
Sweden has invented a word to encourage people not to fly - marce
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/sweden-has-invented-a-word-to-encourage-people-not-to-fly-and-it-s-working
======
arghwhat
Ah, a little lesson about languages from up north: We compound words.

For example, in order to say "processing power", the only correct way to say
it would be "processeringskraft" (processering = processing, kraft = power).
That does not make "processeringskraft" a word on its own, as it is simply a
compound required by our grammar.

Likewise, "flyskam" is a compound, and simply how we'd say "flight shame".
While it might be a newly invented _term_ growing in popularity, it is not a
newly invented word.

~~~
Insanity
Don't need to go up that far north. This is just a trait of Germanic languages
including Dutch in Belgium/Netherlands.

~~~
CogitoCogito
Don't even need to leave English:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound)

~~~
Insanity
Yeah but English (in Europe) would be more north than the others! :D

(Also, English is Germanic so it's included in what I commented anyway :P)

------
puranjay
I recently traveled from Moscow to St Petersburg. There is a high speed train
that travels the distance in under 4 hours. A flight takes 1.5 hours. Both
cost about the same if you book the flight well in advance.

But the train is so much more comfortable. The station is in the center of the
city, right next to prominent metro stations. There is just one security check
for the luggage. You don't have to show up 2 hours before the flight. Nor do
you have to worry about leg space and luggage.

As an added bonus, railway stations seldom charge the "wealth tax" on
everything from water to food that you see at airports. A bottle of water at
the station costs the same as it would out in the city, while the airport will
inflate the price 2-3x.

For journeys under 1000km, high speed train makes so much more sense than
flying

~~~
DocTomoe
> For journeys under 1000km, high speed train makes so much more sense than
> flying

That depends on the availability of a direct high-speed connection.

I'm flying STR - MAN a lot, which is about 1300 km. Flight is 3 hours with
checkin. Train ride is more like 20 hours with four train changes.

~~~
MagnumOpus
Nitpick - train is about 9 to 9.5 hours; but yes, I did a similar journey
once, and the train is not a viable alternative.

(Though the sub-segments of it probably are - Manchester to Brussels or Paris
might be a toss-up depending on where exactly you are going...)

~~~
DocTomoe
You are right ... I factored in getting from original origin and to the final
destination in the train journey, and not in the plane ride. That makes plane
5 hours, and train 12 hours. I guess last time I checked I also choose an
overnight connection.

Worse yet: There is no feasible way to actually buy that itinerary without
driving to the next larger train station some 40 hours away, during hours I
usually work. The plane ticket I can buy on my smartphone while taking a dump.

------
superqwert
It is not exactly clear whether passenger flights are less environmentally
friendly than various other options. Driving for long distances can be worse
for the environment than flying commercially[0]. The article claims that Greta
saved energy by travelling by train, but it is unclear how the method of
calculation (ecopassenger.org) works, whether it considers that rail and road
infrastructure requires far more energy and fuel for maintenance than _the
air_ and runway does and even the data entry is flawed, since you cannot
change the load of plane and train separately, even though it is clear that
flight operators often overbook planes, while trains often run with pretty low
loads.

[0] [http://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-
results/publications/making-d...](http://www.umtri.umich.edu/our-
results/publications/making-driving-less-energy-intensive-flying)

~~~
superqwert
Additionally, her environmental impact would only really be _true_ if her
flight was cancelled as a result of her taking the train. Is there evidence
that this happened?

~~~
blackbrokkoli
That's wrong.

If a plane has 200 seats, and 400 people are willing to fly a given route, the
airline sends 2 planes. Make it 401 people, they'll send three a day. That
means each person who flies or doesn't brings the count closer to the next
threshold, where the number of planes flying changes.

Of course, this is oversimplified, not as instant as I described it, there are
price politics and what not, but you can still very much say the climate
footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers). The idea is not
to make super accurate global calculations but to quantify individual
behaviour without employing a super computer.

~~~
dmitriid
> If a plane has 200 seats, and 400 people are willing to fly a given route,
> the airline sends 2 planes. Make it 401 people, they'll send three a day.

No. They will send one with 400 seats in the first scenario, and possibly two
with 300 seats or one with 400 and one with 100 seats in the second scenario.

It's a very common scenario

~~~
blackbrokkoli
Making the scenario more complicated doesn't change the fact that there are
thresholds which everybody (not) flying influences!

~~~
dmitriid
It's not a more complicated scenario. IIRC a company loses money if the plane
is not at least half full. So there's no chance a company will send two planes
if the second one will only haul 1 or two passengers.

If the demand increases and they are always booked to capacity, they will send
a bigger plane first.

If the demand decreases, and they are never booked to full capacity, they will
send a smaller plane or will cancel the flight.

> there are thresholds which everybody (not) flying influences

There are. But, unfortunately, flying still beats everything else on
convenience for anything but the shortest trips. And even on shortest trips
the distinction between a train trip and a flight might not be that obvious
(if we take into consideration convenience alone).

------
paganel
It's ok for the middle-classes to not fly anymore, we can use domestication
for that (as we used back in the '60s and '70s in order to convince them to
fly, we were telling them that flying was one of the coolest things
imaginable), but the rich people of this world can still fly at will,
apparently there are no shame words that can make them stop.

Case in point the last episode of the TV series "Billions", where at some
point two female characters (one of them a billionaire) are taken off with an
helicopter from outside of a bar out in the wilderness, just because, and we
are intrinsically told that what they were doing was pretty cool (related or
not, a real-life billionaire, Mark Cuban himself, appears in the same episode
interacting with the two ladies, I think he was also brought in on set via
helicopter). Again, if you are rich shame words don't apply to you.

~~~
orf
X rich people flying around is a drop in the ocean compared to X *1000000 non-
rich people flying around.

It’s a distracting tactic used by the vested interests: “ignore this
politician/public figure, he flew that one time! What does he know about
climate change, he’s practically causing it!”

~~~
paganel
I personally have no vested interest in this as I'm personally quite afraid of
flying and because of that I don't fly that often, I was just pointing out the
hypocrisy of it all.

And this was not about politicians, I get it that at some point a politician
has to get from point A to point B as fast as possible in the interest of us,
the public that he/she is supposed to serve, this was about the rich people
who apparently have more pressing concerns than middle-class people. They
don't, we should be all treated the same.

~~~
Sharlin
You'd basically have to change air travel into a command economy then. Some
sort of a bureau where you would apply for a flight permit. I'm definitely a
leftist, but I don't think that would work. In any economy there are luxuries,
and by definition some people have better access to luxuries than others,
whether by means of money or connections.

------
gavia1
I seldom fly anymore. I was very lucky to see a lot of the world when I was
growing up so I don't feel the need to travel much, and I don't need to travel
for work.

I take public transport to work and walk most places.

I have a car that I use on weekends for pleasure but otherwise I try to walk
as much as possible. Some trips to the supermarket however require the car
when doing occasional larger shops.

Aside from the car and enjoying both driving and car ownership my biggest
contribution to pollution is without a doubt consumerism. Computers, phones,
games consoles, clothing, and so on ..

------
TorKlingberg
It makes sense that domestic flights are dropping. They already mostly
disappeared decades ago for individual/pleasure travel. Taking the train, bus
or driving is just better value. So it's just business travel left. I used to
occasionally travel between Gothenburg and Stockholm (the two largest cities)
for work for a while. Flying was slightly quicker, but only barely. There are
non-stop high speed trains that take you directly from center to center. More
pleasant too, and you can get some work done on the way.

An airline ran TV adds pitching that flying gets you home to the kids earlier.
Basically pitting peoples guilt about spending time with their kids vs. guilt
about the environment. I guess it didn't work. The same children will inherit
the planet after all.

I'd be surprised if international flights have dropped much though. Taking the
trains any further than Copenhagen doesn't really work, unless train travel is
the main point of the holiday.

~~~
2rsf
Stockholm and Göteborg are not a good example (or the opposite..) since they
are too close to each other, ~500km, to cancel the wasted time going to and
from the airport and waiting to board the plane. The fast trains from those
city centers are indeed better than flying, although the price compared to low
cost flights is too high. I don't totally agree with your conclusion- I would
take trains from Stockholm to central Europe even with kids but only if prices
were significantly better than low cost flights, I don't mind a 24 hour ride
to Berlin with a stop over or two, but the price is actually higher than most
low cost flights e.g. Norwegian

~~~
skribbj
Kudos to you! I couldn't fathom taking a 24 hour train from Sthlm -> Berlin
over the 1.5 hour flight. Is that an environmental decision or do you have
other reasons?

~~~
2rsf
We are not environmentalists at all (well, one of the kids is but I am paying)
but we enjoy the journey as much as the destination?

For the right price I don't mind changing the itinerary, but like I've said at
the moment flying is cheaper then a train ride even sthlm -> copenhagen in
some cases.

~~~
skribbj
I see. And I do indeed agree with you on the price - instead of shaming us
into not flying (although that apparently seems to be working, too) develop
comfortable and affordable alternatives.

------
yholio
In other news that we desperately miss, Sweden has developed a turbojet engine
that runs on an ethanol-rapeseed blend. The completely green fuel is farmed on
reclaimed land in Sahara, using a pesticide free automated farm based on solar
robotic tractors. The necessary water is produced from sea water and clean
energy.

Somehow, these are the kind of headlines my younger self would have expected
in response to a global crisis. When did we all agreed energy poverty is the
solution to our environmental problems?

Edit to prevent confusion: these, of course, are not real developments. It's
the alternative reality we have the technological means to create.

~~~
willvarfar
Links?

------
Theodores
I would consider moving to Sweden or another country that caters for people
who, out of choice, prefer quality public transport with things like overnight
sleeper trains.

I don't fly or drive. Haven't done so this millennia. Therefore I only think
in terms of trains, bicycles, the bus and walking. In my made up mind cars and
planes are dangerous and cramped. Plus you have delays at airports so it is
actually better to just get the train, avoiding a taxi ride the the airport
and a huge delay just to sit in a cramped seat.

In a culture where everyone flies or drives it is hard to do trains and
bicycles. I think that if the decent trains are provided and the service is
better then there will be more people who just prefer the train. Same with
cycling infrastructure.

Inherently trains and bicycles as well as the bus can be a much more pleasant
option. But when you have a ruling class shuttered away in tin boxes for their
transport needs with them being at the beck and call of aviation/auto lobby
people then things get skewed at the planning level.

------
gizzlon
Bah, what a shitty article. Why can't journalists learn basic "causality" ? =/

It's of course possible that the dip is caused by "fewer Swedes are willing to
travel in a way they see as harmful to the environment" but it's just
speculation and should be labeled as such.

------
lawn
Huh, as a Swede it's the first time I hear about it.

~~~
alkonaut
What "Flygskam"? Do you consume a lot of traditional news (TV news,
newspapers, Public service radio)? You couldn't have missed it.

~~~
lawn
I don't watch TV and I do listen to radio news occasionally. I do read
newspapers.

------
rags2riches
Generalized headline that might apply better: Humans used language to describe
new phenomenon

------
DoingIsLearning
This got me thinking, is there any statistics comparing the carbon footprint
impact of average yearly flights versus average yearly goods consumed that
were transported on a shipping container?

------
maelito
People are talking about it in France too. I've read the equivalent term
"avionte" (or "avihonte") but not heard it yet. In the currently debated "Law
for mobility", two amendments by members of the parliament are attempting to
close airlines between french cities when a train is, respectively, only 2h30
longer than the plane and absolutely less than 4h. They won't pass obviously.

------
imgabe
> [The airline industry] says the annual 860 million tonnes of CO2 the
> industry currently generates is only 2% of world emissions.

Is that correct? I have always heard that flying was one of the absolute worst
things you could do as far as generating CO2 and that a single international
flight is like the same as a year of normal living in terms of generating CO2.

If that's the case, where is the bulk of emissions coming from?

~~~
Mountain_Skies
In transportation, cargo ships. It's claimed the 15 largest cargo ships
pollute more than 50 million cars combined. But for CO2 it's apparently still
a single digit contribution. Lots of individual sources are adding up to the
global total.

------
zeofig
I recently watched The White Diamond by Werner Herzog, which gives a glimpse
of an alternative i.e. airships (although it's more of a typical Herzog
meandering human story, and a long way from any commercial realisation of
airships). Flying is currently a hateful activity in my view, both for the
experience and the environmental cost. Of course, it is often unavoidable.

~~~
superqwert
What evidence are you citing for environmental cost?

~~~
zeofig
I don't appear to be citing anything!

------
robin_reala
As customary in these threads, if you’re planning a rail journey (especially
in Europe) your best bet is to consult The Man in Seat 61 at
[https://www.seat61.com/](https://www.seat61.com/)

------
salex89
Thing is... I really enjoy flying. At one point in my life I travelled for
business a lot and I only got tired when the travel become useless, so I
changed my job. But I always loved the feeling I get in the skies, even
through the small airplane window. I don't even mind airports that much, they
have a vibe I like. I'm a giant aviation nerd.

During my lifetime, I wouldn't like flying to become something decadent. I'm
hoping aircraft manufacturers will come up with something that will make it
greener than ever and bring more people to the skies.

The thing I like about aviation is that there isn't so much a "petrolhead"
attitude where as in cars only petrol/diesel is real driving for real men and
electric is often looked upon as "girly". I think lovers look forward to
anything that will bring them above the clouds.

------
Kiro
It's definitely working on me and my group of friends. It's pretty much taboo
to fly now and you always need to justify it somehow if you do it anyway.

------
snvzz
>But the airline industry is fighting back with a promise that a new
generation of planes will halve emissions by 2050.

These timelines are a bit of a problem.

------
Entalpi
For the love of God and all that is holy, ”Tagskryt” means nothing. Tågskryt
on the other hand is a actual word.

TLDR: Please include å, ä, ö and other umlauts dear journalists.

------
sam_lowry_
No-fly list?

