Should short-haul flights be banned where a train alternative exists?
15 votes|10 arguments|0 source
60%9
·
Aviation emits far more CO₂ per passenger than rail. Banning short flights with a train alternative is a quick, fair climate win. @@yes_1
France's existing 2h30 rule has already eliminated three high-emission routes with little protest — the model works. @@yes_2
Public money funds high-speed rail. It is incoherent to subsidise rail while letting flights undercut it on the same routes. @@yes_3
Polling consistently shows a majority of citizens support moving forward — democratic legitimacy is on this side. @@yes_4
Pilot programs in comparable jurisdictions have produced encouraging results that opponents tend to downplay or ignore. @@yes_5
27%4
·
Trains aren't always faster, reliable or cheaper. Banning flights penalizes travelers without truly equivalent infrastructure. @@no_1
Most short-haul flights are feeders for long-haul hubs. Banning them just shifts passengers to longer car trips or foreign hubs. @@no_2
The carbon gain is marginal — short-haul accounts for a small share of aviation emissions. Tackle long-haul or SAF instead. @@no_3
Once enacted, this kind of policy is politically very hard to reverse — that asymmetry alone calls for caution. @@no_4
The evidence base remains contested, and headline studies often haven't been independently replicated at scale. @@no_5
13%2