5 ms·
Suffice to say I think this would only work in places like Europe where everything is relatively densely connected by rail. For me personally I live in North Am
by amilios 3y ago
Suffice to say I think this would only work in places like Europe where everything is relatively densely connected by rail. For me personally I live in North American and I visit my family in Europe once a year. Cutting me off from them would suck and effectively force me back to Europe :) this seems like it's coming from a place of "privilege" per se of everything being nearby.
- brianwawok 3y agoIsn't that how all of these style regulations go? People think up some stuff that doesn't really impact their life and propose it.
- hinkley 3y agoWho needs to maintain diplomatic relationships with North America anyway?
- eptcyka 3y agoDon’t you feel it’s a privilege to be able to live all across the world? Most people in Europe can’t easily move out of Europe if they want to maintain a standard of living.
- oceanplexian 3y agoI thought Europeans believed freedom of movement was a human right? Actually scratch that, it's a human right but not if a virus exists, you have the wrong politics, or movement requires the emission of CO2.
- tarnith 3y agoHey, This doesn't ban ships. Just saying. Not saying I agree or disagree, but you're acting like limiting air travel would stop travel.
- bobthepanda 3y agoFossil fuel powered ships are worse, because the carbon emissions of running a hotel at sea are high and ships use very low grade fuel with all sorts of nasty byproducts. And electric or renewable long distance ships run into the exact same problems as electric or renewable planes, namely the poor energy density.
- eptcyka 3y agoTransatlantic cruises don’t have to be luxurious. If you’re comparing air freight to shipping by sea, it’s very clear ships are far more efficient. We just need to become better at containerising people :)
- andai 3y agoYou vill live in ze pod!
- bobthepanda 3y agoI mean at minimum you need to run an actual kitchen to feed people for days or weeks at sea.
- eptcyka 3y ago
- catchnear4321 3y agoif you can contemplate how many flights you consider sufficient in a life, you have likely already solved (or had solved for you) far more significant problems. the privilege is more than proximity.
- dagurp 3y agoI don't know, the rail connections here in Iceland are quite poor.
- xwdv 3y agoYou can take a ship. An inconvenience but not impossible.
- bobthepanda 3y agoShips have worse carbon emissions per passenger mile. https://amp.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/ https://amp.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/ Partially this is because a ship needs to be outfitted as a hotel due to how long the journey is compared to planes.
- xwdv 3y agoDidn’t say it was better, just posed it as the alternative.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI mean the context is that this is a proposal to cap carbon emissions, and it's pretty much cutting off the nose to spite the face.
- xwdv 3y agoNo, this is a proposal to make people feel good. Most transportation emissions are from cars, not planes. It is fairly pointless to limit air travel if you actually want to achieve something. It doesn’t matter if you do something worse, like travel by boat. As long as people see less planes in the sky, they’re happy. And their happiness is all that matters for those who want to maintain the status quo.
- balfirevic 3y ago> Suffice to say I think this would only work in places like Europe where everything is relatively densely connected by rail. It's not even true. I don't think I can hop on a train for a quick trip to Paris from Romania, Bulgaria or Croatia.
- 14 3y ago[flagged]
- timeon 3y ago> For me personally I live in North American and I visit my family in Europe once a year. Talking about privilege.
- willsmith72 3y agoThis is to me like when people argue about banning airbnb. "The other day I had arrived in a city and there were no hostels, all the hotels were $300/night or full. If there were no airbnb, what would I have done?" And the answer is you would have changed your behaviour. Booking something further in advance, changing your travel plans, finding a different city to stay in. The whole point of this idea is reducing the number of flights. That probably also means it's harder for people like you (and me) to live anywhere we want. But that is a privilege we have, not a given. If the cost is too great, we change our behaviour. If airbnb has destroyed the rental market in a city, it's better for them to ban it and lose some travellers. Similar argument to the "any-benefit" approach to technology, which Cal Newport writes about with relation to digital minimalism. We think we're justified in using a tool if we can identify any possible benefit to its use.
- 14 3y agoYou have just entered the 15 minute city. Please remain where you are.