this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
214 points (97.8% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

all this will do is make it so low income people can’t travel, and not really affect the rich

It can change the relative attractiveness of competing travel modes.

If currently plane costs 30 and train costs 50, the economic incentive is to take the plane. If then plane costs 70 and train still costs 50, the incentive switched to taking the train.

It will also mean people who could affort 30 but cannot afford 50 (or 70) will not travel at all, right. But for those who still travel, train has become financially more attractive compared to plane. Both effects are a win for the climate.

A proper tax & dividend scheme would have solved both issues. Tax carbon (no exemptions), refund per capita.