Sarah, this is fantastic and it is a view I gave long shared, however there needs a concerted effort on behalf of government to really kick start it. If we invested in high speed rail in the same way as the Italians, French, spanish, Germans and now the likes of the Czech Republic, Poland etc do, then there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly to anywhere up to and including the central belt of Scotland or most of north west Europe. Yet we have scaled back HS2 which would not only do away with most of our domestic flights but also release capacity on our regional railways and get people out of cars and lorries. It is an environmentally disastrous decision. In the meantime, encouraging people to take the train as you are doing can only be good. I just got back today from northern Spain. We went be train and (say it quietly) flew back. The difference was startling. Breakfast in London, lunch in Paris and dinner in the Basque Country whilst travelling in comfort, whilst fully relaxed and actually enjoying the journey. On the way back, as we queued for an hour in immigration at Luton, my wife said she would never fly such distances again and how train travel is so much more enjoyable - and this is before we throw the environmental aspect into the discussion. It was like watching one of your videos!. I look forward to your next adventure.
I live in New Zealand. So I only have one option to travel anywhere outside my country (which I need to do for my job). The opinion of this when it comes to flying with hydrogen is valid when you live on a content like Europe, but doesn't work for many of the worlds countries. I am pro- anything that can solve this, and - besides not leaving my country at all - hydrogen powered flight is the best option on the horizon. Many parts of the world have green power production (over 80% in New Zealand), so making the technology happen solves the main problem. It will only be a matter of time green power production with the other countries grids will be solved.
As an American, I'm genuinely curious: why do any Europeans still choose to fly to a destination that they can train to? Assuming the duration of travel is
Social norm: people have just got used to flying being the way you travel on holiday. It's interesting that you take this view as an American though - in my experience Americans are even more guilty of taking air travel when they could take trains. I realise that this is mostly because of the really poor train network in the US, but still, there are still many people who take short-haul flights between cities that are actually very well connected by train.
Because it’s more often than not a pain in the butt. For some destination, you’d have to take 2, 3 or more trains. Ain’t nobody got time for that. When when planets align, it glorious, I’ll give you that.
Of course it does - the aviation industry currently releases the CO2 of a mid-sized country. That's just a fact. And it's growing fast. I guess what you do with such facts constitutes the "debate" part.
This is easier for Europeans because you have excellent rail systems. But for some people, there is no reasonable alternative. For crossing oceans, cruise ships are worse than flying for the environment and freighters are very slow and not very practical. How about working on alternatives other than just staying home?
Except that there's a longer term societal cost to flying that isn't obvious in the short term, but which everyone including you will end up paying. Pay more now or pay more later. Your choice. I'm not saying don't fly, just try to travel via less environmentally costly ways if you can.
Higher taxes and fees on flights, airports, aviation fuel, and so on, matched with increased spending on more environmentally friendly modes of travel like trains, and paid for with these higher taxes and fees, is really the only way to go. Not enough individuals are likely to do the right thing to make enough of a difference so governments are going to have to step in and force the rest. We know that it works because historically government policy through positive and negative incentives and investment in infrastructure and emerging technology has essentially created or made possible entire industries like rail, steamships, electricity, telephones, aviation and high tech. Nothing really just happens by itself and purely market-based solutions are a myth. Only mixed models work.
If taxes, levies and incentives could be applied internationally, then another possibility would be to tax flights based on the availability of sustainable alternatives. Therefore someone flying from, say, Reykjavík to Paris would pay a relatively low levy (no viable alternatives), whereas someone flying from Amsterdam to Paris would pay a whopping tax.
I just checked prices on eurostar return fare London to Amsterdam £350 so this option is unaffordable for lots of people when compared to flying. For ordinary families going on holidays with kids especially to popular places like Spain, Portugal train takes up to a day and multiple times the cost of plane. So its pie in the sky to expect people to switch to the train. Maybe a levy on frequent flyers is a good idea. But people like me will keep flying where it saves time and money and we will need innovation to reduce aviation emissions not having most of us never able to travel and allow flying and travelling by train to be for the rich.
There's an unspoken rule that when you have a question in headline, the answer is "no" most of the time. I was surprised when I found out that it's yes in your case haha. Also, the background music is really similar to Khruangbin, which translates as "airplane". Coincidence? :D
Could you please tell me what happens to the solar panels when they are not able to work and also the car batterys and do we keep the children in Africa working in slave like conditions but of course out of sight out of mind by the way i have been using public transport since the 1970s i glad you have just cottoned on
I don't want to nit pick every detail, but the positives of hydrogen (5:20) vastly outweigh the negatives. Working towards a solution for creating hydrogen and other zero emission alternatives without using coal should be a top priority as it is the next best thing for a serious issue right now. Another thing is that taking less flights is very easy in Europe where the countries are small and the public transportation is already developed; however, in most other countries, everything runs on cars and busses. To improve the train infrastructure in the rest of the world to a European level that would make planes and cars obsolete would be hilariously expensive. Trains are great in dense areas like Europe where the distances are short, but not viable in larger countries where a cross country ride would be >10 hours. No one would ever want to do that, which is why we need planes and cars, we just need to make them more environmentally friendly.
@@lewisjones3786 That is true and is a very good point; however you also have to realize that India is a country that does not run on cars. Yes people use them A LOT over there I know, but not everyone uses them. In countries like America it is literally impossible to survive in 90 percent of the country without a vehicle and having a car is just a necessity. This is why the train infrastructure in countries like this will not change any time soon, because the whole infrastructure is build around car lengths. Even if we made trains that could easily go from one city to another it wouldn’t matter, because no destination is set up to move around without a car. So why rent a car when I could just drive mine there? I would love to use trains for everything, but for most countries I just don’t see how the benefits would outweigh the cost.
I understand the concerns against hydrogen fuel given that it's production requires conventional fossil fuels, but by that same logic the concepts of using lithium battery powered cars and even solar panels are also not ideal because of the amount of energy required to extract these very rare raw materials equal roughly the amount of energy the batteries and solar panels will provide during its useful life.
Now think that there is a Brussels to Paris flight for one hour, while also being a Brussels - Paris Thalys high-speed train that does it in an hour and twenty minutes 🤦
@@saminaahmed9238or getting to/from the airport - airports rarely being the destination. Train stations with the exception of a few TGV ones are often in the centre of town, where people are generally going.
The problem is, if we drastically cut carbon emissions as rapidly as some are proposing, we would cause a massive economic implosion. This would have consequences as severe as rapid climate change. There really is no hope.
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Sarah, this is fantastic and it is a view I gave long shared, however there needs a concerted effort on behalf of government to really kick start it. If we invested in high speed rail in the same way as the Italians, French, spanish, Germans and now the likes of the Czech Republic, Poland etc do, then there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly to anywhere up to and including the central belt of Scotland or most of north west Europe. Yet we have scaled back HS2 which would not only do away with most of our domestic flights but also release capacity on our regional railways and get people out of cars and lorries. It is an environmentally disastrous decision.
In the meantime, encouraging people to take the train as you are doing can only be good. I just got back today from northern Spain. We went be train and (say it quietly) flew back. The difference was startling. Breakfast in London, lunch in Paris and dinner in the Basque Country whilst travelling in comfort, whilst fully relaxed and actually enjoying the journey. On the way back, as we queued for an hour in immigration at Luton, my wife said she would never fly such distances again and how train travel is so much more enjoyable - and this is before we throw the environmental aspect into the discussion. It was like watching one of your videos!.
I look forward to your next adventure.
Is the sky blue? Does fish live in water?
I live in New Zealand. So I only have one option to travel anywhere outside my country (which I need to do for my job). The opinion of this when it comes to flying with hydrogen is valid when you live on a content like Europe, but doesn't work for many of the worlds countries. I am pro- anything that can solve this, and - besides not leaving my country at all - hydrogen powered flight is the best option on the horizon. Many parts of the world have green power production (over 80% in New Zealand), so making the technology happen solves the main problem. It will only be a matter of time green power production with the other countries grids will be solved.
As an American, I'm genuinely curious: why do any Europeans still choose to fly to a destination that they can train to? Assuming the duration of travel is
Social norm: people have just got used to flying being the way you travel on holiday. It's interesting that you take this view as an American though - in my experience Americans are even more guilty of taking air travel when they could take trains. I realise that this is mostly because of the really poor train network in the US, but still, there are still many people who take short-haul flights between cities that are actually very well connected by train.
Because it’s more often than not a pain in the butt. For some destination, you’d have to take 2, 3 or more trains. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
When when planets align, it glorious, I’ll give you that.
Also much more expensive sadly
When I lived in Europe, I wated to take the train more often but I would end up flying because the flight was like 30 euros and the train was like 200
Of course it does - the aviation industry currently releases the CO2 of a mid-sized country. That's just a fact. And it's growing fast.
I guess what you do with such facts constitutes the "debate" part.
I 100% prefer train to flying. Theres a specific route I take a lot for concerts and every time i see something new. The view is beautiful
Diesel-electric trains ??
All the woke leaders uses Gulfstream Jets which generates more CO2 in 1 hour than you in 5 years.. tupid
Yes..yes yes.yes... I love your motivation so much. I don't speak it out that much however I love your explanation and we have the same motivation.
I'm taking the train to hawaii from now on
This is easier for Europeans because you have excellent rail systems. But for some people, there is no reasonable alternative. For crossing oceans, cruise ships are worse than flying for the environment and freighters are very slow and not very practical. How about working on alternatives other than just staying home?
Flying is cheaper in many cases. So I choose the cheapest option to cut travel/commuting to next to nothing :)
Except that there's a longer term societal cost to flying that isn't obvious in the short term, but which everyone including you will end up paying. Pay more now or pay more later. Your choice. I'm not saying don't fly, just try to travel via less environmentally costly ways if you can.
Higher taxes and fees on flights, airports, aviation fuel, and so on, matched with increased spending on more environmentally friendly modes of travel like trains, and paid for with these higher taxes and fees, is really the only way to go. Not enough individuals are likely to do the right thing to make enough of a difference so governments are going to have to step in and force the rest.
We know that it works because historically government policy through positive and negative incentives and investment in infrastructure and emerging technology has essentially created or made possible entire industries like rail, steamships, electricity, telephones, aviation and high tech. Nothing really just happens by itself and purely market-based solutions are a myth. Only mixed models work.
So concise and informative, thanks Sarah!
If taxes, levies and incentives could be applied internationally, then another possibility would be to tax flights based on the availability of sustainable alternatives. Therefore someone flying from, say, Reykjavík to Paris would pay a relatively low levy (no viable alternatives), whereas someone flying from Amsterdam to Paris would pay a whopping tax.
Very well explained- you should look into standing for the Green Party and creating even more impact from your clear arguments 😊
Good video, thanks. Maybe you could avoid adding background music or at least lower its volume?
incredibly informative!
I just checked prices on eurostar return fare London to Amsterdam £350 so this option is unaffordable for lots of people when compared to flying. For ordinary families going on holidays with kids especially to popular places like Spain, Portugal train takes up to a day and multiple times the cost of plane. So its pie in the sky to expect people to switch to the train. Maybe a levy on frequent flyers is a good idea. But people like me will keep flying where it saves time and money and we will need innovation to reduce aviation emissions not having most of us never able to travel and allow flying and travelling by train to be for the rich.
Also family holiday once a year is not necessarily the problem, its the frequent flyer like you said, not including business flights
There's an unspoken rule that when you have a question in headline, the answer is "no" most of the time. I was surprised when I found out that it's yes in your case haha. Also, the background music is really similar to Khruangbin, which translates as "airplane". Coincidence? :D
Love the video, love climate town too!
Canada enters the chat
Could you please tell me what happens to the solar panels when they are not able to work and also the car batterys and do we keep the children in Africa working in slave like conditions but of course out of sight out of mind by the way i have been using public transport since the 1970s i glad you have just cottoned on
Hey, Sarah … Clean batteries are just a promise, too …
I don't want to nit pick every detail, but the positives of hydrogen (5:20) vastly outweigh the negatives. Working towards a solution for creating hydrogen and other zero emission alternatives without using coal should be a top priority as it is the next best thing for a serious issue right now.
Another thing is that taking less flights is very easy in Europe where the countries are small and the public transportation is already developed; however, in most other countries, everything runs on cars and busses. To improve the train infrastructure in the rest of the world to a European level that would make planes and cars obsolete would be hilariously expensive. Trains are great in dense areas like Europe where the distances are short, but not viable in larger countries where a cross country ride would be >10 hours. No one would ever want to do that, which is why we need planes and cars, we just need to make them more environmentally friendly.
India has a great and very popular long distance rail network 😊
@@lewisjones3786 That is true and is a very good point; however you also have to realize that India is a country that does not run on cars. Yes people use them A LOT over there I know, but not everyone uses them. In countries like America it is literally impossible to survive in 90 percent of the country without a vehicle and having a car is just a necessity. This is why the train infrastructure in countries like this will not change any time soon, because the whole infrastructure is build around car lengths. Even if we made trains that could easily go from one city to another it wouldn’t matter, because no destination is set up to move around without a car. So why rent a car when I could just drive mine there? I would love to use trains for everything, but for most countries I just don’t see how the benefits would outweigh the cost.
I understand the concerns against hydrogen fuel given that it's production requires conventional fossil fuels, but by that same logic the concepts of using lithium battery powered cars and even solar panels are also not ideal because of the amount of energy required to extract these very rare raw materials equal roughly the amount of energy the batteries and solar panels will provide during its useful life.
Now think that there is a Brussels to Paris flight for one hour, while also being a Brussels - Paris Thalys high-speed train that does it in an hour and twenty minutes 🤦
The flight time calculation does not in clued the time waiting in line for security and, for some of us, immigration.
@@saminaahmed9238or getting to/from the airport - airports rarely being the destination. Train stations with the exception of a few TGV ones are often in the centre of town, where people are generally going.
This is only relevant for Europeans.
The problem is, if we drastically cut carbon emissions as rapidly as some are proposing, we would cause a massive economic implosion. This would have consequences as severe as rapid climate change. There really is no hope.
except it would only affect humans, rather than whole ecosystem which took a billion years to evolve
@@saimdoruklu4806 As I am human, this doesn't cheer me up.
Well investing in the travel alternatives could actually create a boom :)
Shame on you for removing comments that go against your ideology
Her ideology is not an idea or belief set, it’s fact. Comments that went against her “ideology” were spreading misinformation.
@@rylans.5365 no, if you look closely you will realise that it is not fact. Same that as the 97% of scientists are in agreement. This is simply false.
I am sorry, this is clickbait.