Apply a worldwide carbon tax to all emissions, which gradually increases year by year. Knowing that flying will become a less and less viable business model over time, governments and investors will begin on alternative investments in infrastructure and novel technologies.
For overland travel: trains.
For across oceans: probably also trains, possibly in tunnels.
Benefits to this approach:
Actually reduces carbon emissions instead of moving them around.
Doesn’t tell the individual to stop flying or eating steak. Leaves it up to them to decide which carbon emissions they value most.
Doesn’t pretend to be omniscient and perscribe solutions. Instead lets everyone in the world solve the problem creatively.
Creates a market incentive to accellerate the production of alternative technologies.
Most likely what would happen is that high speed rail would see a big boom immediately as governments looked for ways to reduce intra-country transit costs. Overseas flights, which are quite a bit rarer, would probably stay stable for several years (though with a fair amount of griping about the increased cost of flying). However, as time went on we would also expect to see overseas flights drop significantly. Businesses would prefer teleconferencing to sending delegates overseas for small matters. People would vacation overseas less frequently, instead staying on their own continents. Possibly there is a new industry - high speed sailing cruise ships - which would transport people across oceans at slower speeds for their vacations. Someone might invent better forms of carbon-neutral energy storage to make air travel more feasible again. Otherwise, nations start building undersea tunnels to connect rail lines across oceans.
You can get a good deal if you ride-share, in this case. If you have too much luggage, the flight won’t be viable either, so it seems like a doable comparison.
If I am reading the map correctly, mountains would come in the way, for a straight line path, but that is not a good enough excuse for not having high speed rail from Yelarbon to Burra, when there is a rail along the coastlines.
And since I don’t know better, I am going to assume that train cost is dues to coastal maintenance costs.
By far most planes in that screenshot are over land. You’re right, when you have to cross an ocean to get somewhere there isn’t really any alternative, but for all those over land they could’ve constructed and rode high speed railways instead. Countries like China and Japan show they can be proper alternatives, and there is no reason to use anything else for those distances.
Yeah, I know. I was hoping for an actual answer, looks like I got a few. I’d like more efficient travel, but the megacorporations that be have purposefully decided not to build it. Wonder why.
I’m pretty sure most flights are regional, not long distance, unless that’s only the us where we don’t believe in trains. There was an article a year or so back, where France started to actually ban regional flights for a few routes with good rail service. That’s where we need to be going.
Between high speed rail, and Zoom, we ought to be able to cut the number of flights in half while making travel better, and we can cut the least efficient flights since they spend proportionally more time climbing to altitude vs cruising
Even in the US, we have Acela and it’s arguably the best way to travel a few routes like BOS—>NYC, for the last two decades. Aside from connections, why do we still have hourly shuttles flying that route? Looking at the entire Acela service area, you probably have hundreds of daily regional flights. Most of those need to go
Edit: and this is part of my argument that California High Speed Rail is worth much higher funding to complete at pretty much any cost
I’m pretty sure most flights are regional, not long distance ….ban regional flights ….we ought to be able to cut the number of flights in half
Imagine if there were half the number of flights, so the remaining ones weren’t as hard on our environment. Instead of going to fantasies like railroad over the Bering strait, let’s just only use flying for long distance routes.
how is anyone on the baring strait thats not in a major city supposed to get fresh food without regional flights? and I thought most flights were on 737 and bigger aircraft anyways?
Regional flights are not the same as like bush pilots, and obviously there will always be edge cases. Leave the Bering Strait alone: there’s not enough population or cities for modern trains to help, it’s mostly boats. There is the Siberian railroad, but it will never be fast or modern. Is there even regularly scheduled flights? Even if you look at Alaska, most of the population is along the coast but even a simple highway is tough. Sometimes there are disadvantages to living in more challenging parts of the world
Let’s focus on the 75% of the worlds population living in more hospitable regions
The rule of thumb used to be 500 miles. Any time you have two cities within 500 miles of each other, high speed rail is potentially the most convenient, efficient, useful way to travel. If we built it. Farther than that, flying has a strong advantage. That’s what’s generally meant by regional travel.
I mean usually airports aren’t on top of land, not to mention how much more difficult airtravel would be if you had to reach the airport or plane by boat first hah
Would you recommend a better solution? A high speed railway over the Bering Strait, perhaps?
Apply a worldwide carbon tax to all emissions, which gradually increases year by year. Knowing that flying will become a less and less viable business model over time, governments and investors will begin on alternative investments in infrastructure and novel technologies.
For overland travel: trains.
For across oceans: probably also trains, possibly in tunnels.
Benefits to this approach:
Most likely what would happen is that high speed rail would see a big boom immediately as governments looked for ways to reduce intra-country transit costs. Overseas flights, which are quite a bit rarer, would probably stay stable for several years (though with a fair amount of griping about the increased cost of flying). However, as time went on we would also expect to see overseas flights drop significantly. Businesses would prefer teleconferencing to sending delegates overseas for small matters. People would vacation overseas less frequently, instead staying on their own continents. Possibly there is a new industry - high speed sailing cruise ships - which would transport people across oceans at slower speeds for their vacations. Someone might invent better forms of carbon-neutral energy storage to make air travel more feasible again. Otherwise, nations start building undersea tunnels to connect rail lines across oceans.
Real hyperloop, not the Musk bullshit. Scaled up pneumatic tube systems operating at orbital speeds (7 km/s).
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-how-to-cut-your-carbon-emissions-when-flying
straight up we need to fly less overall, so think of all the things that help reduce people flying and we need to do that
but you’re right, i need to head back to see the family at christmas, look at my options
If the train was the cheapest option then that might be a relaxing travel. But it also uses holiday days you could be using for something else
yep I’m only staying for 3 days so the train ride would 4-5 days and my stay would be 3 days :|
i do want to take the train up to cairns though, that seems nice
You can get a good deal if you ride-share, in this case. If you have too much luggage, the flight won’t be viable either, so it seems like a doable comparison.
If I am reading the map correctly, mountains would come in the way, for a straight line path, but that is not a good enough excuse for not having high speed rail from Yelarbon to Burra, when there is a rail along the coastlines.
And since I don’t know better, I am going to assume that train cost is dues to coastal maintenance costs.
By far most planes in that screenshot are over land. You’re right, when you have to cross an ocean to get somewhere there isn’t really any alternative, but for all those over land they could’ve constructed and rode high speed railways instead. Countries like China and Japan show they can be proper alternatives, and there is no reason to use anything else for those distances.
Yeah, I know. I was hoping for an actual answer, looks like I got a few. I’d like more efficient travel, but the megacorporations that be have purposefully decided not to build it. Wonder why.
I’m pretty sure most flights are regional, not long distance, unless that’s only the us where we don’t believe in trains. There was an article a year or so back, where France started to actually ban regional flights for a few routes with good rail service. That’s where we need to be going.
Between high speed rail, and Zoom, we ought to be able to cut the number of flights in half while making travel better, and we can cut the least efficient flights since they spend proportionally more time climbing to altitude vs cruising
Even in the US, we have Acela and it’s arguably the best way to travel a few routes like BOS—>NYC, for the last two decades. Aside from connections, why do we still have hourly shuttles flying that route? Looking at the entire Acela service area, you probably have hundreds of daily regional flights. Most of those need to go
Edit: and this is part of my argument that California High Speed Rail is worth much higher funding to complete at pretty much any cost
the bering strait is no where near the oberpopulated east coast
Here’s a short version:
Imagine if there were half the number of flights, so the remaining ones weren’t as hard on our environment. Instead of going to fantasies like railroad over the Bering strait, let’s just only use flying for long distance routes.
how is anyone on the baring strait thats not in a major city supposed to get fresh food without regional flights? and I thought most flights were on 737 and bigger aircraft anyways?
Regional flights are not the same as like bush pilots, and obviously there will always be edge cases. Leave the Bering Strait alone: there’s not enough population or cities for modern trains to help, it’s mostly boats. There is the Siberian railroad, but it will never be fast or modern. Is there even regularly scheduled flights? Even if you look at Alaska, most of the population is along the coast but even a simple highway is tough. Sometimes there are disadvantages to living in more challenging parts of the world
Let’s focus on the 75% of the worlds population living in more hospitable regions
The rule of thumb used to be 500 miles. Any time you have two cities within 500 miles of each other, high speed rail is potentially the most convenient, efficient, useful way to travel. If we built it. Farther than that, flying has a strong advantage. That’s what’s generally meant by regional travel.
Most of the planes in that screenshot were over land.
And if the infrastructure existed, we’d be golden!
Man, it sure is lucky highways and airports existed before we got here since we’re clearly incapable of building infrastructure.
I mean usually airports aren’t on top of land, not to mention how much more difficult airtravel would be if you had to reach the airport or plane by boat first hah