I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour flight, or around 40 hour long train journey that will cost at least £500 one way. I just don't have the money or the time to travel this way. I don't know what's the right answer here - I suspect it is "just don't travel then".
He paid 2 146$ to go from Hamburg to Vancouver in 3 weeks. It would be 1 000$ more if he want his train ride from Toronto to Vancouver to have a bed to sleep during the 4 days it would takes. For 600$ he could do the same in 15 hours and then spend 1 500$ in carbon offset (2 500$ if we consider the bed).
Is it me or his solution is so much worse in every aspect? With mine it's quick, "comfortable" and carbon negative.
This is a point most media conveniently forget. Recently there was one that explained a train from Amsterdam to Barcelona costs € 350, takes 2 days and generates 45kg CO2. A plane costs € 100 (or less), takes 2 hours, and generates 200kg CO2.
The option they forgot was a CO2 compensated flight, it costs € 110 (still 240 less than the train), takes only 2 hours and results in net 0kg CO2.
How do you compensate for the CO2 released? Do you contribute to some kind of CO2 removal project? Not being sarcastic or anything I just genuinely don't know how to compensate for CO2.
Yes, most airlines offer this option. There are two ways, one is buying the CO2 rights from someone else (that doesn't have a net positive effect on the world, don't do this if you really want to contribute something) the other is donating money to projects specifically to reduce CO2. Mostly that's tree planting projects, in areas that have had deforestation in the past.
There are a few organizations that audit these projects to guarantee they're actually planting trees and planting the right amount etc.
I agree with your main point! I want to state that upfront so that you don't think I'm arguing about the current situation, apart from addressing specifics.
You will have to add some time to flying scenario. You have to arrive early to the airport to go through security (2 hours?), you have to wait for your luggage after landing (30 minutes?), and since airports are usually located outside of the city center you have to add travel time to and from the airport (45 minutes in each direction?). In my example that's an extra 4 hours added to the 2 hours time flying.
It's still a lot less than going by train, but with train you get the convenience of being able to run onto the platform 2 minutes before departure, you end up in the city center, you pick up your luggage and leave, and you usually have more space which makes it easier to work on the train if needed.
Also, flying is extremely subsidized and tax-exempt. I just read articles (in Swedish, so I don't know if anyone wants links) claiming that air tickets should be between 50% and 95% more expensive if they had to carry their own costs, if there was a tax on airplane fuel, and so on. So the price for air tickets probably doesn't reflect their real costs, and obviously doesn't take the environmental effect into account.
But even adding the extra time and extra cost, it would still be faster and cheaper to fly than to take the train, which is unfortunate from an environmental perspective. I wish we had faster trains, and a lot more overnight trains so that you could start your travel in the evening and wake up in a new city. It wouldn't help with a 40 hour trip, because it would still be two nights with one full day on the train.
This might work for people who can work remotely on the train, but not for everyone. Start you journey on Thursday night, work Friday on the train, and arrive Saturday morning at the destination. Someone I know did this recently while traveling to a conference, and the company obviously paid for the tickets. This doesn't help when visiting family, but for work travel, train could be an option.
I have an airplane interested colleague and I asked him about environmental fuels. He said that aviation biofuel already exists, and it's just a question of adoption and scale. A carbon dioxide tax might push air companies towards biofuel, or you could have the option of green biofuel departures and let the customers decide if they think it's worth the extra cost. I'm sure my train-traveling conference goer would consider that option if it was available.
As I said, I agree with your main point that if you just look at price and travel time today, the less environmentally friendly option makes more sense. It would make more sense if the slower option was also much, much cheaper than flying, because that would encourage more people to use that option.
Comments
I mean....yes. Yes, your carbon footprint is smaller by travelling slower. But you need to be in an extremely priviledged position to be able to afford travelling this way, both financially and time-wise. Cross-atlantic is obviously quite extreme, but even within Europe a train is not really a viable alternative for a lot of people, when I go to visit my family the choice is either a ~£100 Ryanair ticket for a 2 hour flight, or around 40 hour long train journey that will cost at least £500 one way. I just don't have the money or the time to travel this way. I don't know what's the right answer here - I suspect it is "just don't travel then".
Right, imagine a world before flying existed.
People just don't go to far flung places every year. In the UK they would go to the seaside or other towns.
Having the choice to take a plane is an extremely privileged position - it's only really existed for poor people in the last 20 or 30 years.
In particular Ryanair flights to Europe for a tenner or whatever are a modern anomaly.
Ferries from the UK to Scandinavia for example have stopped running due to flights capturing the market.
He paid 2 146$ to go from Hamburg to Vancouver in 3 weeks. It would be 1 000$ more if he want his train ride from Toronto to Vancouver to have a bed to sleep during the 4 days it would takes. For 600$ he could do the same in 15 hours and then spend 1 500$ in carbon offset (2 500$ if we consider the bed).
Is it me or his solution is so much worse in every aspect? With mine it's quick, "comfortable" and carbon negative.
This is a point most media conveniently forget. Recently there was one that explained a train from Amsterdam to Barcelona costs € 350, takes 2 days and generates 45kg CO2. A plane costs € 100 (or less), takes 2 hours, and generates 200kg CO2.
The option they forgot was a CO2 compensated flight, it costs € 110 (still 240 less than the train), takes only 2 hours and results in net 0kg CO2.
How do you compensate for the CO2 released? Do you contribute to some kind of CO2 removal project? Not being sarcastic or anything I just genuinely don't know how to compensate for CO2.
Yes, most airlines offer this option. There are two ways, one is buying the CO2 rights from someone else (that doesn't have a net positive effect on the world, don't do this if you really want to contribute something) the other is donating money to projects specifically to reduce CO2. Mostly that's tree planting projects, in areas that have had deforestation in the past.
There are a few organizations that audit these projects to guarantee they're actually planting trees and planting the right amount etc.
When I pay to compensate my CO2 emission, it goes into tree planting project.
I agree with your main point! I want to state that upfront so that you don't think I'm arguing about the current situation, apart from addressing specifics.
You will have to add some time to flying scenario. You have to arrive early to the airport to go through security (2 hours?), you have to wait for your luggage after landing (30 minutes?), and since airports are usually located outside of the city center you have to add travel time to and from the airport (45 minutes in each direction?). In my example that's an extra 4 hours added to the 2 hours time flying.
It's still a lot less than going by train, but with train you get the convenience of being able to run onto the platform 2 minutes before departure, you end up in the city center, you pick up your luggage and leave, and you usually have more space which makes it easier to work on the train if needed.
Also, flying is extremely subsidized and tax-exempt. I just read articles (in Swedish, so I don't know if anyone wants links) claiming that air tickets should be between 50% and 95% more expensive if they had to carry their own costs, if there was a tax on airplane fuel, and so on. So the price for air tickets probably doesn't reflect their real costs, and obviously doesn't take the environmental effect into account.
But even adding the extra time and extra cost, it would still be faster and cheaper to fly than to take the train, which is unfortunate from an environmental perspective. I wish we had faster trains, and a lot more overnight trains so that you could start your travel in the evening and wake up in a new city. It wouldn't help with a 40 hour trip, because it would still be two nights with one full day on the train.
This might work for people who can work remotely on the train, but not for everyone. Start you journey on Thursday night, work Friday on the train, and arrive Saturday morning at the destination. Someone I know did this recently while traveling to a conference, and the company obviously paid for the tickets. This doesn't help when visiting family, but for work travel, train could be an option.
I have an airplane interested colleague and I asked him about environmental fuels. He said that aviation biofuel already exists, and it's just a question of adoption and scale. A carbon dioxide tax might push air companies towards biofuel, or you could have the option of green biofuel departures and let the customers decide if they think it's worth the extra cost. I'm sure my train-traveling conference goer would consider that option if it was available.
As I said, I agree with your main point that if you just look at price and travel time today, the less environmentally friendly option makes more sense. It would make more sense if the slower option was also much, much cheaper than flying, because that would encourage more people to use that option.
Only as a reference:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19562152
The whole thread may be of interest to you, it is about Sweden wanting to re-surrect night trains:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557848
IIRC, bio fuels are worse than oil because it takes multiple oil barrels to come up with 1 barrel of bio oil.
If we had a CO2 tax, flying would be more expensive (which it should be, obviously).