Do short-distance flights need to go?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2024
- The shortest flight in Europe takes less than a minute - and it’s getting increasingly hard to justify emissions from such trips as the planet heats up. So, some countries in Europe have begun to outright ban certain routes. Will others follow? And - will such bans make any difference at all?
#Planeta #ShortHaulFlightban #aviation
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Credits:
Author: Aditi Rajagopal
Camera: Henning Goll
Video Editors: Aditi Rajagopal, Henning Goll
Supervising Editors: Kiyo Dörrer, Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
Interviewees:
Stefan Gössling, professor, Linnaeus University
Pere Sánchez, researcher, professor
Read More:
The best plane is no plane at all: www.transportenvironment.org/...
Study on the substitution of short-haul flights by railway: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Limitations of short-haul flight bans: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Facts and figures from Greenpeace’s campaign to improve railways: www.greenpeace.org/internatio...
The industry’s take: www.euronews.com/green/2023/0...
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:54 The trouble with Flying in Europe
03:51 Big old bans
4:41 Alternatives?
5:49 Actual savings
8:07 Are bans the way to go?
How do you usually travel, and what factors influence your choice of transport?
living on the island of Cyprus there is not much choice if you wana get away unless you own a boat
@@kloppskalliSo what do you suggest?
Distance and being able to stop where and when I want for a day or two, or until the surf dies down. Or the weather turns poor. Take time to absorb the local colour and culture. Barely possible from 30 000 feet up.
Climate has definitely started to play a role in our holiday planning. In the summers of 2021 and 2022, we chose to drive to our destinations but I’ve later learned that with the efficiency of modern planes, the CO2 savings by driving instead of flying aren’t that great …
why not push for electric planes which do exist now
It's insane to me that any flight could only be 25 euros, while the same trip by train is over 300. Why?!
Pricing structures for flights are quite complex, basically the flight costs the same to the company empty or full, so once the route has been decided the pricings will try to get people on board, even €25 are better than an empty seat. So the real point is why did they pick that route if it has so little demand? This could be due to wrong demand forecast or, simply, they could need the plane to get there to make a more profitable flight. Anyway the real shame is how little they pay for the airports, that are basically paid by the extra charges on taxies, busses, stores, and heavily subsidized.
@@giacintoboccia9386 I never managed to get such a ludicrous small price for an flight (though I've tried). I hear all about flights for 10-20-30 euros and the like, but when I actually want to buy one it's 100+ or 200+.
Also, when a flight ticket aggregator company offers a 100 eur ticket it ends up costing more.
@@giacintoboccia9386 I don't think your first sentence is true, as it applies for trains as well - the cost is the same whether it's empty or not. The reason flights are cheaper is that the system is optimized and extremely efficient, so they have very predictable margins and can operate at a very small % of revenue. Railway, on the other hand, has really expensive base costs (which the government will take from the taxes) and now that it's semi-privatised, they give the costs to the customer. Look at how developing countries like India have a railway system that's cheaper compared with their salaries as what we have in germany or france. (because India still has public rail)
The other reason is that airplanes can appear so cheap is that flights get booked more short-term (whereas main train routes are mostly full 4 weeks in advance in high season) and so, looking at prices for two weeks in the future might give you the impression that trains are very expensive.
With all that, if you check a flight (Zurich - Berlin) for the end of November you'll find night trains for 30-40€ and no flight will be able to compete with that price.
If i search for the same route for tomorrow, they might both be around the same price
If i search for the same route two weeks in advance, you'll get much better flights (although both will be more expensive than booking 3 months in advance) -- the reason being, most passengers haven't booked their flights yet.
Additionally train systems don't need to compete on prices with airlines, because they already have the advantage of being "eco" and "sustainable" and people are willing to pay the green tax on it, as the host of this video explained with her trip and her boyfriend. Trains are not incentivised to reduce prices: they will not attract many more customers.
I recommend you ask ChatGPT or another AI if you have concrete questions, they know this very well :)
Unbalanced subsidies from taxpayers’ money. Restore the balance by adding VAT and emissions-compensations and we’re done. In the meantime, don’t.travel.by.airplane. Turn the industry bankrupt by voting with your feet.
Did you watch the full video?
European international rail ticketing and scheduling needs to get modernized and integrated. It is a pain to book and travel across multipel countries.
I'm living in hope that the elites and their private planes will also be grounded.
😂 then your living in an utopia, the rich controls lobbyists so it will never happen
Why?
Flying from London to Ibiza for a stag night party also pollutes. Maybe even more.
You will live long, bro.
You will die with hope....😂
I'm from Belgium and this is 100% accurate. I always consider the train as an option to go on holiday abroad in the neighbouring countries, but the prices are insane. So I just go by car. This is what everyone I know does.
At least driving doesn't cause as much climate change as flying, especially if you share a car. When I remember, I list my rides on BlaBlaCar - if you can help one other person avoid flying, that's a really positive impact.
Italy is a great example of long-distance good train options replacing historical flight routes largely organically. The solution isn't to ban planes, it's to make trains routes more attractive and the the market will itself adjust to the shift. Right now they are banning flights before the infrastructure to take up those passengers on alternatives is up to standard.
I used to be a flight attendant and whilst I loved the job, I just became so aware of it's effect on the environment (emissions and other waste) and how the airlines will not do anything to stop this by themselves - it's just an industry which will continue to grow. The subsidies and cheapness are a huge factor in why people travel this way.
When I left, I decided to stop flying altogether, now I'll just find alternative ways to travel that are more in line with my concerns for the environment.
Congratulations on taking action on this! 😊
I live in a tier 2 city in India. from this town, there are 3 flights daily to the state capital thats 350 kms away. Not to mention there are 3 return flights too... And the flying time is just 40 mins. I dont understand why we need 6 flights just for such a short distance. Just because it is affordable, doesnt mean we need to always choose this mode of transport. People need to think about its envitronmental impact too.
Hard part is to invest into reliable rail infrastructure. Airport easier in a way, that you can add new airports and don't worry about the route.
Here in Greece, the Athens-Thessaloniki route is becoming quite a good alternative to the flight. In fact, nowadays there's less flights between the two airports (Ryanair dropped it completely from its network of internal flights) and since the new "arrows" from Trenitalia have been introduced, the service on board increased and became more attractive. Still, there's a long way to go, in the aftermath of the tragic crash last March (in terms of faith towards the train as a safe way of transportation), but the path is good and the new infrastructures that will be completed will shorten even more the travel time, becoming 100% competitive compared to planes!
as long as the trains dont collide
For me, this train was a great alternative until that horrible crash happend.. I don't step one bit inside that train anymore. Especially, it was sad to see how the accident was handeled by the leading politics... But i guess they are flying anyway.
- Remove subsidies on Flights and allocate to train systems
- build integrated EU trains
- have more EU intercity trains
- more night trains
- make London-Vienna train for 25eur
The core issue is that the carbon emission from flights is not taxed. The European Commission is proposing to revise the ETS aviation rules, which may address this issue. Such rules need to be passed and become laws.
I agree with You, and this not problem not only in transportation by plane... we should stop subsidise any human activity, which destroys nature and climate, and include these taxes for CO2 emissions, water usage, used energy, land usage etc. in any product. The prices are unrealistic in this context no only in transportation. Why is plant based milk 2-4 times expensive to cow milk. Of course, it is responsibility of all of us, which product we buy. But why the responsible should pay for careless ???? 🤷🏻♂️
I travel by train within Europe and the UK but at great cost compared to flying. I do so to reduce CO2 emissions and to set an example for my friends and acquaintances. I am frustrated that flying is so cheap and cannot understand how subsidies for air travel continue in Europe when our leaders seem committed to reducing emissions. Very few of my friends have made the switch to trains. Sadly most still fly and drive and it seems they travel more with each passing year. It’s is almost as if subconsciously they are aware that rampant travel will at some point be restricted due to it being unsustainable, and thus they travel as much as possible while it is allowed.
This is a big boon for me. Train transport in the UK is absolutely horrendous on all aspects. Not only the horrible staff (Northern mostly), insane prices, constant delays or just cancellations, poor upkeep and cleanliness and in some cases just out right more painful that driving to your location for example. I honestly think better infrastructure would help the battle against flights alot more than just these domestic bans (which i personally am in favour of)
Unfortunately our leaders are not at all committed to reducing emissions, that's why nothings happening
I have been trying to do Netherlands Italy route by train for years now, there are options but they are insanely expensive, difficult to book, with bad timing and too many train changes. Not only it’s too expensive, it’s just not possible at the moment.
Banning flight where an alternative is already available is mandatory and it has to be done quickly to show government support, but we have to pave a path for the future we can’t just ban, we need better rail connections and user experience, otherwise we will never stop flying.
NL - IT is medium haul, not short haul. Nobody is planning to ban medium or long haul flights.
Let's hope the EU can fix this sort of problem. The rail infrastructure in that region is excellent, they just need to make the services join up properly!
I love travelling by train but I rarely do so in the uk now because the cost is so prohibitive and they are extremely unreliable. If there was an easier way to travel to Europe without taking a plane I would do it, but I will always have to take the cheaper option.
You could try busses. They’re often cheaper than trains and more comfortable than flying economy on short flights
What about paying VAT for plane tickets and paying excise for kerosene first? I was amazed to find out that airlines have such fiscal incentives in EU.
That makes more sense than banning flights.
There’s. a catch with that: airlines today already optimise their refuelling based on the total cost. There are already some airports with higher gas prices, so airlines prefer to carry more fuel with them and avoid refuelling on those “expensive” airports. And carrying extra fuel means: more emissions.
So adding VAT to international tickets and gas taxes to jet fuel is something to be done at a significant majority of airports or countries.
Another thing is already being worked on: almost 10 years ago, the EU decided to limit airport subsidies to “kickstarting” the airport, not subsidising their operations. Starting next year, the transition phase is going to end, and so we can expect a lot of smaller airports to just go out of business, as they are not self sustaining their services.
And especially low cost airlines did. benefit from this enormously: some of those airports essentially provided free parking spaces, extremely low fees and have been providing services for just a single airline. If that airline threatened to reduce flights, the often municipality-run airports were eager to further lower their fees below what’s necessary to be a profitable business.
Yes, as mentioned in the video, any fuel tax needs to be applied EU-wide in order to avoid this.
Public transport is mostly a joke here in the US, (no surprise!). A (twice a day) train between two cities in the same state near where I live take almost 6 hours. My trip on the Eurostar between London and Paris was about the same distance, but took about a third of the time. We have one free to ride streetcar, but that only currently runs for about 3.5km through downtown then turns around. Bus service is laughable; frequent delays, and the lines in my part of town don't run at all on the weekend. Despite all that, I still try to use public transit as much as possible.
While I lived in Poland, I loved taking trains. They were reliable and affordable even during winter. I never took an internal flight. Now, in Spain, this a different topic. I've never taken an internal flight, but I've been tempted. In Spain, the trains are often expensive. People will tell you, yes, but if you're a student or you book months in advance you can save some bucks. This is not the majority of people living in Spain. In Poland, I rarely ever booked a ticket months in advance. Maybe one or two weeks, but 3 or 4 months. Also, the "cheap" options have very suboptimal returns. You can save some bucks in one way, but on the return, you can easily pay 4 or 5 times more. I know people who preferred to buy flight tickets for the same reasons. I sadly agree with their cases.
I live in Quebec, Canada. Here, people fly like crazy. The most used short haul flight is probably Montreal to Toronto. I do not fly. I do not travel. I live a quiet simple life, consuming as little as possible, but enjoying nature every day.
In Italy the 1 hour flight between Rome and Milan was the most profitable for the national company, Alitalia. As 300km/h high speed trains started operations on the same line everybody switched, as you could make the same trip in less than 3 hours from city center to city center, often at lower prices.
In my opinion, trains are more comfortable than planes so making them more attractive would be a big plus.
On our recent holidays we decided to fly because the train would take 17 hours, we had to hop trains twice and cost 20% more. The flight was just 4 hours + 1hr on the airport before flight.
In western Canada, the flight from Calgary to Vancouver is just under an hour and a half, but there is really no viable surface alternative. Passenger trains no longer exist between the two and even when they ran over 30 years ago, it was not unusual for the travel time to be about 24 hours. The motor coach service has deteriorated as well with similar travel times. Driving your own car can take over 12 hours, and can be particularly difficult in winter, as the route is very mountainous.
Travelled from Budapest to a place in Germany alone on a night train - it did not feel safe at all. The train was dirty, it stopped often, there were drunk men tearing up the door of the compartments, pushing themselves in, huge groups of migrant workers in droves. I gave up on night trains then and there. If this is to be a thing, safety, cleanliness and comfort has to be improved radically.
I live in Ireland and visit the continent often maybe 10 times a year and I wish I was able to take the train but Ireland is an island and boats are about triple the price of a flight to the UK/France and take about triple the time to get there too.
I never really thought about this. Thank you so much for sharing and explaining this issue.
The level of subsidy for aviation is a scandal. It should be a no-brainier to stop the subsidies and apply VAT and duty to flights and aviation fuel, but the level of opposition would be enormous. It would take a brave politician to do it, and they are in short supply these days.
In the mid 1990s I would fly weekly from London (Heathrow?) to Brussels for work, with an early taxi from home to the airport (Heathrow?), and a train at the other end, then the tube to work. This was before Eurostar unless their schedule did not work for me. With a monthly flight pass I could board a flight unexpectedly and did not have to worry about the cost of any individual flight.
When my widowed mother moved to Brussels in 2001, I took the Eurostar regularly, from London Waterloo to Brussels Midi, with only a bus or the tube at each end.
In the beginning, I calculated the cost difference of flying or the Eurostar, adding the respective bus, tube and train rides to and from the airport or station, was a couple meals in a restaurant, and it was better environmentally, which convinced me.
Only, the cost difference increased while I chose not to look..
If I visited family in the Netherlands I added other trains, but family in Geneva I flew to.
Whereas in the 1970s and early 1980s I had flown at every holiday to my parents’ in the Far East or Australia, I have only flown a handful of times in Europe since 2000, and only once intercontinentally, to New York (for a funeral). On holiday to Geneva once, I returned by train and ferry after the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption.
I have turned down going to Peru this summer, and a visit to friends in Kuala Lumpur a few years ago. Now, I will not fly for a holiday unless exceptionally, only for work (the last flight was in February 2019) for environmental reasons. The train is just much more attractive and relaxing.
Banning or illegalizing is usually not a solution. Just regulate flights below a certain distance to use biofuel and cut down on the flying subsidies. The cost of fights will go up and people will look for other options, meanwhile the biofuel industry will be supported.
Italy's domestic flights have been decimated thanks to the good high-speed rail, that has been made affordable through competition. And Austria assigns Flight numbers to some trains to the Airport so you can easily book your connecting "flight"
The key really is establishing affordable, convenient, well interconnected, punctual, efficient, reliable and clean public transport networks… Switzerland is a prime example where even a lot of the wealthiest people use trains, trams and buses because it’s just so easy to use… fares are also often covered by your employers even though it’s absolutely affordable even without that coverage… Ofc it’s easer said than done in a lot of countries and Switzerland does have the advantage of prioritizing public transport for decades already and being a really small country in comparison with favorable economical, political and social factors that other countries might lack… But it’s still what all countries should strive for in the long run because above all it benefits the quality of life for all people, not just the environment…
You should consider making a video on helicopters emissions, it's kind of a niche subject but where I live, there are dozens of short distance flight just to go from the airport to the center of the city (7min fly) which emits tons of emission (100kg eqCO2 per person to be exact)
Actually there is no visibility for this subject and i realised it while working on my last university paper
Also, great videos continue to spread informations !!
That is why having a vacation inside Sweden is more expensive than flying out of country, which means local tourism will be more costly except if you want to do a road trip (by car).
Even sometimes, it is much cheaper for two people to use a car instead of a train to travel between cities, which is weird if you want to cut emissions.
So if other part of Europe want to ban the flight please ensure that the train can be cheaper than travel with car.
You should consider the number of passengers traveling between Madrid and Barcelona who are making connecting flights, especially since Madrid serves as a major hub for numerous North and South American destinations. In those cases the train is nonsense.
To call the island hopper flights unnecessary is quite shocking and shows a complete lack of understanding of why they exist and the lifelines they provide. There is also an incorrect presumption that the weather is always suitable to allow for the boats to run.
Has anyone down in Europe considered electric planes? I live on an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea called Åland and here the local politicians have partnered up with a company that is trying to make shorter distance flying possible by electric planes. Many people here fly to the cities nearby such as Stockholm, Turku and Helsinki and the trip takes about an hour. For shorter flights i think this is a great idea, i mean the technolegy practically already exists thanks to the EV industry. Although its kinda useles if the electricity comes from fosil fules but im sure there are other fules that could be used such as metanol, hydrogen cause even vessels use thees. Why try to ban the flying? why not try to innovate it so that it is sustainble.
I fly long haul often as I live in the USA and spend a lot of time in Europe. I look forward to using trains as much as possible. One project I have noticed is the train from Torino to Lyon. Projects like this can help to eliminate emmisions in the long run in spite of the damage created by the construction.
What is the purpose of the loud music ? Did you listen to your video ?
Do you really think that loud music helps to understand the video ???
If I would want to have music while listening to a video, I would prefer to choose my music myself.
6h Train in Germany means:
Minimum 8h coz of the Deutsche Bahn issues with the tracks, technical breakdowns or changing platforms coz of other delays from other trains so you are in a run or even not possible a switch coz to far.
8h in a german train means, loud, noisy, not respectfully passengers, drinking, partying, persons asking you for money or empty bottles..
6h or 8h in a german train means 300 euro trip..
Plane.. Cheaper, no unrespectful passengers (otherwise they get kicked off :). ) Faster.
"we considered 87 routes in Germany that are less than 600km long and less than 6h in travel time" ... Honestly, as a German, train is the least reliable of any transport option. Those times are,I guess, the scheduled ones, not the actual ones - I guess this would change it by a huge margin 😏
Here in the Netherlands people take planes from Amsterdam to Paris that is a drive of around 5 hours. And the talis (high speed rail) is even faster. But yeah the talis is still a few 100 bucks so no one takes that and the car is for some a hassle so they don’t take it as well.
Thalys and Eurostar are extremely overpriced, its absurd that a simple route like Amsterdam - Paris that is 500km costs 100 euros while in Spain where they have an open market so companies are competing for prices I paid 15 euros to go from Madrid - Barcelona and that is 600km, 100 more than Amsterdam - Paris. The monopoly these companies have are absurd and should be taken away
2:15 Imagine Tokyo to Osaka, Seoul to Busan, and Beijing to Shanghai had their high-speed rail ticket prices reversed with their plane ticket prices. We Asians could have turned this planet into Venus.
I think it does come down to cost. I was staying in a bothy last week in Scotland. A young couple from Berlin had flown in to East Midlands airport because it was so cheap; they said they’d considered taking a night train with a bed to Sweden instead but it would have cost them €1000. A different couple from Amsterdam flew into Glasgow and hired a car because bringing their car or camper van by ferry would have cost many hundreds of €.
I can’t help but think a general carbon tax would flip the scales on people’s choice of transportation. Make the cost reflect the damage to our environment.
Hey there! We did a video on the concept of green economy, pricing living nature. Check it out and let us know what you think 👉czcams.com/video/MSxIBYOMQOU/video.html
i'd love to travel more by train but the truth is that if you take into account cost and delays/cancellations (and quality of service in some countries), it makes more sense to travel by plane unfortunately
Flying is always going to be more competitive then trains. Wendover Production made a very good analysis about this issue, the biggest cost component in train service is the personnel cost fuel costs are completely negligible. For airlines its the other way arround. 1 hour of flight time per person in an Boeing 737 will cost ca. 25 euros of kerosene.
So the cost structures of these two modes are completely different, also a plain does not need tracks while its flying through the air.
As Wendover pointed out, the longer it takes for a train to get from point a to point b, the more expensive it will get as you need to pay the personnel longer hours, while on the other hand most inner European flights are done in ca. 2 hours.
So the only way to make the train more competetive is by massive subsidies for the tickets. Basically like the deutschland ticket or the klimaticket in austria and even then you would need to dump even more subsidies into it because a lot people are still not satisfied with that price.
And then again you would need to even add more subsidies on top of that pile of subsides due to the loss in income of all the railway companies because they are unable to make flexible pricing structures to extract surplus of revenue from certain very profitable connections while subsidizing the less popular ones.
I live in Stockholm, Sweden. I usually travel for work and use both rail and flight domestically and within Scandinavia. If I have to get to Gothenburg, I go by train, because it takes 3 hours by train and the service is good. If I need to get to Copenhagen or Oslo, I fly. It takes 7-8 hours by rail to Copenhagen, and often the trains to Copenhagen from Stockholm are heavily delayed. To Oslo there is an old train that goes 150km/h and It takes 5 hours to travel. I prioritise time and insurance to be punctual, over carbon footprint in this case. It is sometimes scary to take the train in business travel, since you never know if you will come on time or 4 hours late and the point of the business trip is then irrelevant. I understrand that my actions are not correct, but I feel that it is the governments' responsibly to invest in proper rail infrastructure and/or standardisation of railways in Europe, rather than ban the short-haul flights. Banning short haul flights as a political statement and ignore rail infrastructure leaves citizens frustrated with poor rail infrastructure or having to take a longer route via another city by air.
It depends the route. Madrid-Barcelona, Milan-Rome and Paris-Lyon are the only doable ones. The rest i would take the plane.
Not everything is true about it. It's cheaper to go to Paris from Brussels/Amsterdam by train. They also don't control your ID/bags on trains. In my opinion, both flight and train tickets should be cheaper
This is an informative piece. What I’m curious about is what would happen if governments taxed the Airlines more on short haul flights and then used that same extra tax revenue to subsidize or incentivize train rides.
pefectly reasonable idea, except that lobbyists for the airline industry would oppose subsidies to incentivize train travel, because travellers using trains instead of planes would disrupt and undercut the airline businesses. personally, i'd rather take a scenic train ride than fly on a plane, even if it takes longer and costs more.
I live in Finland. Due to the geography it's not well connected to other countries. Flying is already expensive, compared to other countries. Traveling by sea is another option, but it's often more expensive than flying, and it's not very clear how it compares to flying in terms of emissions. Also, it's much slower. Making it harder to fly from Finland wouldn't be fair, since there are no good alternatives. It's up to everyone to decide if traveling is really necessary or worth it.
Interesting video - thanks. Where can we find the transcript, please?
In the description there is a button that CZcams puts there to show the transct
The problem isn't really the fact that we're flying short haul, it's the carbon emissions. As battery tech improves, short haul flights will be the first to decarbonise.
The bigger culprit is long haul flights, which is where we should focus more.
I like train travel best of all, and once used it to go right across Europe. Loved every minute.
It was relaxed, interesting to watch the changing landscape (instead of just 'sky.' Boring!), and I worked it so I could get off at different places to explore.
I didn't have to wear a seat belt. I didn't have the unpleasantness of a pressurised cabin. I didn't have to worry if the wings were supposed to do that. I didn't get stuck in this horrible carousel high above Heathrow going round and round London, my ears popping so painfully I spent the next 5 days in bed ill (which very nearly cost me my job!)
The food tastes much better down here than up there. And you have the luxury of being able to walk about, visit the buffet car and get a meal when 'you' want to, find seats with interesting people to have a chat, can even book 'quiet' coaches (away from screaming, entitled kids and their screaming, entitled mothers).
Trains are bliss. Planes are hell.
I think all plane flights should come with an automatic £1000 tax per person, to help plant enough trees to offset emissions. That should thin out the skies a bit.
It's called 800km killing range in China, as highspeed railway almost kill flights under this range.
A newly built highspeed rail from our hub to a tourism city about 300km cut our flight from 8 per day to only 1.
Well, with the reduce of subsidy on rail, now in many case flight can compete on price, but not by much.
Also, one fact many people overlooked is Highspeed rail station is also not located near where you live and you still need to go though the security check etc. it didn't take as long as flight, but still there.
I live in Canada, here flying for any distance journey is still the default. Or driving. It’s North America of course so the distances are an order of magnitude greater overall in most cases. But, that said, some of the busiest routes are short-haul. From Toronto to Montreal, and Toronto to Ottawa (and even shorter Ottawa to Montreal). Trains take 4.5 to 5 hours usually but it’s a 1 hour flight (not including getting to the airport etc…). Here tho flying costs at least 2 to 3 times more than the train which is a publicly owned and heavily subsidized ride. That said it could be better. 5 or 6 trains daily isn’t great compared to 20+ flights.
Plans are progressing to bring in a faster system, with separate rights of way letting trains reach higher speeds up to 200 kph I believe. With express trains it could do Toronto to Montreal in 3 to 3.5 hours. I think if prices were still competitive at that point everyone would take the train - I would like to believe tho I am sure some would still prefer to fly. I don’t see bans coming in but possibly additional taxes on flying to incentivize train travel. But first the train service needs to be upgraded.
As for the rest of Canada - outside of a couple of light rail lines and a 3+ day milk run that goes from Toronto to Vancouver there really is no passenger railway service to speak of.
People tavel around much more these days not because they need to.
Just because they can.
for me its mostly the prive that determines my ways of transport-thats why Ic most of hte time choose bus (Prague-London)...it may take longer but when accountiong all time (traveling to airpost that is not in a city centre, waiting in the airport...). I would love if there was a direct train (because I I refuse to change trains in countries that I don´t know the local language) as that would be more comfortable (but it would have to be on the sam price range as the bus)
I remember a news not long time ago 2 friends from UK. One from london area and the other from other city at the north that the cheaper and faster way to meet was in Alicante by ryanair.
I dont consider that bans are the solution.
Solutions pass for more and faster trains, more integration tickets, (bus and train), better infrastucture or infrastructure in self (like the missing Lisboa-Madrid railway).
And yes, fuel taxes on international flys.
A high percentage of private jet flights need to be stopped, I do not see why these people cannot either travel by train or at least fly on a commercial flight.
Damn right, they should ban flights less than 3 hours, how the hell do they think humanity is going to survive if we don't do many things like this. I haven't flown anywhere for 20 years. Train and ferry are good enough for me, with the occasional car rental. This to keep my carbon footprint down - like everyone should!
You missed one important point. Banning domestic short flights you delay electric airplanes. Distance is an issue. If you ban short distances it become more difficult to develop the technology. Barrier to make a 750 km flight economicly feaseble then a 250 km electric flight is huge. If we want electric ariplanes we need the easier step of short flights.
However all the subsidies and taxexemption I agree should be removed. I knew about the horrific railnetwork (gauges) and bad ticketbooking in Europe but not that airfligths had so many subsidies.
I'm in Sweden I used to fly domestic when I had a girlfriend from northern Sweden. I could take friday off for a long-weekend and fly in 2 hours to her parents and spend a weekend there. Train was 30 hours and doubble the price. In winter in Sweden you're lucky if you don't get delays. It's not feaseble to travel by train and see your parents over the weekend every third month by train, it's 2½ days just on the train.
I am old enough to remember when Flying was reserved for the Military and the rich. Somehow the world functioned well, people travelled the world by ship, and around Europe by train. There is no need to subsidise the AIr industry, nor should there be Tax concessions for business travel. Does it really need a face to face meeting when the job can be done online?
We need a step by step approach to take charge of the drift to even more harmful pollution. Banning short haul flights could be a first step, together with changes in the Tax laws, even if that has to be one country at a time.
I'm still perplexed as to why green ferries cannot be introduced for travel between neighbouring countries with opening to the sea, e.g. I'd love to take overnight ferries/cruises from the UK to Portugal, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, etc. There would be no need to wait for a standardisation of the whole rail network across Europe.
@@trildi The ferry companies running out of Portsmouth have spent time and effort in making their ships much 'cleaner' in recent years and boast of such in their advertising.
@@solentbum Good to know but the routes are so limited that they may as well give up. Also a train ride all the way to Portsmouth from anywhere in the country is cost prohibitive. Need more options from Liverpool, Swansea/Cardiff, Hull, Newcastle, etc.
You can't put tax on aviation fuel because of an international law that was created before airplanes were invented. It was all about shipping and promoting trade internationally, governments can put a tax on the fuel for ships and this then also applies to airplanes.
As for the rail system in Europe it is extremely well integrated, you can already just book tickets right across the continent.
And the best solution is for the flights to not emit any CO2, and Airbus are working on this with hydrogen powered aircraft. The time frame for this is rather long. It took about 20 years for Airbus to design and build the A380. So even if it only takes a decade or two for Airbus to invent all the technology needed for hydrogen aircraft then it'll take about another 20 years to design and build an airplane for Airbus to sell. But Airbus already has a jet engine mounted to the outside of a test aircraft and they are making progress.
And that first example with those Scottish islands is not a good example the seas are always extremely rough in that region, it's not so easy to go from one island to the other.
There is one more detail that is a little more complicated. In 2030 or 2035 new car sales for petrol and diesel cars will be banned. And a car normally has a life expectancy of about 30 years. So in about 2060 no one will be buying much petrol or diesel. So when companies dig up crude oil they make money from all the different parts they can sell. So when crude oil gets cracked then only some very light parts are the aviation fuel, then much lower down the stake you get the petrol and diesel which can't be sold after about 2060. So what profit is there for companies to dig up crude oil. They can't just sell the aviation fuel and not have a market for the petrol and diesel.
Wow... in Mexico there's only two ways for travelling: planes or land vehicles, (bus/cars) so we don't have a choice, and we have long distances in between each cities and regions.
Ive been traveling for over a year and I almost never consider train, unless in my home country (Portugal) or Poland where i lived for a while and have friends who can help buy tickets. In other countries, if I'm not flying, I take flixbus. Cause I know what to expect and where to buy tickets
I would love to go by train more, but the system is not well organised. Trains in Germany for example often have long delays
I thought flights from Seattle to Portland were ridiculous, but I'm surprised to hear about the length of some of these flights in Europe, and then not surprised that their pollution is so bad.
The International Council on Clean Transportation says that in 2013, commercial aviation produced 707 million tons of global carbon emissions. By 2019, it was 920 million tons, having jumped about 30 per cent in six years.
Portugal is way behind. It’s true we are small and the need for short haul flights is minimal. But our train services are completely disconnected from the Spanish and to go anywhere we have to first travel to Lisbon. Cars rule mighty!
sure flying from Manchester to London is no longer viable with all the security ...the 'Sunday Express' train that goes via Birmingham would be quicker and that takes around 5 hours ...the regular service is around 2 and a half hours ...going to the airport from Manchester takes up to an hour, - security needs 2 or 3 hours, from gate to gate the flight needs around an hour, arrivals to Tube to city centre needs another hour or two ...the flying method can use up a whole day!!!
I live in Australia and every day there are about 130 cheap and short flights between Melbourne and Sydney. I've decided to avoid flights between these two cities but the best alternative is a night train that takes 12 hours. I've asked experts about what can be done, if a bullet train can be the solution but it doesn't seem so in terms of carbon emissions. Anyway, apparently SAF is the only solution so far, but it's not even a commercial option yet.
Here in Romania, it's not even a topic of discussion 😢 and the trains are bad and getting worse. People here are quite shocked to hear that I quit flying, and never guess that is because of climate change.
It is not surprising that the number of flights is increasing because there are more and more people living on earth, so there are more and more people who want or have to travel. Why are there so many flights in Europe? Because of the tourism that Europe lives on. So, just another consequence of population growth.
Where I grew up (western Norway) we dont even have trains…
@8:34 - The narrator herself answers the question if flight bans are the only way? "making trains more attractive, cheaper tickets, better connections, simpler booking systems, taxing kerosene fuel, etc."
here in brasil we don’t even have the option of trains…. 😢
We are “hypermobile”.
‘Should definitely tax petrol fuels heavily… make them pay for the harm they inflict, and curtail our hypermobility.
Thank you for this great video !
Hey Julia! Glad you liked it :) we post videos like this one every Friday - subscribe to not miss any of them! ✨
All countries and their related industry should work together as one, free from competion, politics, profit and create engines that run on air and water only. Is it possible, probably, we won't know until we try.
For Co2 saving, instead of again raise up taxes as the only solution.
Let’s start putting all TIR (trucks long distance) on trains.
- Easy to do it right now.
From south of Spain to the north of europe, we have enough rail network to do so.
And in the meantime, with the money owned invest in a real eficiente train infrastructure option to travel all over Europe. 👌
About flights, for now, avoiding all private jets (including for politicians) it should be enough to show the emergency of the situation to people who really could impact rules for solutions.
The local airline in Catalonia is a budget airline, Vueling, which makes it extremely easy for people to fly instead of taking the train. Flying everywhere is simply cheaper and often much faster. I want to travel to other countries via rail but it's often even nearly impossible (you have to take the bus as there's no rail option). Even going to Portugal from Barcelona is difficult which should not be the case because it's just insane. Cheap flight tickets also promote wrong kind of tourism and make traveling to our drought stricken country even easier.
You mentioned it. It's the taxation systems that need changing, so instead of a ban, why not tax the aviation or airport accesses for short haul? Of course, it all take is the bravery of the governments against the international big corporations, but hey money can always lobby the governments and they can just follow the money, duhhhhhhhh......
Given how convinient can be to take a train from the city center and arriving directly at the other city center, I will take a train over the flight for every trip shorter that 6h by train. Given all the time that is spent in checkins, luggage management etc it would just make sense. The only problem is that every time I check I had the same bad surprise: it costs a fortune. I ended up just driving for hours becouse it was way more chap. And that is quite nonsense.
As someone in aviation, a 1 and a half hour flight is not laughably short. There are often geographical barriers that would make the trip 5-7x as long by car. In a place like North America, where trains aren’t as common, especially in hotspots and business centers like the Texas triangle, this becomes a real pain in the a** for most travelers.
Really great video!
With the extra money in taxes will VAT be reduced? Of course not. VAT tax on every point of production or transfer of a product is ridiculous.
Even if impact is limited, it’s important to take action against flying in order to show that co2-cutting measures are fair, they should not be affecting common inhabitants with their cars and houses, but rather the wasteful upper classes. I think it would be easier to accept general sacrifices if there’s a fair repartition : may the richest pay the most, may the most privileged be the most affected
Take action against Private Jets, not regular passenger airliners
Ethanol-based SAF (which can reduce CO2 emissions by up to. 80%*) should greatly help. Also people just like to fly and the convenience city-city faster travel times. And the airport lounges are great. And imagine the increased crowds at rail stations if all those short haul flights were banned. eVTOL) aircraft might be a good replacement in the near future but not sure about their speed.
* IATA: Net zero 2050: sustainable
aviation fuels
If it’s only 5.9% the real efforts should be placed on long hall flights, governments should concentrate efforts on subsidies and incentives to develop much more fuel efficient jet engine’s that will ultimately both save much co2 emissions and be a real cost saver for the airline’s a win/win situation and make them want to invest in replacing there old engines on there aircrafts.
If you aren’t aware about it then let me remind you airplane manufacturers like Boeing and airbus are already working on it and already created extremely fuel efficient airplanes like b787 and a350
There always critic about China HSR operating at a loss but if Europe plane need so much subsidy won`t it be operating at a loss to for the gov?
The Romania train system it s very bad.
10h by train between Bucharest and Cluj -450km. By car is hard too because we don’t have enough highway- 6h. With the airplane ✈️ it will be less than a hour. I hope in the future we will have a better infrastructure for the train.
Happy Friday DW.
Thank you and likewise! 🌈
Let's be serious, nobody would travel from Germany to Portugal by train, if not for research purposes. Especially if the cost and the duration of the whole trip is almost 10 times higher than flying! Sometimes alternatives are viable (I'm italian, nobody today would take a plane from Rome to Milan or from Bologna to Napoli), but for such long distances I think it's just utopian. I can't see other solutions different from increasing prices and research on biofuels (very long term). Shouldn't we focus on other sectors that are more carbon intensive and much easier to decarbonise (eg: building insulation and heating, electricity production, vehicles electrification, ban on long distance cargo trucks, restrictions to cars, restrictions to intensive breedings)?
Bad example, Spain is the only country to have airport security in train station. So even if the train station is closer, you still lose a lot of time in the station.
From Malta we have no choice.. we have to fly.. or take the catamaran.. If there was a bridge i'd happily take the train.
No analysis of why air flights are cheap - here’s a few ideas
- more flights per day per aircraft with no increase in aircraft lease cost, so fixed costs are spread over more flights
- use of cheaper airports eg Ryanair flies to “Frankfurt” and it’s really Hahn 112km away
- other income to the airline (eg for freight being carried) and thus direct comparison of ticket prices is at least unhelpful
No mention of sustainable aviation fuel and its much lower carbon footprint
since when France reach the stage of the rule of law? You have to be a foreigner or quite rich to believe that laws are enforced in france. Even the justice system (eg the police) or the gov don't risk anything to break the laws. Most french are aware of it (and they somehow support this arbitrary system). I'm always astonished to hear foreigners believing something will be done simply because a law says it should.
Just ban or heavily tax office buildings and business travel, in the age of the internet business travel and commuting is completely unnecessary, that could cut emission by half. People keep doing it and requiring it of others out of habit.
I live in Hungary, unfortunately there are no train journeys shorter than 6 hours.
We shouldn't forget also that short-haul flights in Europe carry plenty of passengers leaving in smaller cities (not capitals). Passengers flying long-haul going abroad to another European country ot continent need to use these short-haul flights to connect to a major capital airport and then go abroad