Sweden has invented a word to encourage people not to fly | Hacker News Reader

Sweden has invented a word to encourage people not to fly

weforum.org

69 pointsmarce117 comments

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.

It really depends on what you consider a word. I haven't heard your distinction between a word and a term widely made. You could (and many linguists do) instead say that compounds in English can contain a space, that is, some English words have spaces (or hyphens). The reason for considering a compound as a separate word is that it can have meaning that is more than the sum of its parts. The linguistic jargon for a compound where the meaning can't be easily determined from it's parts is non-transparent.

Of course, it all depends on definition.

What I am implying is that "Flight shame" and "flyskam" are entirely identical entities. That is, to consider "flyskam" in our various nordic languages a word, one must also consider "flight shame" in the English language a word.

As a local, I would not perceive "flyskam" as a word outside of trickery attempts to construct hilariously long words, where our languages should really be disqualified due to unfair grammar.

So is it a bit like "weekend" or "website" in the sense that those were originally two separate words that were combined enough to create a convention that they should be one "new" word?

Yes.

That is an entirely different concept from compound words such as "flyskam", which is simply how "fly" and "skam" are to be written to convey this meaning. "Jeg har flyskam" means "I have flight/airplane shame" (i.e. shame due to flying), but "Jeg har fly skam" would mean "I have shame that is flight", which is nonsense.

A better example of the meaning imposed by compounding would be "En dansklærer", which in verbose translation means "A teacher of the Danish language", as opposed to "En dansk lærer", meaning "A teacher who is Danish". We can also combine them, with "En dansk dansklærer" meaning "A teacher of the Danish language who is Danish".

"Weekend", on the other hand, is a word on its own after having morphed over time into its own entity, and even adopted unchanged into Nordic languages (apart from local pronunciation, of course). That several words morph into a single, new and unique word is not uncommon, although usually with greater change than just a lost white space.

Ah, I see. Interesting!

I would argue that even 'flight shame' is a new term that has a specific, recently acquired meaning in environmental context, different from what it would have a couple years ago. A great example of how language is dynamic and how reality and context shapes new meanings from existing words.

I believe this is true since otherwise you would find a lot pf compound words in the dictionary. On the other hand there are of course some compound words in the SAOL.

Here is a word you probably wont find in a Swedish dictionary: flagstångsknopsputspoleringsmedelsflaskkorksetikettpåklistrare.

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

Flugscham, Reichweitenangst, ...

Don't even need to leave English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound

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)

Indeed, German language is apparently the worst: http://www.learn-german-language-online.com/long-german-word...

What's more, I remember reading about "vliegschaamte" in a Dutch newspaper recently so the word has arrived here too.

> in order to say "processing power", the only correct way to say it would be "processeringskraft"

Wouldn't that be "beräkningskraft"?

Since he said "flyskam" and not "flygskam" I'm guessing this is a Norwegian person. Yes in Swedish it's processorkraft or beräkningskrfat.

Almost: I'm a Dane.

Oh, and actually... (insert appropriate meme)

"Processorkraft" means "processor power", and "beräkningskraft" ("beregningskraft" in Danish) translates to "computing power".

The correct Swedish translation for "processing power" is "bearbetningskraft"/"behandlingskraft". This sounds a bit awkward to my Danish ear, however. In Danish, apart from "bearbejdningskraft"/"behandlingskraft", we also have "processeringskraft", which is a normal term. This may also work non-awkwardly in Swedish, but hard to sway without a Swedish ear.

They are of cause all commonly used interchangeably, but they have subtle differences in their literal meanings.

Yes, in Swedish. I'm Danish, though, so felt more comfortable making a Danish example.

I also felt that many might not understand just how incredibly close our languages are, and that adding the language I used to the comment would likely distract from the point as a result.

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

Make Trains Great Again

Plus, the air inside the train is at nice ground level pressure, instead of the 1500-2000m ASL of typical cabin altitude.

> 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.

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...)

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.

The flight is 1.5 hours but one has to be at the airport 2 hours before, do the security and all that blah, blah. Plus, as you said, getting to and from the airport.

Going through security is one of my little personal hells. I'm brown so I'm as such scrutinized more. Then the inconsistent procedures across airports even in the same country. Do I remove the wallet and the phone? Do I keep them in my bag? Do I keep them in the tray? There is never any clear information and you just have to keep looking at your fellow passengers to figure things out.

Yes, and that train also causes enormous suffering to people living along the line, cause they are locked out at railway crossings for half an hour at a time sometimes, and ordinary trains had to be scrapped or slowed down. And the return ticket costs as much as one monthly salary. And if I remember correctly the train is not earning profit.

Not saying trains are a bad idea per se - I prefer trains to flying too, but in the imperfect world you can't just look at how magnificent your trip is while it may be a terror for some others.

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...

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?

That's just ridiculous and no-one thinks that.

That is certainly the implication :-

"Environmental website ecopassenger.org calculates that Greta’s train journey to Davos, Switzerland, emitted just 44 kilograms of CO2, compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane."

They are trying to suggest that she chose this trip, because it is environmentally better, but actually irrespective of her choice, there was most likely a total of emmission of 306kg of CO2.

There could certainly a benefit, if the aim is to just fund transport that is more efficient and less pollutant. However, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear how the calculation is made and whether it is actually true when considering the wider requirements for the services - e.g. maintenance.

> Greta’s train journey to Davos

a journey that took around 25 hours

> compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane.

I still very much doubt that 262kg is per person. There's no way a plane emits tens of thousands of kilos of CO2 on a trip.

A passenger jet burns 10-15 liters of fuel pr km. Stockholm-Geneva is about 1600 km, so 3200 km round trip. So the numbers seem at least to be in the right ball park.

Here's a bunch of physics if you're into that sort of thing: https://therocketscienceblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-mu...

262 might be a high estimate. At 750 gallons/hour[0] and 9.57 kg CO2/gallon[1] that's about 18000kg for a 2.5 hour flight.

[0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/10/1...

[1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

The 262 number was for total trip there and back. So about 5 hours of flight time in total.

There is a way :) Don't forget that each atom of carbon combines with two oxygens from the air.

I think you're going to be surprised.

A Boeing 747F has a fuel capacity of c.200,000kg, 200 metric tons (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738927).

It's mostly heptane (C7H16) and octane (C8H18). Rough calculation, that's 15x12 : 34x1 ratio of C to H (180:34).

So let's say 86% by mass, of 90% is Carbon.

But CO2 is mostly Oxygen from the air, about 12:32 ratio. So the Carbon is a quarter of the total mass.

This gives us (0.86 x 0.90 x 200tons) x4 as a ball park figure.

That's 600,000kg of CO2 produced by 200,000kg of fuel.

With 400 passengers that's 1500kg of CO2 per passenger if they burnt the full fuel capacity; ie that's a top bound estimate.

So ...

Meanwhile you might be surprised to find trees are made of CO2 with the oxygen removed. A large oak tree weighs c.5000kg and half of that is Carbon.

So very, very roughly you'll want to plant and grow to full size a large tree for every couple of long haul flights (to account for fuel only).

That's interesting. My assumption was that they were using individual examples to show the aggregate effect of large numbers of people making such choices, at a scale great enough to influence flight planning, but in a way that seems relevant to us as individuals. After all, there are hundreds of millions of people in Europe. If 1% of them make a small but material change in their travel habits that's millions of people taking fewer flights, which clearly could have a material effect on flight schedules. It would never have occurred to me that, in fact, they literally meant us to think that one person making that choice would individually have that effect.

A flight with 50% empty seats consumes less fuel than a full cabin. The difference is not huge, but it's there.

That is certainly true, but from the scale of the calculations, I am assuming that ecopassenger.com is not just calculating that difference, but the overall emmission cost as a ratio of flight.

Yes, this all sounds like a complicated way to say "obviously we've got to reduce air travel, but I'm not going to fly less, because what can one person do".

This should be a named fallacy.

Works in all sorts of situations: "obviously I have to eat less, but not this mealtime".

There is a difference between decision making and calculations of change.

I am certainly not arguing that decisions shouldn't be made responsibly. I am merely trying to point out that the calculations that have been made are simplistic.

That is a strange argument. Are you too responsible for all the flights you don't take?

That is not what I am arguing at all. I am merely pointing out that it is unclear as to what the ecopassenger.com website is calculating and what we can gather from this information.

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.

You're claiming the argument is wrong, then supporting it again.

The person(s) who go over or under the threshold are the ones that make a difference. If thresholds aren't breached by the amount of people changing route, then there is not a very significant difference.

As you indeed state:

"but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers)"

You can indeed say as much, but "this is oversimplified".

Just to be clear - I am not arguing that we should not pick routes responsibly, with the environment in mind. I am merely trying to ensure we are clearer about what impacts we are actually making and that we are considering all the impacts and not just doing a simple calculation that actually misses out the many complexities of transport.

So, you're arguing that the straw that broke the camels back is the only straw that matters at all?

No, I'm arguing that the calculations for emission per person are simplistic.

In transport, we have learnt over the past century to not use aggregate models, as they do not provide the same detail and results as disaggregate models[p.18 Modelling Transport 4th Edition Ortuzar & Willumsen]. We should not lower our standards when discussing emissions and pollution.

This article above is a very worrying case - where the reader is encouraged to shame people for flying, without showing necessary statistics as to whether flying is indeed much worse than other transportation methods.

> 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

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

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).

Surely you must be aware that the point of an action like this is not the single action itself, in isolation, but the setting of a trend?

If it becomes a trend, that will be good if indeed the efficiencies are true. As stated earlier, it is unclear how the calculations are made and whether the actual total emissions cost was lowered.

Do you have any idea how astronomically inefficient jet aircraft are? How ridiculously large amounts of energy they burn?

The whole flight does not need to be cancelled. Underselling flights are often replaced with smaller aircraft. One person might not make a difference, but if 10 or 20 cancel, an A321 may get replaced by A320 or A319, which are lighter and burn less fuel.

Good point, but once again - the crossing of thresholds is the major change, rather than the individual changes between thresholds.

Switching to a smaller aircraft isn't necessarily good for the environment.

For example the A319 burns 5%/less fuel than the A320 but has 15% fewer seats, in common configuration. So the per-seat emissions are worse than if they had sold the remaining A320 seats at cost

This is some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics (continuum fallacy). Someone who never flies is now responsible for the environmental impact of those who fly, because specifically their lack of flying is not canceling any flights (or preventing any flights from happening)?

Certainly not. Responsibility is a very complex issue, especially if you devolve it to the users, rather than keeping it in the hands of the managers/operators.

But even if we assume a large part of responsibility rests in the users, then the responsibility would clearly be only held by those planning to make the trip and deciding which form of transport to use (potential users).

> whether it considers that rail and road infrastructure requires far more energy and fuel for maintenance than the air and runway does

This lack of maintenance is showing its signs. There are surprisingly many potholes at 10km altitude, and no one spends any money trying to fix them!

A one-person switch doesn't cancel a flight, or change the world, just as a one-person boycott doesn't get Nestle to change a recipe.

Yet trains are far less emitting than aircraft, so the more people that join the sooner flights will be cancelled or routes dropped as unprofitable. Increasing carbon taxes are inevitable, so that will further speed any changes.

What evidence are you citing here?

when less people pay for things it becomes less profitable.

Yes, but the evidence is required for this claim:

"Yet trains are far less emitting than aircraft"

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/specific-co2-e...

Rail: 28 kg/passenger km Air: 144 kg/passenger km

2014 figures.

Is anybody denying that? I found a study by Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath suggesting that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation. However, even than rail generally appears to be less damaging than air by far. What are your sources?

Every kg less that's carried means less fuel burnt. Sure each one person reduces the fuel usage by only a small amount.

But, you can't have less air travel without people stopping flying. It's going to happen incrementally.

It is not unclear how their method, they explain it quite clearly and in detail [0]. In general, you are correct that road and (especially) rail require substantially more infrastructure than air travel. For combustion vehicles, however, such infrastructure is less than 10% of the total impact of such travel [1]. As energy source get cleaner, the relative impact of road construction and maintenance will increase. However, we run into difficult questions of allocation of burden, as essentially all damage to roads is done by heavy transport (damage goes by something like axle load to the fourth power), and by weather (irrespective of how much the road is used).

It is rather difficult to determine the actual impact of any one person's decision to fly or not fly. The state of the art considers the aircraft, the average load factor of the operator (or even load factor over a specific route), and the demand for urgent freight on that route (i.e. an empty seat might be compensated by more freight). Moreover, the marginal impact of one person is not the same as the marginal impact of e.g. a new travel policy for a large institution. Do to low data availability, we often take the average impact instead of the marginal.

For those actually interested in helping making open source and open data tools to help others make informed decisions, please check out BONSAI [2,3] (I am affiliated with the BONSAI NGO).

[0] http://ecopassenger.hafas.de/bin/help.exe/en?L=vs_uic&tpl=me... [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.8b00261 [2] https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/bonsai [3] https://bonsai.uno/

Thanks a lot, this has been a most helpful reply!

It seems that [1] is referring to roads though? Rail maintenance is far more expensive.

> 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].

There might be some question whether cars less efficient than planes, but I am not aware of any such doubt w.r.t. trains, which is what we are discussing here. Also note that few people would drive the long distances that a plane or train enable them to cover.

> but it is unclear how the method of calculation (ecopassenger.org) works, whether it considers that rail and road infrastructure requires far more energy

The methodology is available [0]. It considers direct emissions, so no maintenance or manufacture. Can you make an argument why these should be more than a low percentage of the direct emission? I mean sure, it might require 1000x more energy to maintain, but its not like that is a large part of the final emission per kilometer.

> since you cannot change the load of plane and train separately

Why would you need to? Of course people who take the train instead of the plane reduce demand for planes and increase demand for trains. So there are fewer plane trips and more rail trips. Assuming that rail trips are environmentally advantages, why would that be a bad idea?

> even though it is clear that flight operators often overbook planes, while trains often run with pretty low loads.

The model considers rail load factors based on real world data where available, substituting 35% as an approximation where no data is available. Do you have any reason to object to that?

0: http://ecopassenger.hafas.de/hafas-res/download/Ecopassenger...

Nice find, I didn't see this before! I think the conversation should be left up so this can all be found, though.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

Famous people like actresses are more vulnerable to shame than normal people, since so much of their identity and wealth is built on people's opinion of them.

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 ..

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.

There is more to Sweden though. Lot of people still air-commute between Umeå and Stockholm. I'd argue that a proper high-speed train with a _few_ stops along major hubs running from south to north would be a great boon to the country. Then you'd be able to take slower trains to get to these hubs, as opposed to having the train stop so often that it becomes inefficient.

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

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?

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.

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.

Trains in Europe and probably elsewhere too, cannot compete on price as 1) fuel is taxed and they are paying emissions fees, which airlines don’t [a] 2) the operator is often obligated to run trains at times where there are very few passengers (I.e. hourly schedules on underused routes).

[a] http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/05/te-found-the-eu-sat-o...

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.

Links?

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.

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.

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

Yeah, I was like "what did I miss?"

I live in Malmö and it’s definitely been a thing here…

I live in the north (Norrbotten) in a smaller community. There is a point to take the train between Gothenburg and Stockholm instead of flying for example, but taking the train from Luleå to the south is simply not worth it. It's just as expensive (sometimes more so) and the trip will take at least 15h longer...

Yeah. I considered Umeå before I made the move to Sweden, and it would have been dramatically more difficult to get to central Europe / UK without flying. I can quite understand why flygskam isn’t a thing up north.

Same

The word's been mentioned a few times in Swedish-language media in Finland, so it's definitely being thrown around enough to spread to this side of the Baltic sea.

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

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

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

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?

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.

> [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?

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.

Only the CO2. Does not include the rest of the radiative forcing (mainly water vapour). So the 2% is not a measure of climate change impact. It's a misleading fact.

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.

What evidence are you citing for environmental cost?

I don't appear to be citing anything!

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/

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.

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.

>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.

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.

No-fly list?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com