I can't fly everywhere, I still have to do the last mile some other way. In the sane way I don't expect the train to pick me up out side my house.
Further I don't expect to go to my local airport and expect to be able to travel to any other airport direct, so why should the same apply to train travel?
Because a lot of immigrants use air travel and they don't really have an alternative. A 2-day adventure involving trains, cars, ferries,hotels is much more environmentally (and physically) costly than a $300 flight.
"A 2-day adventure involving trains, cars, ferries,hotels is much more environmentally (and physically) costly than a $300 flight"
Based on what?
Sea travel is really quite efficient, so are trains, especially when we're talking about French trains powered by French nuclear.
And why are immigrants a reason that its regressive? Low paid eastern Europeans aren't going to be flying around Europe, well paid international businessmen probably will.
Edit: Ignore the "And why are immigrants a reason that its regressive", I'm confusing my threads. The point stands though. Poor immigrant doesn't necessarily correlate with having to fly.
So we shouldn't do anything to curb co2 emissions and flying because 1 group of people will find it slightly more expensive/ more awkward to go home? (I say home, if they're economic migrants they're going home? But then they aren't French voters so on some level should they get a say? On the other hand if they're 'settled' migrants that call France home, they aren't going 'home' so on some level it's a summer holiday plus).
Don't build that road, the pedestrians will have to walk out of their way to cross it. Don't build that cycle path, it takes space away from cars. Don't build that pavement.... Every transport decision has tradeoffs, no transport solution can apply to everyone. There will be immigrants from Australia who will also be affected, I have no solutions for them either.
We should act rationally, not implement random measures without forethought. I mention immigrants because international flights are disproportionately affected by this, and i think making it more difficult for them to see their family is inhumane. We don't see what is the projected effect of this law. They could have started with domestic flights or flights to places where rail travel is available instead. It would help to evaluate the effect of the measure more directly too.
Co2 has a cost that is externalised. This is attempting to start making the emitters pay directly.
I have some sympathy for those that have built their lives around the current paradigm, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time, and this really is a modest start.
I can't fly everywhere, I still have to do the last mile some other way. In the sane way I don't expect the train to pick me up out side my house.
Further I don't expect to go to my local airport and expect to be able to travel to any other airport direct, so why should the same apply to train travel?