5 ms·

In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak. If you cr

In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak. If you create additional mobility then everybody loses. People should have an incentive to do fewer car and plane trips - and maybe substitute some of them for train trips since they are the least damaging option. Which leaves a question of the long-term effect - will people who typically had not considered taking a train for, say, going on vacation will do so next year?

sandworm101 4y ago
By extendion, they need disincentives to make any trips, trains included. The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made. Tourism, long trips for no better reason than recreation, can never be made completely green.
- ben_w 4y ago
  "Never" is a long time.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  It can be made close enough by train travel. There are other factors to consider than just carbon emissions, the most carbon reducing action would simply be to wipe out humanity but we probably don’t want that.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made The most carbon-neutral consumer is 6 feet under. Or, better yet, processed into biogas. I don't think this is the kind of logic we should be engaging in
jkukul 4y ago
> In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak I don't think this measure is primarily meant to fight carbon emissions. I think the primary goal is to help people who were mostly affected by inflation, i.e. lower and middle class so people who take regular commuter trains.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
Was this a carbon thing in Germany? In Spain it seems to be more targeted to compensating people for the higher prices, not for environmental reasons. And as such I question the targeting at such a specific group.

sandworm101 4y ago

By extendion, they need disincentives to make any trips, trains included. The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made. Tourism, long trips for no better reason than recreation, can never be made completely green.

ben_w 4y ago
"Never" is a long time.
Swenrekcah 4y ago
It can be made close enough by train travel. There are other factors to consider than just carbon emissions, the most carbon reducing action would simply be to wipe out humanity but we probably don’t want that.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made The most carbon-neutral consumer is 6 feet under. Or, better yet, processed into biogas. I don't think this is the kind of logic we should be engaging in

jkukul 4y ago

> In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak I don't think this measure is primarily meant to fight carbon emissions. I think the primary goal is to help people who were mostly affected by inflation, i.e. lower and middle class so people who take regular commuter trains.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

Was this a carbon thing in Germany? In Spain it seems to be more targeted to compensating people for the higher prices, not for environmental reasons. And as such I question the targeting at such a specific group.