3 ms·

In contrast have a look at a snapshot of air travel the other day. https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1729195110888620057?s=20 https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/stat

In contrast have a look at a snapshot of air travel the other day. https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1729195110888620057?s=20 https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1729195110888620057?s=20 If we're looking for some low hanging fruit around how to possibly lower CO2 emissions, well folks here it is. The solutions to our climate problem have been staring us in the face since the 1900s.

kouru225 3y ago
If we just made train travel an economic and logistical alternative to air travel, it’d make such a difference.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gruez 3y ago
>If we're looking for some low hanging fruit around how to possibly lower CO2 emissions, well folks here it is. I'm not really sure how you can call it "low hanging fruit" when its overall contribution to global emissions is only 2%, and how hard it is to build HSR projects in the US. [1] https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation >In 2022 aviation accounted for 2% of global energy-related CO2 emissions
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  It's low hanging fruit in that everything involved is well understood with very seasoned technology and a deep amount of suppliers and engineering knowledge. As I said, we were doing this stuff in the 19th century, and have kept doing it (in some countries, just not NA). This sort of solution doesn't require any sort of technological breakthroughs, or technologies that do not exist. Trying to solve climate change based on working on new technologies that don't currently exist and may not ever exist seems harder to me, and yet remarkably we see people pointing to this approach instead of well understood solutions we already have. Accordingly I'd call implementing proven technology relatively easy. One could get started on it tomorrow.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >It's low hanging fruit in that everything involved is well understood with very seasoned technology and a deep amount of suppliers and engineering knowledge. >This sort of solution doesn't require any sort of technological breakthroughs, or technologies that do not exist. You can say the same for solar panels and/or batteries? After all, they exist right now and can be mass produced. Moreover the electricity grid actually accounts for a significant chunk of global emissions, unlike aviation. The only thing really stopping them is cost, but then that's basically the same issue that HSR has, which is cost/delays/political issues. >As I said, we were doing this stuff in the 19th century, and have kept doing it (in some countries, just not NA). "[trains] in the 19th century" aren't a serious competitor to airplanes in the same way that ocean liners aren't a serious competitor to airplanes.
tjohns 3y ago
I'm not actually sure what the solution you're proposing is? Even if you completely eliminated air travel (with no replacement - which is not realistic), you'd just reduce emissions by a mere 2%. Not a trivial number given the scale, but it's far from a "solution to our climate problem". (For comparison, the larger transportation sector including cars is is 16% of emissions. Cars alone are 12%.) [1] It also turns out to be a very hard problem to solve. We don't have the tech to build an electric airliner yet, and given how hard it's been just to get a single high-speed rail line from SF to LA I'm not betting trains are going to be in a place to practically replace aviation in the US anytime in the next few decades. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  Pretty much just proposing giving people some options. Right now they have few. Right now in North America on an enormous amount of routes there's pretty much no real alternative to driving or flying and on many others where a train does exist it's so poor in quality that few use it. If rail was a real option then more people would use it, and that would be transferring people from a relatively much higher CO2 emission form of transport to a lower emission one. That's a win. Every where I look I see data that shows that the CO2 emissions per user are dramatically lower for train than air travel. Now clearly on some big routes flying is a must and train would be so incredibly lengthly that it would be a misery, but there's tons and tons of shorter routes where train would work really well, competing well against car/bus and air travel. If one wanted to get aggressive about it, once the infrastructure as in place, one could do what France has done and to ban short haul flights.

kouru225 3y ago

If we just made train travel an economic and logistical alternative to air travel, it’d make such a difference.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gruez 3y ago

>If we're looking for some low hanging fruit around how to possibly lower CO2 emissions, well folks here it is. I'm not really sure how you can call it "low hanging fruit" when its overall contribution to global emissions is only 2%, and how hard it is to build HSR projects in the US. [1] https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation >In 2022 aviation accounted for 2% of global energy-related CO2 emissions

Tiktaalik 3y ago
It's low hanging fruit in that everything involved is well understood with very seasoned technology and a deep amount of suppliers and engineering knowledge. As I said, we were doing this stuff in the 19th century, and have kept doing it (in some countries, just not NA). This sort of solution doesn't require any sort of technological breakthroughs, or technologies that do not exist. Trying to solve climate change based on working on new technologies that don't currently exist and may not ever exist seems harder to me, and yet remarkably we see people pointing to this approach instead of well understood solutions we already have. Accordingly I'd call implementing proven technology relatively easy. One could get started on it tomorrow.
- gruez 3y ago
  >It's low hanging fruit in that everything involved is well understood with very seasoned technology and a deep amount of suppliers and engineering knowledge. >This sort of solution doesn't require any sort of technological breakthroughs, or technologies that do not exist. You can say the same for solar panels and/or batteries? After all, they exist right now and can be mass produced. Moreover the electricity grid actually accounts for a significant chunk of global emissions, unlike aviation. The only thing really stopping them is cost, but then that's basically the same issue that HSR has, which is cost/delays/political issues. >As I said, we were doing this stuff in the 19th century, and have kept doing it (in some countries, just not NA). "[trains] in the 19th century" aren't a serious competitor to airplanes in the same way that ocean liners aren't a serious competitor to airplanes.

tjohns 3y ago

I'm not actually sure what the solution you're proposing is? Even if you completely eliminated air travel (with no replacement - which is not realistic), you'd just reduce emissions by a mere 2%. Not a trivial number given the scale, but it's far from a "solution to our climate problem". (For comparison, the larger transportation sector including cars is is 16% of emissions. Cars alone are 12%.) [1] It also turns out to be a very hard problem to solve. We don't have the tech to build an electric airliner yet, and given how hard it's been just to get a single high-speed rail line from SF to LA I'm not betting trains are going to be in a place to practically replace aviation in the US anytime in the next few decades. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

Tiktaalik 3y ago
Pretty much just proposing giving people some options. Right now they have few. Right now in North America on an enormous amount of routes there's pretty much no real alternative to driving or flying and on many others where a train does exist it's so poor in quality that few use it. If rail was a real option then more people would use it, and that would be transferring people from a relatively much higher CO2 emission form of transport to a lower emission one. That's a win. Every where I look I see data that shows that the CO2 emissions per user are dramatically lower for train than air travel. Now clearly on some big routes flying is a must and train would be so incredibly lengthly that it would be a misery, but there's tons and tons of shorter routes where train would work really well, competing well against car/bus and air travel. If one wanted to get aggressive about it, once the infrastructure as in place, one could do what France has done and to ban short haul flights.