If we had a better rail system in the US, maybe. I was looking to take a train from Albuquerque to Denver. It was going to be a 4 day trip because I had to go through Chicago.
Your also going to run into the Pasific and Atlantic pretty soon. Most people who live in Hawaii for instance probably arn’t going to be very happy spending two weeks in the middle of the ocean when they want to visit their kids who went off to college on the mainland. Combine with the fact that while more efficient ships also need fuel and produce carbon, and I don’t think it would make enough of impact to be worth the cost.
A proper high speed rail network would help eliminate some shorter flights, as would a bunch of regional rail, but I feel like flying is one place where the high cost and limited supply of carbon capture produced synthetic fuels might actually be the most effective answer. Limit flights to trips between hubs more than a thousand miles apart or so, or which can’t get a practical rail connection.
The other main thing that your going to run into is that the airline network is the only real intercity public transport system in north america. For a lot of smaller towns, especially in the West and Northwest, the once daily puddle jumper is the pubic transport to speak of, and flying for thirty minutes to an hour or two is always going to compare favorably to a four to six hour drive to get to the city.
I don’t think it would ever be possible to 100% ban flying, because islands exist and so do the Atlantic and Pacific oceans - and ships are too slow to fit with modern lifestyles and the demands of employers. There’s always going to be people who need to travel between distant islands and the mainland (eg Hawaii and the US) or between continents (eg Europe, North America, Australia).
However, I think there are some great options for reducing flying down to the minimum necessary. Public transport should be good enough to serve people’s needs within their own country, and between their country and their nearest neighbours. Speaking for my own country (UK), the non-flying options to France and Spain are actually pretty good - they take a bit longer than a plane, but not so much longer that they’re unrealistic for people to do. The problem is the lack of decent public transport options within the country.
I think one thing that could realistically reduce flying is making it much more expensive. Of course that would exacerbate what this article calls the global justice gap. But sometimes you have to accept a trade-off and I think that could work
My guess is that approach would do relatively little to mitigate the overall environmental impact. If you raise fees enough then private airplanes, with much higher CO2 per passenger, become more desirable. To make air travel “worth it” airlines - who have fleets of aircraft with 35-50 year useful lifespans - would dial back to business and first class only.
Spitballing it, I’d say we could reduce flying passenger count by 80% but only see a 10-20% reduction in net CO2 generation. And then, to offset the loss in 80% travel, you would need to find an alternative travel source that is only 12-20% of the use of an aircraft per passenger mile for actual traveled miles just to break even on net passenger travel. 20% seems to be the marker for national rail vs most air travel, so we’re at best break even. And for passenger ocean ships, the net cost per passenger in CO2 is higher than flying, so it’s a lose-lose for any trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific travel (not to mention the week travel time each way).
Those are good considerations. However I question this:
would dial back to business and first class only
In other words, you’re suggesting that the number of flights would remain the same or near the same, and the seats would just be backfilled with higher-paying customers. That could be a problem, yeah.
My presumption/goal is that you’d need to raise prices enough to make the demand drop sharply at whatever price point be necessary to reduce the number of flights. Airlines would have to price in reduced demand on top of whatever fees are imposed to continue making it worth it to them. If the prices only result in an 80% carbon reduction, raise them some more.
Additionally, at a certain price point it may be that alternative fuels become viable - fees could take this into account to encourage them.
As for trans-ocean flights, these are probably unavoidable, yeah.
Perhaps it could be accomplished by simply limiting the number of permitted flights and allowing prices to float. I suppose that’s taking up the same goal from the other end. Whatever happens, it seems inevitable that fewer people will be flying, and they’ll be paying more. If we’re to tackle the problem at all.
It’s not like our current state of affairs is equitable either though. Flying is specifically cheap today because of a combination of subsidization, lobbying, and big business demands. It’s not built to be fair to the little guy either, and if it ever is it’s just a convenient side-effect.
As much as big oil, airlines, automakers, et al are subsidized, if we could round up even 50% of that money, we could easily accomplish low-cost mass transit and reliable long distance rail. Even high-speed rail between major cities in some cases. Combined with cutting out taxpayer subsidized air, thay would go a long way to make things more equitable
I don’t see a ban happen for a number of reasons. Especially not if you want to ban the transport of goods (including intercontinental mail) as well.
Not to mention the fact that, short of replacing everything with sailboats, I doubt moving everything from plane to ship would necessarily be an improvement for the environment.
Better ground transportation could be a big game changer. At the moment I could either fly to London for a couple hundred quid at a convenient time of day within 4-5 hours door-to-door, or I could spend a substantially higher amount on a train ride that takes three times as long and requires me to change trains at least twice in the middle of the night.
Better ground transportation could be a big game changer. At the moment I could either fly to London for a couple hundred quid at a convenient time of day within 4-5 hours door-to-door, or I could spend a substantially higher amount on a train ride that takes three times as long and requires me to change trains at least twice in the middle of the night.
This is such an annoyance, not just from an environmental point of view. Even here in Germany, where we really do have a pretty great train network (mind you, the network is great, not necessarily the “adhering to time schedules”-part), it’s sometimes cheaper and faster to fly from city to city than to ride the literal Inter City Express trains, whose sole purpose it is to quickly connect far-away mid-to-large cities.
Fully loaded, there isn’t that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.
- -, bus, ~100…300mpg/pp
- Commercial jet, -, ~60…120mpg/pp
- Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
- Light aircraft, car, ~15…60mpg/pp
- Private jet, limo, ~5…50mpg/pp
- Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp
The more passengers, the more efficient.
To reduce carbon emissions, the best choices are:
- Bicycles
- Buses
- Commercial jets
- Trains, motorbikes, ultralight aircrafts
While the first to ban would be:
- Cars with fewer than 4 people
- Empty limos
- Fighter jets
Cars with just the driver, are by far the largest source of carbon emissions from people transportation.
Every product should include the price of what it costs today to repair the damage done to the environment by that particular product. That way the external negative effects get internalized to the individual that takes the decision, and also the damage can be covered.
Carbon Tax is the best incentive here.
Nope. I live on an island on the opposite side of the world from my family and there are currently no seafaring options that work with my employer. In-country, the only time I’ve flown is to another island several hours away. Otherwise it’s public transit for me the vast majority of the time (and my fuel efficient bike for when I need to go somewhere transit doesn’t (in ~ 9 months, I have < 800km on it, a lot of which was going to and from Costco).
@tiredofsametab @alyaza I beg your pardon, could you explain what does “fuel-efficient bike” mean? Clearly, you’re not talking of pedaling with a push bike. Are you referring to the battery as fuel? How is it fuel-efficient?
My guess is petrol scooter or motorbike, which is probably 2.5-3x the best automobile.
Yup, this is correct.
Nope, not a snowball’s chance in Hell. Adding even minor fees to this causes instant screeching rage, and persuading people with “the greater good” or “it’s just plain necessary” or basic facts will not suddenly start working, I’m afraid.