This seems very targeted at one specific group (those commuting regularly) that is only a small part of the population affected by the cost increases. In fact train tickets have not increased anyway.
It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing.
I think it makes sense if we can encourage people who would have otherwise traveled by car to try out the train. I mean that's the whole point, right? If we want to "give everyone a little something", we should increase capacity as well.
In parallel there was a 0.30 Euro subsidy on petrol ("Tankrabatt") and a 300 Euro one-off payment for employees (in September I think). Plus subsidy on gas for heating is being discussed. Taken together a lot was given, not only to one group.
Which leaves a question of the long-term effect - will people who typically had not considered taking a train for, say, going on vacation will do so next year?
The most carbon-neutral consumer is 6 feet under. Or, better yet, processed into biogas.
I don't think this is the kind of logic we should be engaging in
I don't think this measure is primarily meant to fight carbon emissions. I think the primary goal is to help people who were mostly affected by inflation, i.e. lower and middle class so people who take regular commuter trains.
In Spain it seems to be more targeted to compensating people for the higher prices, not for environmental reasons. And as such I question the targeting at such a specific group.
* Fun story, I rode 1500 miles throughout Spain ~10 years ago, and had not a single bad experience with a motorist. When I got back to my home in NY state, literally on my first bike ride back, within 2 miles of my starting point, a man in a truck threw a beer can at me.
In the Netherlands where I'm from we frown on cyclists on the road because there's excellent cycle lanes they should be using. The problem is the "sporty" types that think they're too good for those and use the main road instead.