120
submitted 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Can't afford the train over the plane for some french trips it's so frustrating

[-] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 87 points 20 hours ago
[-] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago

I'm left with a lot of questions though, as the scope of the article is quite limited.

Short-haul flight are banned, so the gains seem obvious. But the article doesn't seem to detail if they're actually substituted by rail. Travellers could also be going by car, search for destinations further away, maybe not go at all.

I guess it's quite hard to find an actual effect from a broader perspective, but if their expectations are true, travellers using rail should have a noticable increase. It's a shame this is missing in the article.

Basically the article is saying that if you scrap a bunch of flights, emissions by aviations go down. Maybe I'm missing the point, but that seems pretty obvious. I'd like to know what the actual broader effect is of these measures taken.

[-] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 minutes ago

Cars are still roughly an order of magnitude less emitting for the same trip compared to planes so in the worst case it's still a win, as long as it doesn't increase public subsidization of car-centric infrastructure. I think I would personally take rail if I were presented with car or train. I can at least do something while riding the train or even work remotely or something.

[-] HubertManne@piefed.social 14 points 19 hours ago

did you get that by reading it and now we don't have to or that is your answer after not reading? because I have not.

[-] classic@fedia.io 41 points 19 hours ago

Climate TRACE emissions data suggest the policies did, in fact, deliver their hoped-for emissions reductions.

[-] Archimedes@sh.itjust.works 14 points 19 hours ago

I'm not reading that!

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 16 hours ago

headlines asking a yes or no question usually means a No.

Here we have the exception though. It's a yes

[-] saltesc@lemmy.world 42 points 19 hours ago

I hate planes over trains in the EU. I swear trains feel faster because it's central to central too. There's no travelling out to an airport a couple hours before takeoff, sitting around waiting at an airport or on tarmac either. Oh, and actual leg room, comfort, and can easily move around.

[-] ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

What I love the most about train is that you can go to the restaurant car and stretch the legs.

[-] classic@fedia.io 32 points 19 hours ago

So jealous of the countries that have kept train systems in place

[-] ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

It is a bit of hit or miss in some parts.

Valencia-Madrid? Very fast and good, even with a low cost operator.

Valencia-Barcelona? Not as good, but it still beats the plane.

Valencia-Málaga? You mean Valencia-Madrid-Málaga, plane makes much more sense.

Valencia-Badajoz? Again through Madrid.

Madrid-Badajoz? Fuck you.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

i just want a train that doesn't take 24 hours to do the 1 hour flight i used to commute on

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago

Valencia-Málaga? You mean Valencia-Madrid-Málaga, plane makes much more sense.

When I did this I just rented a car. That's it's own kind of hassle but I think it still beat flying.

[-] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 hours ago

I wish we had Chinese level public infrastructure, though. Even the proposed plans for EU high speed rail twenty years from now are behind what China already has.

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I would like to add the stipulation that intelligently planned uses of electric aircraft that provide unique low impact and cost shorthaul capabilities by charging opportunistically from the grid are a different path and shouldn't be mixed up with fossil fuel aircraft unnecessarily used when trains make more sense.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
120 points (99.2% liked)

Climate

8874 readers
547 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS