I'm not sure that mass air transit has a place in a post-oil society were we try to leave at peace with the planet. Not just for the carbon impact, but also for the diversity of our species and cultures.
Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane?
Of course, the market wills it so some may think that it must happen, yet I feel that the globalisation and massification of everything made the world a less diverse and interesting place overall.
No, we will not get to a post oil society by self flagellating like Europe, but by making sustainable options so cheap and plentiful that they displace unsustainable options. (Of course there’s some market intervention and government investment necessary to get there)
One of these days, electricity will be so cheap that we can carbon capture our way back to 0C net warming and fuel flights for every Indian and Chinese with fuel made from CO2. The developing world will accept nothing less than the abundance route to decarbonization.
I don't understand, you want to create a copy of Venice?
The issue is not just the pollution from air travel, but also the types of consumption and ways of life that it enables. Besides ressources are not unlimited so even if you have fee energy, you still need to extract aluminium etc from the ground, and pour concrete on land to build airports and oversized infrastructure.
They live closer by? So less miles travelled, and in many cases travelled by train? Depending on how you generate electricity that works out quite differently.
Went to Venice by night train 15 years ago, would definitely recommend.
Conversely, however, perhaps we should question Europeans massively going to Phuket.
I'm not against restricting internal tourism as well, at least the most destructive forms, such as cruises for instance.
It's not just a question of CO2 pollution, but of human ecology as well: cities like Venice, Lisbon and Barcelona are being eaten out by tourism. What made them interesting is disappearing due to the local economy being highly disrupted by the massive inflows of tourists around the world.
> Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane
Who are you to dictate where Chinese and Indians can and cannot visit or enjoy delicious watermelons?
If someone wants to eat a watermelon like a dirty slave that is their business and you are not going to deny them that right. This is pure insanity.
China and India are the biggest domestic aircraft markets in the world. The manufacturers literally cannot keep up with the demand. If trains were more effective they would have built them already. If California has taught us anything it's that implementation of high speed rail is a joke.
I am appalled at the level of delusion and craziness in these responses, it would take a year to respond to them all.
Air travel is not going anywhere and we are not setting society back 100 years on account of dubious climate histrionics.
Want to save the environment?
Ditch smartphones (future e-waste) and all their useless apps (and resource-sucking infra) we could all live without tomorrow.
Turns out we were as effective in moving goods and services and leisure travel in 2008 as we are today.
We just couldn't post to social media about how uncomfortable the airplane seat was and how the onboard Wi-Fi sucked.
Have you considered that the goal in life is not necessarily for societies to maximize dollars in the bank account? Or that pushing the strategy to its limits may be short sighted, and come with massive long term costs and externalies?
In the case of Venice, and other places in Europe, the influx of tourists is just too much and displaced local populations, and erodes the infrastructure. And for what? To rush through cities in a week end and take photos on instagram that have millions of duplicates?
Alternatively, have you considered improving your city to make it a place worthy of a visit?
Well they're more convenient by virtue of being faster. The well off will inevitably pay for convenience if allowed.
> If California has taught us anything it's that implementation of high speed rail is a joke.
The only thing California stands as an example of in that regard is political dysfunction. A hypothetical benevolent dictator could have built out high speed rail there on time and on budget.
> I am appalled at the level of delusion and craziness in these responses
Has it not occurred to you that maybe that's a red flag that perhaps your own views or emotional state are a bit off?
> on account of dubious climate histrionics.
An empty dismissal of a vague and poorly defined (on your part) concept. How about engaging with a real position instead of name calling a straw man?
> Ditch smartphones (future e-waste)
And what do you suppose the combined total environmental impact is for those globally compared to other categories?
You’ve got the answer with CAHSR. The only form of government that can build high-speed rail well is one like the CPC: a dictatorship which doesn’t need the consent of the governed. If we put them in charge of CAHSR they would have the job done in a couple years, but we would have to allow them to nationalize every single property in their way, by force if necessary, and cities, towns, unions, etc. would have no right to negotiate with them on any matter. All the problems they’ve had IRL are a result of them not being able to do whatever they want.
Honestly I respect China a lot and it’s hard not to respect them when it comes to getting infra projects done, be it roads, trains, or whatever. But it’s not a system that has any overlap with the rights in our Constitution. Even Europeans expect more rights from their governments.
France has an extensive medium and high-speed rail network and is not an authoritarian state. This is purely an administrative issue. Why do HN believe that there are only two alternatives : the US and China?
France's HSR network extenda into both Germany, and into Britans rail network. California just does not really care about HSR, and I live here. I have been a fan of BART since the day it opened and will be a fan until the day it closes which will be sooner than I think. Bus systems suck too.
The US rarely builds new highways anymore though. They expand existing ones a lot, but it is rarely a new build. Where they are built, it's on the edge of town where the entire farm was sold to a developer who specifically reserves some of it because the developers are well aware that people will not buy it in their new subdivision unless there's good roads to get into it.
Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane?
Of course, the market wills it so some may think that it must happen, yet I feel that the globalisation and massification of everything made the world a less diverse and interesting place overall.