I've travelled to almost every country in western Europe and several in Eastern Europe, not taking a single inter-Europe flight.
The only part I hate is after taking an overnight train, hotels aren't open for morning check in, and dragging luggage across cobblestone streets trying to find restrooms to take the obligatory 3 shit-sessions every morning due to my uncooperative butt is not fun.
This more or less completely eliminated my gripe with check-in times being later than I arrive to a city.
I think young kids have just moved on culturally, I tried to convince a couple relatives to make use of the 18yo free trains opportunity and nobody wanted to pick it up, for various reasons.
As always, the most easy to reach places will have the most people. I would say that's not what you're going for in such a trip.
Also, if you drive, it's likely that the flight you would otherwise have taken is going to make the trip anyway. So you've just added whatever carbon your car emits to the total.
If you're really concerned about it, the best plan is to not travel for pleasure, or maybe use a bicycle.
>if you drive, it's likely that the flight you would otherwise have taken is going to make the trip anyway
This is a terrible argument, a straightforward (but surprisingly common) fallacy. The plane is leaving because of the price signal: people bought tickets for the flight. If they stop buying tickets, planes will very quickly stop leaving.
I agree that if we care about the environment then we should at least try to travel less, or less far.
I disagree. Regular people have already made plenty of sacrifices. We should continue enjoying our lives so long as billionaires utilise their private jets, governments wage wars, and citizens in countries like the US continue to consume exponentially more resources than everywhere else.
Great program for young people to learn more about other countries I made use of as well.