SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the walking-will-be-mandatory-soon dept.
It's official: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel:
France has been given the green light to ban short haul domestic flights.
The European Commission has approved the move which will abolish flights between cities that are linked by a train journey of less than 2.5 hours.
[...] France is also cracking down on the use of private jets for short journeys in a bid to make transport greener and fairer for the population.
Transport minister Clément Beaune said the country could no longer tolerate the super rich using private planes while the public are making cutbacks to deal with the energy crisis and climate change.
[...] The ban on short-haul flights will be valid for three years, after which it must be reassessed by the Commission.
"[This] is a major step forward in the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions," transport minister Beaune said in a press release.
[...] Sarah Fayolle, Greenpeace France transport campaign manager, told Euronews that there were both "negative and positive aspects" to the European Commission's decision given that only three routes are affected.
"It's going in the right direction, but the initial measure is one that's (not very) ambitious. We must go even further," she said.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Sunday December 11 2022, @07:35PM (1 child)
England might find itself persuaded by various forces, including the international community. Unless they want to withdraw from the UN, of course. The Tory/ERG/Faragists currently in power are far-right libertarians. They were very disappointed that Trump didn't get re-elected. They were betting their shirts on that so that they could get their chlorinated chicken deal with the USA. Why do they want to hold on to Scotland so much? They accuse us of being a drain on their resources. You would think it would be a no-brainer for them: let Scotland go and profit! Not only that, they'd consolidate their right wing majority in Parliament.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday December 11 2022, @07:51PM
> England might find itself persuaded by various forces, including the international community.
Being a Nuclear power, and a powerful NATO ally, I doubt anyone will be persuading them of anything. This isn't some weak small country that can be invaded and parts cleaved off of it at a whim. The "international community" has been against a lot of what the UK does, and it has not even slowed them down, let alone stopped them.
> Unless they want to withdraw from the UN, of course.
Which they won't, as they have veto power there, by virtue of being one of the Nuclear powers. They don't have to withdraw, with the veto nothing against them ever gets through, like for the other members and their allies
> The Tory/ERG/Faragists currently in power are far-right libertarians.
Really? From my vantage point, there does not seem to be anything libertarian about them. More like right leaning tyrants. My objection is to tyrants, rather than whether they identify as "left" or "right".
> They were very disappointed that Trump didn't get re-elected. They were betting their shirts on that so that they could get their chlorinated chicken deal with the USA.
Strange that, considering how much Trump was pillored, insulted and mocked, even by those same politicians. Saying that Trump probably would have granted them a free trade agreement, but as you say, those plans fell through quite spectacularly, which is why they are in the economic mess they are now in.
> Why do they want to hold on to Scotland so much? They accuse us of being a drain on their resources. You would think it would be a no-brainer for them: let Scotland go and profit! Not only that, they'd consolidate their right wing majority in Parliament.
Well, a few reasons I can think of:
1 - Fishing rights
2 - Psychopaths never give up what they gained without a hell of a fight (in this case, land)
3 - Workers + taxes
4 - If I remember correctly, a good chunk of the UK Atomic arsenal is housed up there.
5 - Access to the sea floor up there, along with whatever oil/gas and other mineral rights can be found up there
6 - Control, an independent Scotland could not work in England's favour (overlaps with #2 a bit), which as you point out, politically off the bat it would not be in England's favour.
Those are all the ones I can think of on short notice, I am sure there are other points (including some related to history, the monarchy, etc...), but I think that covers the main ones. The whole "they are a drain on their resources" is just noise really to those in power, they don't care about that. Control and ownership is much more important.
I guess if Scots really wanted to negotiate independence, they would make use of point 4, take control of the atomic arsenal, and then declare independence (there is no need for a referendum, or even for England/UK to agree, as international precedent has been set a few times in the last 20/30 years for that). There is not much England could do in that situation, short of declare war, which could become messy for them very quickly.