Rethinking travel

In an effort to combat the severely damaging effects of climate change, France has banned short-haul domestic flights between cities where the same journey could be made by train within two-and-a-half hours. The ban effectively rules out certain air routes between the capital, Paris, and cities such as Bordeaux, Lyon, Nantes, although connecting flights are not affected by the new law.

Short-haul flights, typically covering relatively shorter distances, contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions due to the fuel consumption and associated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated during takeoff and landing. If France can take such a drastic step, can America? What would it take for the federal government to ban all domestic flights where the same journey could be made by car or train?

By imposing a ban on short-haul flights, the aim is to encourage alternative transportation methods, such as high-speed rail or electric vehicles, for shorter journeys. High-speed rail systems can provide a more sustainable option for travel, emitting fewer greenhouse gases compared to airplanes. Electric vehicles, if used for shorter distances, can also contribute to reducing carbon emissions.

Implementing such a ban would require a comprehensive approach, including the development of efficient and accessible rail networks, infrastructure improvements, and incentives to promote the use of sustainable transportation options. Additionally, public awareness campaigns and education about the environmental impact of short-haul flights could help shift travel behaviors towards more sustainable alternatives.

It is important to note that while banning short-haul flights may contribute to reducing carbon emissions, it is just one aspect of a broader strategy to combat climate change. Efforts to improve fuel efficiency in aviation, transition to sustainable aviation fuels, and invest in renewable energy sources for airports are also crucial for achieving significant emissions reductions in the transportation sector.

But US transportation experts argue that Amtrak, the national passenger railroad service, is not always a viable or preferred alternative to air travel in the United States. Several factors contribute to this problem. Amtrak’s network primarily focuses on major metropolitan areas and heavily trafficked routes, leaving many regions with inadequate or no rail service. This limited coverage makes it difficult for travelers in certain areas to access Amtrak as a feasible alternative to air travel.

Time and convenience are major factors for travelers and air travel is often faster and more time-efficient than train travel, especially for long-distance trips. Airlines can operate at high speeds and offer direct flights, allowing passengers to reach their destinations more quickly. In contrast, train travel is generally slower, subject to various stops along the route, and may require multiple transfers.

Additionally, Amtrak trains and schedules often run less frequently compared to air travel options. This limited frequency makes it challenging for passengers to find suitable departure times that align with their schedules and travel needs.

Excerpted: ‘Can the US ban Short-Haul Flights to Combat Climate Change?’

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org