsidise people's daily activities and this scheme was 'generous' to the point of being a PR stunt (the aim being to show how the government was helping with the cost of living). CO2 emissions should be cut systemically and sustainably.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

https://archive.ph/cNVTC https://archive.ph/cNVTC

mamonster 4y ago

The big question here is by how much the use accelerated the depreciation of the public transport infrastructure in comparison tothe CO2 save, which unfortunately the article does not even attempt to answer.

Arnt 4y ago
Insignificant. The trains were full but there weren't many extra trains — I can't remember hearing of any at all, in fact. Trains are generally depreciated by time and by number of km driven, not by now full they are. And extra energy use is very close to zero for mostly-level railways (steel wheels on level steel tracks have that advantage). Train seats are worn out by passengers, of course, but that's a very small part of a train.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  I guess the real question is could the €2.5 Billion have been better used to reduce CO2 and the impact of more expensive fuel bills on the public.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Indeed. And related, can a cheaper similar scheme be designed with much the same effect? I have the impression that a lot of people are studying the effects of the scheme and trying to find answers to both.
  - mamonster 4y ago
    Did it cost 2.5 billion? I haven't looked at carbon capture in ages, but last figures I saw for direct from air capture were about 200 USD a tonne. I know people dislike carbon capture but here it looks like a 2x at least
    - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
      This Guardian article said it would cost €2.5 billion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public... But it should be said the aim wasn't to reduce carbon - it was to reduce use of fuel and ease the cost of living due to rising fuel costs.
      - 4y ago