Is it OK to fly if rail is too expensive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter neu
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the dilemma of choosing between flying and taking the train from London to Madrid for a conference, with flight costs around £80-£90 compared to rail fares of approximately £250. Participants express a strong preference for rail travel due to environmental concerns, yet acknowledge the financial and time advantages of flying. The conversation highlights the complexities of transportation choices, including hidden fees associated with air travel and the environmental impact of both modes. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards flying as the more practical option given the circumstances.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of transportation cost comparisons
  • Knowledge of environmental impacts of aviation and rail travel
  • Familiarity with airline pricing structures and hidden fees
  • Awareness of travel reimbursement policies for students and professionals
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the environmental impact of aviation versus rail travel
  • Investigate airline pricing strategies and hidden fees
  • Explore travel reimbursement policies for students attending conferences
  • Learn about alternative transportation options and their costs
USEFUL FOR

Students, conference attendees, environmental advocates, and anyone weighing the costs and benefits of air travel versus rail travel.

  • #61
"Have you evidence that this is the case? This is v.relavent to OP. Bear in mind I was referring to short haul."

Is anyone reading my posts? There is a basica calculation with neu's numbers and the number of flights from Friends of the Earth. If you cannot accept these numbers then you are being truly ignorant to the facts. Before 'Global Warming' even existed (before the media and government got on it), hardly anyone cared about emissions and CO2, but now everyone has jumped on the band wagon. The media has hyped up global warming to the extreme and the government only care because they can tax it. Full stop.

There was a report on tv last night that the Earth is going to eventually collide with mars. Should we be panicking, trying to prevent the unpreventable? This is certainly a much greater risk with regards to life and a mass extinction than a slight raise in temperature is.

Why does nobody accept any evidence except that which supports their argument?

Either base your judgement on facts, yes FACTS. Or make it on a personal basis and don't bother asking for others to approve of it because the fact is, your judgement is based on your own personal feelings. I have seen no evidence so far to suggest flying is worse than a train.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
jarednjames said:
Is anyone reading my posts?

Definitely, and I am really glad you shared the link to http://www.friendsofscience.org/" . Before, all I had were a few scattered, poorly articulated critiques of the 'climate change ' literature, but this website has put in the hard work that it takes to substantiate and extend all of the criticisms on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.

I do however, think that this thread is near the end of its on-topic life since the OP resolved their problem, and that unless anyone else asks me for further clarification I for one will probably let this thread sink away. On the otherhand, I look forward to someone else starting a new thread to argue about the role of carbon in climate change (I can't start it because most threads that I start are DOA).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
ExactlySolved said:
Definitely, and I am really glad you shared the link to http://www.friendsofscience.org/" . Before, all I had were a few scattered, poorly articulated critiques of the 'climate change ' literature, but this website has put in the hard work that it takes to substantiate and extend all of the criticisms on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.

I do however, think that this thread is near the end of its on-topic life since the OP resolved their problem, and that unless anyone else asks me for further clarification I for one will probably let this thread sink away. On the otherhand, I look forward to someone else starting a new thread to argue about the role of carbon in climate change (I can't start it because most threads that I start are DOA).

Well, says it all doesn't it, I ask if anyone's reading my posts, one person responds with definitely and thanks me for a link I didn't even post!
What is the ******* point.

ExactlySolved, I would love to discuss carbon in climate change in a thread, however given this result I feel any input from myself based on hard numbers and facts would be pointless. People just don't want to know the truth if it disagree with their point of view. Selective reading I suppose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
14K
Replies
42
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
41K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K