|
|
|
|
|
|
by GrumpySloth
903 days ago
|
|
|
Your second link also gives an alternative explanation of people being motivated economically, not environmentally. And quote from the first link: > 91% say they want to replace short-distance flights by fast, low-polluting trains in collaboration with neighbouring countries See how a train being fast was bundled into the question. Let’s forget about environment for a moment. Going by plane is a lot less convenient, when you can take a train, due to needing to show up a lot earlier at the airport, going through security and all kinds of overhead. So when trains work, i.e. they’re fast, reliable and affordable, nobody needs environmental concerns to use them. For me to be convinced that someone is taking a train for environmental reasons, the train would need to be more expensive for them than going by plane. Because otherwise everyone likes to see themselves in a good light and say how much their choices are dictated by ethics, when in reality the wallet is often a more potent motivator than environmental concerns. Just like every employer likes to say that they hire and promote based on merit, but then it turns out that on average taller people get hired and promoted more often. And the employers will still believe that they weren’t influenced by that. Just like travellers will overestimate the influence of environmental concerns on their choice of mode of transport. In both cases it’s because people like to see themselves in good light. And same way most of the people who say they’d prefer to buy products produced in fair worker conditions, won’t actually buy the products whose prices reflect that. Declarations are cheap. Particularly feel-good declarations. |
|
|
Fast doesn't entail faster than a plane.
> the train would need to be more expensive
In my experience international train travel in Europe is always more expensive, sometimes 3-4 times more expensive, than airtravel. Due to subsidies and externalities. https://stay-grounded.org/privileged-position-revealing-the-...
Against your "almost nobody thinks like that" I and others described that we do think like that and personally know others who do too. I also posted two links that has some more general evidence against your claim. Your reply has some reason to lessen the weight given to that evidence, but not enough to cancel it. I rest my case until you present empirical counterevidence.
Your speculations/prejudice about motivations of others is not evidence and such stories can be made up in almost any direction e.g. maybe you delude yourself into thinking no one takes trains for environmental reasons because it makes you feel good and superior in thinking you know their motivations better than they do.