🌍 Hell yes! Banning domestic flights that are already served by high-speed rail is exactly how you decarbonise transport. Cannot wait to do this in the UK once we’ve overhauled our train network. Roll on 2033. reuters.com/article/us-cli…
Woah France also nailing it with taking literal trucks off the road. This “rail motorway” will cut some truck journeys from 36 hours by road to 20 hours by train, saving time, money, and emissions. If only the U.K. was working on a way to increase rail freight!
Thankfully train ticket prices in France are pretty reasonable. They’re usually outright cheaper than flights, but sometimes they’re a little more on certain days/times/short-notice. You don’t book summer holiday flights day of either right? via @rome2rio
The trips that aren’t cheaper also aren’t quick enough to be banned, because they’re junky old lines not their new high speed stuff. This law leaves them alone. If they improve the line then the flight could be banned, and basic supply & demand would kick in to lower price.
Could the U.K. put a law like this in place sooner? Maybe, but our train networks were rammed beyond capacity with inflated prices to match. If we’re gonna bounce back to normal, no way, but if we see a drop in people making those trips we could put bans in place much sooner.
🌍 If we want to get to carbon neutrality we have to emit some carbon to do it. Construction creates emissions. Solar panels, wind turbines, electric trains, all of these things have a cost/benefit analysis and lifecycle analysis needs to be considered. 🧵
The argument “we cannot build wind/solar because of the construction emissions” is clearly utter nonsense, but it’s popular nonsense. It was the main premise of the “documentary” Planet of the Humans, and its right from the fossil fuel industry handbook. ecologi.com/articles/clima…
Here’s a chart comparing the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour that we get from each power source, compared to how much greenhouse gas was created to make it. See if you can notice a difference between renewables and fossil fuels. Way less. But still emissions. So... good or bad?
🌍 The way we talk about infrastructure projects in the U.K. is utterly broken. HS2 receives nationwide coordinated attacks on the project as a whole, but the drastically more destructive road construction (#RIS2) is left to be fought separately by small local efforts.
I suspect much of this is because “cars are normal”, and partly that the cost benefit analysis of HS2 has been warped so badly by disinformation. that people think there’s barely any benefits, and the environmental costs have been presented with no context.
🌍 There are so many scammers in the carbon offset space. Protecting woodlands that were never threatened is an incredibly common scam, along with getting paid for planting timber plantations being planted anyway, then they just cut them later. 🤬
Then there’s this shite. Nigel Farage has nobody’s best interests at heart ever. Maybe he feels bad that Brexit trashed the UK’s reforestation efforts, but more likely he’s cashing in on the tsunami of corporate greenwashing. thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/…
I know for-profit companies in reforestation, rewilding, and carbon sequestration. Being for profit isn’t the problem, they’re actually saving the planet a little bit and making money, which helps them scale (and get more investment), not just lying to generate carbon credits.
🌍 Now people in my mentions are saying that because slow trains haven’t stopped people flying domestically there’s no reason to build faster trains along the routes people commonly fly because they’re quicker than trains. 🙃 #whyHS2
The fun part about this graphic is that it says domestic trains are 41g. Yeah that’s a fair average when so many are diesel (and can’t be electrified due to limitations of the surrounding environment) but HS2 advertises 8g/km. closer to Eurostar levels of emissions.
These same people are acting like trains are inherently making people drive more, because some people drive to a train.
🌍 Got people in my mentions adamant we won’t need high-speed electric rail in the future because some of their office worker friends are working from home sometimes at the moment. I don’t even know where to start with that, the stupidity, or the privilege.
The idea HS2 is no longer required because a pandemic has some folks WFH is based on daft assumptions. These people think 30% of Brits will WFH two days a week post pandemic forever. Let's take that as a fact (it's not), and keep in mind 55% of rail journeys are commutes.
If, post-pandemic, 30% of commuters continue to WFH half the time, and those days are spread evenly, then at any given point there's 15% fewer commuters commuting. Seeing as commuting is only 55% of rail, that's a 8% drop in rail journeys. Right? Math? Check me?
Some real napkin maths here but in order for HS2 to take 120 years to become carbon neutral, it would have to reduce road use by 0.08% and domestic air travel by 0.06%. If it reduced air and driving by just 5% it would be carbon neutral in 1-2 years. Time to make some policy.
One awesome example of policy that should be implemented as soon as HS2 is launched is the outright banning of any domestic flights that are served by high speed rail, like France. railjournal.com/passenger/high…
On the left, the most popular airports for domestic flights to London. On the right, the HS2 route. Looky at that they match. Ban 100% of _those_ domestic flights and HS2 would be carbon neutral in months.