It's taken a while to finally get this in peer-reviewed form, but here's my latest article comparing the carbon footprints of long-distance rail travel and commercial aviation in Canada! dx.doi.org/10.1111/cag.12…
Rail has a reputation as being a sustainable mode of transportation... and *usually* that's true (internationally, rail is the most energy-efficient mode). But long-distance passenger rail in Canada is, well, relatively terrible for the environment....
Flying by commercial aircraft across the country actually produces a smaller carbon footprint than taking the train. The article explains why that's the case, why it matters, and what the government can do about it!
Briefly though... it MATTERS because a) many Canadians *think* rail has a lower carbon footprint and increasingly some eco-conscious travellers have OPTED to take the train over flying on that false assumption - despite it taking multiple days and costing much more!
and b) it matters because some fairly simple changes can help make passenger rail much more sustainable. There's no need to be chugging down so much diesel per passenger!
Two final comments: 1) This was a bit of a side project started after two rail travellers shared unsolicited information with me which they had received from VIA Rail about their travel footprints. I thank those two "Good Samaritans" for reaching out to this unknown academic.
2) Important👉 The long-distance trains and 'Corridor' trains in Canada are not the same: Taking the train WITHIN the Quebec City-Windsor corridor (through Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) IS more efficient than flying. It's the trips to West and East Coasts that need improvement!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) The thread noted a divide between what I called “accelerationists” who were sounding alarm that 2023’s remarkable warming was the beginning of SOMETHING NEW, and those I (later) called “observationalists”, who claimed 2023’s extreme warmth fits within EXPECTED WARMING trends.
2) These positions continue to be expressed. @MichaelEMann, for instance, is adamant that “the truth [about global warming] is bad enough”; that the warming we saw in 2023 can be explained by known climate physics; and that 2023 fits within the modelled warming.
This post by @FoodProfessor claims that the Trudeau Government purposely built the @ClimateInstit and @SP_Inst as part of its "lobbying machine" and that they are "mandated to advocate blindly" for the carbon tax.
This is a baseless claim.
Thread...🧵
1) This story starts in 1988 when the Mulroney government created an Independent advisory council of experts called the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. For 25 years it produced numerous reports on environmental policy, advising governments.
2) Then in 2013 the Harper government cancelled the NREE's funding because it did not like the advice it was receiving (in particular regarding carbon pricing). News story about it here: cbc.ca/news/politics/…
I don't know if the left has ever been unified, but today there seems to be a massive and growing rift about the environment - and especially climate - amongst socialists.
I now worry these differences are irreconcilable...
2. The discord seems to come down to fundamentally different worldviews shaping interpretations and definitions of modernity, development, progress, capitalism, justice, Marx's intentions, strategy, the future...
Many people seem absolutely fed up with "the other side". FED. UP.
3. The Degrowth Left (and this is sure to be a caricature of 'the ideology', not thinking of any one individual) seems FED UP with what it believes Ecomodern Socialism is: a sort of capitalism-as-usual in disguise...
It's worth emphasizing that because the scheduled carbon tax rate increase is flat ($15/tonne/year through to 2030), the *relative* weight increase declines over time.
There's a few ways that the carbon tax increase may *feel* less consequential as time goes on. Mini 🧵
First, as Chris has pointed out, this year it's a 23% increase on the tax rate relative to last year. But next year it will be an 18.75% increase and so on until it just stays fixed at $170/tonne - no longer increasing any more, year after year...
Second, due to inflation, the relative weight of an increase could also decline.
Ex: Currently the tax *increase* adds about 3.3c per litre ($17.6c/L). A 50L tank of gas has $8.80 tax. If the avg pre-tax gas price goes up, the relative size of the tax increase per tank declines.
Here's the abridged story of how NEOLIBERALISM became dominant (as I understand it). This is also a story with CLIMATE implications.
I draw on works by Harvey, Klein, Helleiner, Ruggie, and others.
(Keen to hear amendments, additions, critiques from fellow political economists)
1) It's 1944 and the soon-to-be victors of WWII gather at Bretton Woods to design the Post-War global economy. They develop an international monetary system largely seeking stability; one that fosters cooperation and prosperity through international trade and growth.
2) This model of 'embedded liberalism' sought a balance between what was seen as volatile laissez-faire market capitalism on one hand, and protectionist (even authoritarian) state interventionism on the other. In domestic terms, it lent itself to Keynesian 'demand-side' policies.
1. Speaking of tipping points: I believe the world has recently tipped into the early stages of one of the most profound transformations humanity has ever endured. It will take place over the next 50 years or so.
🧵on this fascinating and terrifying time to be alive!
2. The transformation is being ushered in by major demographic, technological, and ecological changes. These are mutually-reinforcing in some ways, making the transformation feel lightning fast (in human terms). The late 21st Century will look fundamentally different from today.
3. First, two demographic shifts which are profoundly consequential: i) Global population will for the first time in human history peak and *trend* downward (the rate of growth already peaked years ago) ii) the shift from a mostly-rural to mostly-urban population continues.