Hacker News Reader

Comment by orphereus | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.

Yup. Make the flyers pay the infrastructure costs based on the environmental effects. It's not too complicated.

It is a bit complicated as flying isn't much subsidised in cash terms and if you put large taxes on fuel, flights will divert to nearby countries with less tax.

In the UK there is air passenger duty which is for example £102 per passenger on economy seats to the US. I think they are reluctant to raise it too much incase business shifts elsewhere.

We're afraid of the zillionaire tantrums, thus this should be a coordinated effort.

I'm seeing it from both sides of the isles that people are being fed up with the overlords.

But currently the zillionaire tantrums control the future so you're right.

I think advances in remote work tech have had a huge impact on business travel.

Zoom beats Boom.

Zoom is also probably the worst software I'm forced to use. The UI and fat client are from 2000.

Insane take - this is just ensuring that the only people who get to enjoy travel are the rich. Nothing in our society is improved by taking a privilege that's widely enjoyed and restricting it to the wealthy or very wealthy.

It’s a privilege with most externalities _not_ taken into account, i.e. it’s hurting us all because we ignore its true cost and make it available in vast quantities.

Since the global South will suffer the most from climate change, they might disagree with developed nations ‘subsiding’ flights.

The phrase the global south elides the fact that those countries are far higher in inequality than the West. Wealthy elites being the only ones able to travel isn't a solution to climate change, it's a recipe for a degree of social control we haven't seen in a century. We can fight climate change, and increase mobility, standard of living and freedom for all. There is an enormous amount of low hanging fruit here - from switching to renewables, to moving militaries off gas and oil, to switching cargo ships to renewable energy. Trapping humanity in their nation of birth shouldn't be the go to first step. The consequences of that degree of social control aren't being allowed for here.

I agree with all your points, except that 1) people can travel through other means, and 2) people can travel less. I have plenty of acquaintances that could do with a bit of discovering theirs and nearby countries by train, and perhaps fly half as much as they do (6-10 return flights per year for mini beach vacations).

Way too many people put themselves in the position of proposing reducing the liberty of others, while unconsciously assuming their own liberty won't be significantly curtailed.

I live on an island, and it's literally only now, in my late forties that I'm earning the kind of money that allows me to travel moderately. If you tire of the privilege, feel free not to. For me it's perhaps the one aspect of modernity that unarguably better than the past, the thing we get in return for global homogeneity.

You think people resent the rich now? Imagine how resentment would grow under an enforced localism. Imagine how much bigotry would increase.

Cosmopolitanism is real! People who travel are more tolerant, less supportive of war, and better informed. The world isn't a virtuality to them, it's a set of places they have visited or may visit. Peoples they've known or may yet know.

I'm very willing to subsidize universal access to food, shelter, education, healthcare ... not long-haul air travel.

Why is it still considered a 'privilege' if everyone should absolutely be able to use it?

I dont disagree, but that's just how capitalism works. And it does solve a problem, there will be less airtravel.

There are no purely capitalist states on earth. Not one. We all live in mixed economies, where some aspects of market are regulated or even entirely state controlled. e.g.: defense spending, road construction etc etc. Where exactly that money should be spent, and according to what moral framework - these are political and ethical questions. But to handwave and say 'capitalism' is meaningless. Capitalism itself, in it's modern highly financialised form - is entirely reliant on state force, the rule of law, regulation, market protectionism etc to function.

In many instances there are alternatives. Amsterdam to Berlin is served by good rail (except when DB are crappy) and flight options. NYC to DC or Boston. Maybe, someday, SF to LA, and others.

IMHO you can remove the "good" and "except when". DB is 30% of the time a frustrating experience, which I've noticed makes me want to avoid it, even though I love trains. Trains in the rest of Western Europe are pretty great!

Boy what happened to DB since 2022? That was when I last travelled in Germany and I was never able to relate to everyone’s online complaints about them.

Did Berlin to Nessau through small routes: wonderful. Berlin to Prague? Stellar, if long. Berlin to Munich? Amazing all 4-5 times, unless they forget to stock up on soft pretzels.

Insane delays and cancellations. I’ve taken them Amsterdam to Berlin, Utrecht to Frankfurt, etc and only one trip has managed not to be multiple hours late. In one case a train ended early and I had to run like hell with my folding bike to cram on to a packed bus for an hour ride to the next station.

Fair, Deutsche Bahn is awful. Went to Berlin with them last November and instead of getting in at 9:00 PM we got in at 1 AM, which was especially horrible given we had a 6 and 8 year old with us.

They just cancelled a train from Amsterdam to Munich for me and never replied to my form for a refund. I called them about. Had to spend 600 extra for a sleeper instead.

Ehhhh I think it'd be more accurate to say that in a small percentage of potential routes there are alternatives.

Most people on the planet can avoid flying alright.

The addicts cannot? Or who cannot? Anyone with money cannot?

Homo fricking economicus for you alright.

We should be careful not to confound a call to reduce with a call to eliminate. I don't think most people want to completely abolish modern air travel.

But even more people can

Reply on news.ycombinator.com