
Ask HN: Solving climate change idea, and question, high speed train - antocv
Im seeing many friends traveling by air and renting a car at their destination, and these air travels are usually 3-4h by air but take 6-8h door-to-door, about 2000km if done by road. By car it would take on average 24h of continous driving to go north to south in Europe. Ridiculous.<p>Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go 250-300km&#x2F;h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most? Cars are limited to 150km&#x2F;h and humans cant drive more than 3-4h anyway. Driving 9h continous would still only reach 1350km. High speed trains going average of 280km&#x2F;H would do this in quality-time of 5h.<p>How can we improve the quality of high-speed train travel in EU? Offer this &quot;take your (electric) car with you&quot; would kick any air-offer off the table.<p>Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU?
======
milsebg
The same reason why cell phone roaming in the EU was such a desaster before
the regulation. It's too many different players (each country has one ore more
railroad companies).

Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such
high speed tracks would by far be greater than for any other player just
operate an airline. At the same time, the demand for climate friendly travel
is not high enough, given that everyone acts selfish
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods)).

Politicians say that air traveling should not be _cheaper_ than railroad
traveling. However, I expect that they will come up with regulations which
just makes flying as _expensive_ as railroad traveling.

~~~
antocv
All good points. Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better
than Euro-crats?

Reading a bit more on this, seems EU had proposed already 1996 a common
European signaling system as you say to integrate the various railroad
companies diverse ssytems, and a bunch of other directives for a EU high speed
rail. And yet in 2019, France still of course runs their own, Sweden their own
with a ERTS type 2 on some lines, and many others not advancing at all since
1996.

Different signalig/control systems, different electrification systems, and
some small gauge differences in Ireland and Spain.

> Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such
> high speed tracks

How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? Tax the air-lines
and put the money in pan-european high-speed rail, from Lissabon to Tallin,
Amsterdam to Athens.

~~~
milsebg
> Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats?

They both are individual countries, so they don't face that problem.

> How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost?

If you tax air-lines first, and then use the money to build an alternative,
even in the most optimistic scenario, you'll end up in a situation where long-
distance travels become substantially more expensive at least for a few years.
Climate activists claim that long-distance travels are not a human right, but
ironically, free movement is one of the core values of the EU. And making
travels more expensive would exclude more people than today from exercising
their right as a EU citizen.

The only realistic option to make the switch from air to train a meaningful
option for long-distance travels, would be to 'internalize' the environmental
costs, i.e. a CO2 tax (or certificates). However, to calculate this in a fair
manner, this would become so high, that you would face a tremendous economical
recession.

To me, it never made sense to spend so much resources (brain, time and money)
to reduce emissions, because we cannot go to zero and we have already polluted
the planet. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend all this money to "repair" the
damage we've already done? Maybe solar panels with artificial photo synthesis?
Or GMOs with a higher rate of carbon storage?

~~~
antocv
We must do both. We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-
and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. And use the
taxation money to invest in scrubbing, cleaning and more efficient ways of
travel such as high-speed trains.

Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others,
its not fair.

~~~
milsebg
> Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to
> others, its not fair.

That's way too simple, imho. Things come with side effects, usually. Of
course, we should not pollute more than necessary, but the fact that there
/is/ pollution is just a side effect of having

    
    
      - a civilisation
      - an economy
      - better overall health (and, thus, more humans)
      - ...
    

This all makes it possible to pay for welfare. In that sense, collecting taxes
would be just externalizing the costs (of being dependent on welfare, thus
being unproductive) to others.

The question, if we should do both is not a question of what sounds more fair,
more justified or whatever. If it would turn out that "repairing" is more
cost-efficient than "preventing", then why bother with the least effective
measure?

> We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if-
> you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides.

Some emissions are simply unavoidable. E.g. producing meat produces methane.
So, taxing it would certainly bring down the demand for high-emission products
(because of their now higher price) but as long as these products still
exists, you won't go to zero.

~~~
antocv
I doubt fish, pigs or goats produce any methane in any significant amount.
Meat can be produced without polluting, it doesnt have to be cows. The cost
still has to be payed though, even if it is so low.

Even so, just because some pollution would be hard to stop doesnt mean we
shouldnt strive to tax it and every polluter anyway.

Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower
and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice
place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.

~~~
milsebg
> Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by
> hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are
> civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and
> the other is not.

And now compare the standard of living in both countries. Or their GNP. Or
their healthcare systems.

I'm not saying that they're better of because they burn coal. But I'm saying
that using energy is causing so much positive side effects, i.e. that we
_have_ an economy. It's just hard to attribute the negative side effects to
one "polluter".

Again, with the same argument you might as well stop taxation, because it
imposes costs on those who are productive to pay for those who are
unproductive. However, upholding civil peace through a welfare system might be
of higher value than 'punishing' the less productive people for their lack of
capabilities.

------
hellwd
Because in EU, to reach the consensus or any agreement on anything, between
all countries and then to review that 1000 times through million of EU
Commissions, takes decades :)

They first have to love each other, to have common goals and then maybe
something will happen. Right now most of the EU countries are there because of
the cheap loans, donations, cheap work force and free exchange of resources.
Once that flow is stopped, EU will be the past. EU is simply not operating as
a one unit, it's not balanced union, that's why I think there has to be some
mindset change in order to move the EU forward and to bring big projects to
reality.

------
lm28469
> Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go
> 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most?

We kind of do, it's just not very common. You can take the train from hamburg
to vienna with your car for example, and I know there are a few other lines.

You can also simply take the train and rent an electric car when you get to
your destination, seems easier and more convenient to me. I don't think the
future of "solving climate change" involves owning private cars, even
electric, and carrying it around in trains, there is no way this would be
scalable to the amount of people traveling by plane.

> Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU?

The real problem is that plane tickets are so subsidised than it's nearly
impossible to make the other means of transportation competitive, and in the
end that's all people care about, money.

If you want to travel inside France or Germany (for example) you're good, but
as soon as you cross borders and don't want to go your destination country's
capital you're doomed. Taking the train from Berlin to a major TGV station
next to my hometown takes 9 hours and cost 150 euros. By plane it takes 3
hours total and cost <35 euros. I'd take the train if it was half of its
current price.

The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no
more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...

~~~
milsebg
> The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no
> more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...

That's exactly what I talked about in other comments. To you, these 4 day
trips are the most wasteful usage of resources. To others, it may be the over-
consumption of fashion. To a single person, a weekend in Paris could mean the
world, maybe because it saved their relationship and prevented a burn-out
or....

If you extrapolate that argument (and if you don't, you'd need to explain
where to stop why), you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world and
yet would still have a huge environmental debt of the co2 we've already blown
out. Not to mention 8 billion human beings which produce co2 and methane per
their bare existence.

Humans, in general, react to immediate rewards (which is why addictions are a
thing at all). So it would be nearly impossible to build climate policy upon
abdications without risking revolts.

All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of
possibilities. The solution to car accidents was not less traffic, but better
cars. The solution to food shortage was not caloric restrictions but better
agricultural tech (also worldwide, humans are suffering less and less from
hunger), the solution to IPv4 shortage was not restriction, but a better
protocol. The solution to handicaps in humans was not euthanasia, but
development of medical devices. All that aimed at enlarging the space of
possibilities. Why should it be different for emissions?

~~~
lm28469
> Why should it be different for emissions?

Because we clearly don't know how to do it properly. And individual wishes are
not important when we talk about the future of mankind. It's all fun and games
when we talk about one dude, multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is
just no way to make it work.

> you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world

Cut off the worst causes of pollution, what's hard to understand ? We don't
have to go back to a pre industrial world, we simply need to adjust the
balance, we're clearly fucking it up right now. Just don't spend 4 weekends a
year 1000km away from your home, stop shipping fruits from the other side of
the world, don't drive a V8 when you can drive a small 3 cyl car, don't eat
meat at every meal / every day, don't buy the next iGadget as soon as it's
released. Are any of these going to seriously impact your well being ? nope.

It's not like getting shitfaced on a beach in Ibiza or taking pictures of the
Eiffel tower is going to deeply change your life (because let's be honest 5
min, the majority of travel is for leisure). If you put personal needs above
everything else we're toast, 8b people living like the average American would
destroy the world in a few years. Travel is a luxury, not a right, people need
to understand that, it might be cheap money wise but you're selling away the
future of mankind.

> All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of
> possibilities.

Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not
able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that.

~~~
sebst
> Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not
> able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like
> that.

What makes you think, this civilisation is collectively going to behave more
sensible? We (broadly) accept the idea of evolution in biology. I'm pretty
sure this works well on sociology, too. Or, put differently: We _will_ fuck it
up. If it's not the climate crisis, it will be something else. Or: In a world
where one nation alone has enough weapons to literally nuke the whole world,
it is a strong bet to say that we'll be doomed on pollution.

> multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work.

I believe the the 8bn are a problem on its own.

~~~
lm28469
Yes we will fuck it up no matter what, that's why we have laws, you can't run
straight pipes on a car, you can't burn the furnitures you don't need anymore,
you can't kill someone, you can't throw mining byproducts into rivers &c. Why
couldn't we limit the amount of plane travel people are allowed for leisure ?
Ban imports of unnecessary goods ? limit product cycles (Do we need 200 new
models of phones per year ?) ? Prevent subsidisation schemes ?

Nobody expects the individual to care for the planet or to even to be
interested in the topic, that's why we rely on higher authorities to enforce
laws.

8bn isn't a problem in itself, the hard cap is at least 50% more. The problem
is that we live like there is no problem and that we deify "technology" as if
progress just happens by itself and will save us if we continue in that
direction. It's a textbook definition of wishful thinking. Somehow anything
short of the status quo became "getting back to the middle ages" ...

~~~
sebst
> Why couldn't we ...

Steps involved:

    
    
      - Convince people that it's necessary ("do we really need it?")
      - Find a commonly accepted measure ("how much can I personally still travel")
      - Prevent loop holes ("But my neighbour has been to Mallorca recently")
      - Put laws into power. Globally (And one small country won't join the stuff and you'll end up full of envy at the point before, but on a higher scale).
      - Enforce the law. Globally. Fight corruption.
    

Sure, we could... But try to limit gun posession in the US, or speed limits in
Germany. Whatever people feel will reduce their freedom will make them oppose.

If your idea is to implement all this democratically, it's a very weak selling
point for politicians. If you pitch it, you're even missing the pain point.
Most people do care way more about their next weekend than about the "future
of mankind".

> 8bn isn't a problem in itself, the hard cap is at least 50% more.

Also a strong claim. What is it based upon? If we cannot scale the western
life style for any of the 8bn, even if we could technologically, we're already
behind the hard cap. It's not just "feed" them all, it's making them all
"happy", reducing "envy" etc. More people, more conflicts.

8bn is a number this planet has never seen before (like it has never seen
before this amount of pollution), and yet you claim that this "experiment" can
be enlarged by 50%?

> Somehow anything short of the status quo became "getting back to the middle
> ages"

According to climate science, ~0.6t - 1.2t is the annual budget per person, if
you want to stop climate change[0]. Now, look at this map[1]:

Below 1 tonne per person is the lightest colour on this map. Compare the
living standard of these countries to the middle ages and you'll come close.

[0]: [https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-a-persons-average-
carbo...](https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-a-persons-average-carbon-
footprint-per-year-if-we-want-to-reduce-and-stop-global-warming)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:Co2_emissions_per_capita_our_world_in_data.svg)

~~~
lm28469
> 8bn is a number this planet has never seen before (like it has never seen
> before this amount of pollution), and yet you claim that this "experiment"
> can be enlarged by 50%?

no no no, if we lived _sustainably_ Earth could handle way more people. Right
now with 8bn we're already way past the equilibrium point, we both agree on
that. That's what we get when some people consume their life carbon quota
every single year.

> If your idea is to implement all this democratically, it's a very weak
> selling point for politicians. If you pitch it, you're even missing the pain
> point. Most people do care way more about their next weekend than about the
> "future of mankind".

But then again what's your alternative ? Wait until "technology" saves us ? If
the human race prefers autodestruction over self restraint, let it be... You
better start planning the pitch you'll give to your grandchildren now though,
this one will be much more of a hard sell than mine.

~~~
sebst
> But then again what's your alternative ?

I don't wish for an alternative to "sustainable" living, just to be clear.
Only I doubt people will voluntarily give up all the amenities of our
unsustainable way of living.

> Wait until "technology" saves us ?

Is that really too far fetched? Like "technology" saved us from food shortage
[0], bacterial infections [1], horse manure [2] and so much more.

Technology like airplanes also saved us from being unable to leave our home
town in a lifetime.

Today's problems are mostly side-effects of yesterday's solutions, often
accelerated by greed and selfishness.

> If the human race prefers autodestruction over self restraint, let it be.

Maybe the next iteration of intelligent life on this planet is less selfish
and more sensible? Less prone to social traps [3]?

> You better start planning the pitch you'll give to your grandchildren

That's not a pitch. If that happens, it's more like "We fucked it up, we're
going to die. End of the story". Nothing someone needs to buy. No one
"pitched" the demise of the Ancient Rome to the people. It was just
inevitable, yet painful.

> this one will be much more of a hard sell than mine

It would be a more fateful talk than yours, but your's is a big one to sell:

"We've identified a bunch of problems, like nuclear weapons and climate
change. Climate change is the only thing, YOU personally can do something
about. So, yes, you would be able to buy an iPhone every year, watching TV on
a big plasma while bbq-ing pulled beef and fly to any beach you can dream of
just to get plastered with cheap beer over there, BUT we take ALL this away
from you to save the planet. You can emit only as much CO2 as the poorest
people in the world do. Yes, we try to reinvent all this stuff from scratch,
but in a sustainable way, but this could take ages - if it happens at all. We
don't really believe in technology, which is why we need to take it away from
you NOW, but we hope for the best.

The nuclear weapons and stuff, you ask? Yes, we talk to the world leaders.
They are unregenerate at the moment, but YOU will join us for the good cause,
won't you?"

My point here is not that we would not be better off, if we all lived
sustainable. But taking a single threat to humanity out of a big list of
threats and conventionalise the one with the solution imposing the biggest
cuts on an individual level, to the most detrimental one, might do more harm
than good.

And, according to science, every cut above these 0.6-1.2t per capita per year
would just delay the catastrophe to the grand-grand-children. So, yes, this
would sound a bit like "middle ages" to most people.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap)

