I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change reasons

Re:I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change rea... by magduf on Monday June 03, 2019 @12:25PM (#20084967)

Sleepers on planes certainly are expensive (you're talking about business or first class to get that space), but you don't feel the need for it as much because it's only that useful on long-haul flights. There's no such thing, usually, as a train that goes the same route as a 14-hour plane flight: such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change rea... by seanmcdirmid on Monday June 03, 2019 @12:29PM (#20085030)

> such a train would have to somehow cross an ocean.

Beijing to Western Europe via Moscow could technically be done by train. The first leg is 8 hours which should count as a long haul.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change rea... by magduf on Monday June 03, 2019 @12:32PM (#20085080)

That's why I added the word "usually" in there. Try taking a train to Australia or Japan (from outside those countries), between the Americas and Europe or Asia, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change rea... by seanmcdirmid on Monday June 03, 2019 @12:37PM (#20085136)

Generally anything separated by water should fly, but even just going across the continent I think flying wins out; eg why train from shanghai to Urumqi for 2-3 days when you can just fly for 5 or 6 hours?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I've stopped flying to conferences for climate change rea... by magduf on Monday June 03, 2019 @12:48PM (#20085278)

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make before with my first sentence. A 5-6 hour flight isn't that hard to do in a seat; you don't need a sleeper for that. But a 2-3 day trip on a train isn't something you want to do in a regular upright seat.

[ Parent | on HN ]