• flux
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trains don’t leave exhaust in the upper parts of the atmosphere, though, and depending on how the electricity was created, it could be neither did its energy source—though I suppose there’s no avoiding that manufacturing any kind of plant and the train itself did cause emissions.

    • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @flux @QuinceDaPence Concrete and steel (for stations, track, etc) matter. So does the electricity used to maintain stations, not just propel the train. So lifecycle emissions of a train are immensely complicated, plus then you get into how to route a new rail line without destroying too many ecosystems.

      Even so, clean electricity is the easy bit compared to making planes clean. More trains please.

      • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @flux @QuinceDaPence The other common gotcha with new train lines (e.g. HS2) is:

        What if we get a modal shift from internal flights to trains? If air demand is constrained by supply (i.e. landing slots), that means there will be more long-haul flights, and overall emissions increase!

        There is some truth in this. But it just means we need to drastically reduce our aviation capacity, and increase prices, at the same time as building more train lines. We could start with a frequent flyer levy.