Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 23 2021, @10:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the cargo-in-the-hold-is-entirely-weightless dept.

Europe is planning to label flights according to their carbon footprint:

When I take a train in Europe, the ticket shows exactly how much carbon I'll be responsible for putting into the atmosphere (3.8 kilograms on my usual route). Now, the EU's Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) plans to create similar eco-ranking labels for the airline industry, according to a report from Germany's Welt am Sonntag. The idea is to provide "reliable, comparable and verifiable information," so passengers can make sustainable flying decisions.

The EU is reportedly trying to counterbalance potential "greenwashing" from airlines who may promote exaggerated claims of flights being eco-friendly. Aviation adds 3.5 percent of the pollution responsible for global warming, according to a recent international study.

[...] EASA reportedly plans to use high-speed trains as a benchmark for consumer labels.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @11:52AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @11:52AM (#1116384)

    before the pandemic, cheap flights were usually cheaper than the train required to get to the city with the airport.
    why can't trains get the subsidies that airplanes get?

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @12:18PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @12:18PM (#1116387)

      Trains ALREADY get more subsidies than planes. Think about it: how much infrastructure does a train need? How much does a plane need? A plane needs only airports for when it takes off and when it lands. Trains need track the entire route and all that track also has to be maintained. Trains are expensive and always will be. Their niche is cargo transportation (lots of heavy stuff all delivered to the same location, and you don't care if it is slow to arrive) and perhaps *short* city to city travel.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:42PM (1 child)

        by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:42PM (#1116398)

        IDK what country you are from, but it is curious how you say that railways' niche is cargo. In the UK, cargo is a small part of railway business and passenger flow is dominant. I think UK railways should carry more cargo than they do, but the peculiar taxation system slants cargo-carrying strongly towards roads because lorries/trucks don't pay anything like their proper share of infrastucture costs. I pay about five times more tax per mile for my car than some of the heaviest lorries do.

        Again, IDK what you have in mind by "short" distance, but I can get to most other significant places in the UK quicker by train than by air (or car) - by the time you get to an airport and then from an airport to your destination, plus all the airport delays.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:38PM (#1116421)

          The UK is a small country. Typical distances between cities are short. In America, a huge country, the most viable passenger routes for train are in the crowded Northeast corridor which runs from Washington, DC in the south to Boston, Mass. in the north. A passenger train from Washington, DC to Chicago, in contrast, is absurd. That falls squarely under plane travel. Even Northeast corridor loses to the plane for many routes.

      • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:59PM (3 children)

        by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:59PM (#1116403) Homepage

        Trains getting more subsidies? In your dreams.

        Lets start by the fact that there is no TAX on kerosine... If trains would get their electricity (or mostly Diesel if I guessed your country right) for free there would already be a huge price drop.
        And also don't underestimate the amount of infrastructure an airport costs

        And neither moving people or cargo by train is slow. (At least not on the continent I live)
        You want to move stuff around slowly? Take a boat.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:41PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @02:41PM (#1116423)

          You have no idea about costs. Passenger trains are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. There is simply FAR MORE infrastructure required for a train as compared to an airplane. FAR MORE.

          • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:07PM

            by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:07PM (#1116547) Homepage

            Even in an anti-train country like the US you have to go back to the 19th century to find a time where trains were subsidized more than air travel or roads.....

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:17PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:17PM (#1116495) Journal

          Having no tax on your fuel is hardly the same as getting your fuel for free. It surely makes your fuel a lot cheaper, but you still have to pay for it.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 24 2021, @02:00AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 24 2021, @02:00AM (#1116724) Journal

        Trains are expensive and always will be.

        No, not really. All that train infrastructure you mention? Most of it is way out in the boonies where land is cheaper than dirt. Airports, on the other hand, are usually found on prime real estate, as close to business centers and government centers as possible.

        I'm not a train guy, but there have been many studies over the years, proving that freight moves by rail at a small fraction of the cost of moving freight by truck. Both are cheaper than moving freight by air.

        Moving passengers by rail should be just as cheap. I blame bureaucracy for the expense of passenger rail in the US.

        • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday February 24 2021, @10:26AM

          by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday February 24 2021, @10:26AM (#1116799)

          All that train infrastructure you mention? Most of it is way out in the boonies where land is cheaper than dirt.

          Even that is only relevant if you are building new railways. Most railway companies (I guess almost all) have owned their land since the lines were built, mostly over 150 years ago. Modern track on concrete sleepers or slab needs far less maintenace than the old timber sleeper stuff, and the rails themselves last for over 50 years away from tight curves and stations.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:25PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @01:25PM (#1116396)

    > (3.8 kilograms on my usual route)

    I take it that the train always has the same number of passengers?

    Example: If you bought the same ticket on a day when the train was nearly empty, you would be responsible for a much larger fraction of the carbon (CO2) released into the atmosphere.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @04:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @04:12PM (#1116470)

      When I go by train, I make sure to leave a 3.8 kg carbon load in the bathroom to offset the gas released.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:47PM (1 child)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:47PM (#1116510)

      It's a fair point that the "carbon load" has some averaging. Actually I was curious, what is really the difference in efficiency between a train and a plane.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/travel/trains-airplanes.html [nytimes.com]

      Article has some stats (but no source). Looks like things are pretty marginal with trains only ahead by a few 10s of %

      Wikipedia has this to say:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport [wikipedia.org]

      Claim is that trains use between 100 - 500 kJ per passenger km while planes use 1400 kJ per passenger km. So factor 3-10 more efficiency in train. Short distance i.e. mass transit trains the claim is more like 1000-2000 kJ per passenger km

      Probably these estimates don't include carbon footprint of operating infrastructure or travel to transport hubs, be they stations or airports.

      • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:10PM

        by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:10PM (#1116549) Homepage

        Don't forget that trains can use energy sources that produce less carbon per kJ.
        Running trains on solar or wind power already happens, planes might never get to that point.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:44PM (2 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday February 23 2021, @05:44PM (#1116506) Journal

    We should put an "Eco" rating on each one of them, and on the rich bastards that want us to eat bugs to "save the planet"

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 24 2021, @02:03AM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 24 2021, @02:03AM (#1116725) Journal

      We would save more of the planet, more efficiently, if we ate the rich bastards. What say ye, Soylentils?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 24 2021, @12:26PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 24 2021, @12:26PM (#1116821) Journal
        Azuma tells me I'm a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire [soylentnews.org]. Your post means I've been demoted to temporarily-embarrassed dinner. I'm uncomfortable with this.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:26PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @07:26PM (#1116561)

    Any flight with Saint Greta aboard gets an "A+" rating.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @08:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2021, @08:11PM (#1116580)

      A++ if St Jacinda is on the same flight.
      OTOH, NZ is 1/2 a planet away. Maybe this will finally shut down the tween euro 'eco' tourists who freeload there.

(1)