Yes, the evil government is propping up BIG TRAIN because they hate planes!!!
Dude, instead of mocking me and sounding like an ass, learn your history. 20 years ago in that country, it was impossible to go from Region to region by bus, you had to take the train. You couldn't do Le Mans Paris by bus because bus operators were not allowed to sell inter regional trips. It's the EU that forced France to allow these. You're damn right the french government is once again rigging the game in favor of the SNCF.
This instance is just a weak law intended for greenwashing purpose, nothing else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax
However, as of 2018, commercial kerosene consumption is currently tax exempt under the legislation of all member states of the European Union.
Also, are the externalities of jet exhaust taken into account? Is there any kind of carbon pricing in EU/France?
For the high-speed trains, yes.
In terms of time, the train is a direct TGV that takes 3¾ hours, while the plane route means taking a train for ¾ hours, waiting at the airport for at least an hour because of security, flying for 1¼ hour, wait for another half hour at least to get out of the airport, and then spend at least half an hour getting to where you actually want to be in Paris. It takes just as long, but probably longer if you want a decent safety margin on the airport.
And that excludes the simple fact that we all have a responsibility in reducing our carbon footprint, and that for most us who have the means to travel taking a route that may be (but isn't in this case) slightly more expensive and take slightly longer is the least we can do if it is the greener alternative by far.
1: Just an example of a journey I took myself, by train.
That's a difficult personal choice to push on people when the super rich are traveling by private jets, fuel for international air travel isn't taxed (because bought in duty free zone technically), etc...
People want legislation for all, not just fake moral that only applies to the middle class and lower. I believe the fact that this law will affect private jet trips is a reflection that politicians are aware of this and starting to feel the pressure.
Reminds me of Caroline Lucas, when asked about her air travel, saying there should be a focus on taxing aviation fuel.
What this all amounts to is travel should be restricted to the wealthy.
What do you propose?
So, if you're refueling an A380 super-jumbo or a 777, your fuel tax is very low, because those planes need a LOT of fuel. If you're refueling a 737, it'll be significantly higher, to penalize short routes. If you're refueling a small private jet, it'll be huge.
Basically, big jets that carry hundreds of passengers will get the lowest fuel tax this way, and airlines will be forced to prioritize moving people as efficiently as possible.
My whole point here was to devise a taxation strategy to discourage passengers and airlines from flying short routes, and leave those to trains instead, reserving airplanes for the much longer routes where they're much less avoidable, and also to encourage more centralization of air travel from large cities and their airports, so that larger numbers of passengers are funneled onto a smaller number of very large jets for those intercontinental trips. Passengers would then just have to take trains to/from the smaller cities. Larger planes are far more efficient in terms of fuel per passenger per mile; much of the fuel burned in a flight is used on take-off and getting to altitude anyway, so maximizing distance and plane size means minimizing fuel per passenger-mile.
If we want to fight pollution big time, ultimately we have to reduce amount of traveling. At least till we get nuclear fission working and batteries with good energy density. Entirely new ways to make trains and planes themselves.
You know there's lots of things to do outside without flying tens of thousands kilometers, right?
This is often true. But - not always. Depends on which endpoints. Sometimes it's speed, sometimes convenience, sometime price.
> free market distortion
1. Markets are not free. They are based on violent coercion of private ownership of land, factories, service providing corporations etc.
2. Markets are always "distorted", in the sense that they don't just occur naturally.
3. I can't say for certain whether this specific measure is appropriate or well-intentioned, but - emissions need to be reduced drastically over the next several years; and not just in one sector of the economy. So in _some_ way, people do need to change their habits in favor of using more carbon-frugal modes of travel.
Paris-Zurich is very different from Lyon-Geneva
The overriding market distortion, which trumps every other variable here, is the zero value given to any environmental externalities coming from air travel.
In addition, both CH and FR have massive governmental subsidies for their national carriers and the operation of their airports.
Which is to say:
you’re swimming in free market distortions so deeply you’ll never come up for air … and you’re decrying this one ?
Seriously: grow up.
Government induced free market distortion under pretense of ecology concerns is just what it is, bullshit, and a bad French habit.