Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

To cut co2 France banning domestic airline routes of 2 and a half hours or less.

French MPs have voted to suspend domestic airline flights on routes that can be travelled by direct train in less than two and a half hours, as part of a series of climate and environmental measures.

After a heated debate in the Assemblée Nationale at the weekend, the ban, a watered-down version of a key recommendation from President Emmanuel Macron’s citizens’ climate convention was adopted.

It will mean the end of short internal flights from Orly airport, south of Paris, to Nantes and Bordeaux among others, though connecting flights through Charles de Gaulle/Roissy airport, north of the French capital, will continue.

The climate commission set up by Macron had originally recommended the scrapping of all flights between French destinations where an alternative direct train journey of less than four hours existed.

This was reduced to two and a half hours after strong objections from certain regions and from Air France-KLM, which, like other airlines, has been badly hit by local and international Covid-19 restrictions on travel.

The chief executive of Air France-KLM, Benjamin Smith, has said the airline is committed to reducing the number of its French domestic routes by 40% by the end of this year.

The Socialist MP Joël Aviragnet said the measure would have a “disproportionate human cost” and warned of job losses in the airline sector. Other MPs, including from the Green party, complained that watering down the climate convention’s recommendation had made the measure meaningless.

Mathilde Panot, of the hard left La France Insoumise, said the measure had been “emptied”, while her colleague Danièle Obono said retaining the four-hour threshold would have made it possible to halt routes that “emit the most greenhouse gases”.

The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir had called on MPs to retain the four-hour recommendation.

It added that banning domestic flights if a direct train alternative of fewer than four hours existed it would have a “real impact” on reducing CO2 emissions and would not adversely affect travel times or prices.

“On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes,” it said. “Our study shows that … the government’s choice actually aims to empty the measure of its substance.”

---------------

Of course the officials mandating this can still travel on private or government jets.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7April 12, 2021 5:03 PM

Not a terrible idea for most of the EU, since they have decent trains. Japan and China, too.

by Anonymousreply 1April 12, 2021 4:29 PM

Good, but should be three at least.

by Anonymousreply 2April 12, 2021 4:48 PM

No, they have *excellent* trains. So much less stressful than travel by air.

by Anonymousreply 3April 12, 2021 4:50 PM

[quote] To cut co2 France banning domestic airline routes of 2 and a half hours or less.

Incorrect, OP. Actually read carefully: they're banning flights for which there are direct train rides of under 2.5 hours. The train rides are 2.5 hours.

So very short flights, much quicker than 2 hours.

by Anonymousreply 4April 12, 2021 4:55 PM

This is a great idea. Bravo.

by Anonymousreply 5April 12, 2021 4:56 PM

So to picture it: if you can get from LA to Vegas direct on a bullet train in under 2.5 hours, there wouldn't be a flight for it.

Doesn't sound unreasonable.

by Anonymousreply 6April 12, 2021 4:59 PM

I wonder how many things have irritated the OP without his having read them correctly.

by Anonymousreply 7April 12, 2021 5:03 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!