Cap on individual plane travel

[Puppycow]

Oh god no!

It costs more to take the train, and that's with heavy government subsidies hiding the trrue cost.

Have you ever checked Amtrak's fares?

Pounds of CO2 per Passenger Mile Traveled

Average Emissions per Mile
Type lbs co2/mile
Vanpool 0.27
Subway or Elevated Rail 0.35
Commuter Rail 0.41
Amtrak 0.46
Streetcar or Trolley 0.46
Trolleybus 0.54
Bus 0.90
Demand Response 2.09
Monorail or Cable Car 2.39
Ferry Boat 2.68
Moped 0.2
Scooter 0.3
Motorcycle 0.4
Motor home 2.7
Carpool 1.1
Taxi 1.1
Rental Car 1.2
Airplane 0.64

Airplane is better than a bus, but Amtrack is better than both.

 

[lionking]

An interesting letter in Melbourne's Age today:

THE howling of self-interest groups at the Copenhagen summit is being mirrored by the bleatings of a local lobby group, the ''Tourism and Transport Forum'', which claims that a proposed tax on emissions from long-haul flights would be ''devastating'' to the local tourist industry (The Age, 19/12). In its announcement, however, it avoided justifying this alarmist claim with figures.
Let's do some sums for them: a return London to Melbourne flight of 40,000 kilometres generates 1.6 tonnes of carbon emissions per passenger. Assuming the cost of carbon offsets might one day reach the dizzily high rate of $25 a tonne, that means the two flights might cost up to a whopping $40 extra. This is hardly going to bounce the average British tourist from Brisbane to Benidorm.
Reasonable travellers would see that this tax is justified, and it is considerably more affordable than a taxi to the airport or even the fuel surcharge recently imposed by airlines (about $250 each way from London to Australia on British Airways in 2008). Lobbyists would better maintain credibility by presenting facts rather than scare-mongering.

$40 extra is not that big a deal.

 

[WildCat]

Pounds of CO2 per Passenger Mile Traveled



Airplane is better than a bus, but Amtrack is better than both.

That formula leaves out the CO2 produced constructing and maintaining the rail lines.

 

[Puppycow]

That formula leaves out the CO2 produced constructing and maintaining the rail lines.

If you want to go there, I'm sure it also leaves out the CO2 produced constructing and maintaining the roads and the airports.

Then there's the CO2 from actually manufacturing the vehicles themselves.

I imagine that these are all roughly comparable.

ETA: actually, considering all the CO2 produced at an airport terminal by things other than the planes themselves, that would probably be worse for the planes.

 

[WildCat]

If you want to go there, I'm sure it also leaves out the CO2 produced constructing and maintaining the roads and the airports.

It's far less to maintain an airport than hundreds of thousands of miles of railroad tracks, thousands of stations, and thousands of train cars.

As far as roads go, the roads have to be there whether or not people have private cars. Not true of the high-speed rail lines being proposed by train freaks, which would exist exclusively for passenger trains.

 

[geni]

I have a novel idea, how about the gov't butt out and let the free market decide.


Free markets, free minds, freedom. What a concept!

Because it's quite hard for me to sue you for releaseing CO2 and thus reduceing the value of my land through climate change. As a result basic free market theory says that it cannot deal with the problem in question.

 

[Random]

Oh god no!

It costs more to take the train, and that's with heavy government subsidies hiding the trrue cost.

Have you ever checked Amtrak's fares?

Airlines recieve all sorts of hidden subsidies and perks, and automobiles? You don't even wat to go there. Amtrack is an easy target because its government subsidy shows up as a simple line item in the budget, plus there are considerable polical pressures to make sure Amtrak is run as badly as possible.

 

[Puppycow]

It's far less to maintain an airport than hundreds of thousands of miles of railroad tracks, thousands of stations, and thousands of train cars.

As far as roads go, the roads have to be there whether or not people have private cars. Not true of the high-speed rail lines being proposed by train freaks, which would exist exclusively for passenger trains.

Whoa, who says that public roads have to exist? They are a really nice thing to have, but they are a public good. Private cars would be pretty worthless without roads, and so public roads are a subsidy.

Now, as far as your claim that "It's far less to maintain an airport," I think you just pulled that one out of your nether regions. Think of O'Hare for example and all the subsidiary things there that are necessary for running a major international airport. For one thing, control towers and the air traffic controllers who work there. And of course, the airport is a necessary public facility, and hence a subsidy for the airlines.
A railroad station is a much simpler facility and once tracks have been built, maintaining them is not a very big deal.
So, while Amtrak may be subsidized by the government, so are all the other kinds of transportation.
Here in Japan, the largest railroad company was originally a national public railroad, which was privatized and is now run quite profitably by the private sector.

 

[Beerina]

Why not just have a carbon tax? I don't like arbitrary rationing. The price of a plane ticket (or anything) should reflect the true cost including externalities. That's it. Any further artificial distortion of the market is undesirable.

Why not technical solutions far cheaper than government regulation, and let industry continue throbbing ahead full steam? The double presumption of (A)GW being horrible and a command-and-control "fix" is the correct and only way is mired in anachronistic politics, not science and solutions.


I heartily encourage all politicians running for office to loudly claim they want to limit plane travel for individuals.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

In 2008 European airlines started to link to pages were you could pay voluntarily a CO2 fare. E.g. for a round trip Vienna - Honolulu they wanted me to pay $300 for the CO2. Digitus impetigos was my automatic reaction. If they want me to pay they have to make a law, not appeal to improve my CO2 footprint.

 

[WildCat]

Airlines recieve all sorts of hidden subsidies and perks, and automobiles? You don't even wat to go there. Amtrack is an easy target because its government subsidy shows up as a simple line item in the budget, plus there are considerable polical pressures to make sure Amtrak is run as badly as possible.

Oh, but I do want to go there! Can you expand on these "hidden subsidies and perks"? Oh, and I can assure you, Amtrak has gobs that are hidden also, way more than the massive subsidies.

 

[WildCat]

Whoa, who says that public roads have to exist? They are a really nice thing to have, but they are a public good. Private cars would be pretty worthless without roads, and so public roads are a subsidy.

Of course public roads have to exist. It would be rather difficult to move goods and services without them. You couldn't even haul garbage away without roads, but then again your house couldn't have been built without them either. Even N. Koresa has roads, even though they have almost no private autos at all.

It's actually cars that subsidize the roads, through fuel taxes and registration fees.

 

[WildCat]

Now, as far as your claim that "It's far less to maintain an airport," I think you just pulled that one out of your nether regions. Think of O'Hare for example and all the subsidiary things there that are necessary for running a major international airport. For one thing, control towers and the air traffic controllers who work there. And of course, the airport is a necessary public facility, and hence a subsidy for the airlines.

O'Hare is paid for by airline fees and hotel taxes. The ongoing expansion is paid for by those things. The Chicago metropolitan area would not find itself in a better financial position if O'Hare went away.

A railroad station is a much simpler facility and once tracks have been built, maintaining them is not a very big deal.

Heh, even the El trains here require *tens of millions of dollars in maintenance every year, and that's for just 224 miles of track. Hell, it's going to cost $88 million to replace 7 miles of track (thank you US taxpayers). And that's for light rail. The cost of building and maintaining tens of thousands of miles of high-speed rail would be mind-boggling.

So, while Amtrak may be subsidized by the government, so are all the other kinds of transportation.

Not to the extent Amtrak is.

Here in Japan, the largest railroad company was originally a national public railroad, which was privatized and is now run quite profitably by the private sector.

Compare/contrast the population density of Japan to the US. Trains only work where there is high population density, and the US is nowhere near that tipping point.

*eta: oops, it's actually far, far more than "tens of millions". It's in the hundreds of millions. According to this story this year the CTA had to transfer $128 million from its maintenance budget to its operating budget! Remember this is for just 224 miles of track. I don't recall O'Hare having these kinds of problems...

 

[Puppycow]

*eta: oops, it's actually far, far more than "tens of millions". It's in the hundreds of millions. According to this story this year the CTA had to transfer $128 million from its maintenance budget to its operating budget! Remember this is for just 224 miles of track. I don't recall O'Hare having these kinds of problems...

OK, you have a point, but originally we were comparing CO2 emissions, not money.
Elevated train tracks or subways are going to be more expensive, but note that the existence of these has positive externalities for the roads. All the people who take a subway or light rail are not on the roads making traffic worse. In a large metropolitan area like Chicago and definately Tokyo, railroads are essential.

 

[WildCat]

OK, you have a point, but originally we were comparing CO2 emissions, not money.

And building railroad tracks entails gobs of CO2 emissions.

Elevated train tracks or subways are going to be more expensive, but note that the existence of these has positive externalities for the roads. All the people who take a subway or light rail are not on the roads making traffic worse. In a large metropolitan area like Chicago and definately Tokyo, railroads are essential.

Only a small section of that stretch of the Blue Line is underground, and none of it is elevated. Most of it runs down the middle of I-290 (Eisenhower Expy). And it's not like they're digging the tunnels, that was done a hundred years ago.

Yes, light rail is essential in a big city but passenger train lines through sparsely populated areas in the age of airplanes is pointless, and extremely expensive.

Look at the high-speed rail line being built in California. A projected cost (and we all know cost overruns are the norm for these things) of $40 billion for 700 miles of railway.

That's over $57 million per mile Puppycow... and there's so many stops it's unlikely the damned train will ever cruise at the advertised speed.

 

[Puppycow]

That's over $57 million per mile Puppycow... and there's so many stops it's unlikely the damned train will ever cruise at the advertised speed.

If it operates like the trains in Japan there will be express trains that do not stop at smaller stations.

 

[sigmund]

This is cap and trade. I will just buy someones unused travel credits. Then I can travel all I want. Just like polluting. See?

Bingo, exactly the same principle as carbon credits. I do not fly (phobia) ergo I will sell my credits to someone who wants them.

This may have the same adjustment problems as the initial Euro emissions trading scheme , wherein more carbon credits were actually issued than had actually historically been used.

(I really wish I could link to back up my posts)

 

[SezMe]

I have a novel idea, how about the gov't butt out and let the free market decide.

It's not a novel idea at all, but it is certainly a piss poor one. Externalities are not handled by the "free market".

 

[WildCat]

If it operates like the trains in Japan there will be express trains that do not stop at smaller stations.

If ifs and buts were cake and nuts what a wonderful Christman it would be!

 

[gambling_cruiser]

In 2008 European airlines started to link to pages were you could pay voluntarily a CO2 fare. E.g. for a round trip Vienna - Honolulu they wanted me to pay $300 for the CO2. Digitus impetigos was my automatic reaction. If they want me to pay they have to make a law, not appeal to improve my CO2 footprint.

I mean Digitus impudicus. LOL spellcheckers can be funny.