faz.net
Greenpeace Study: European Train Travel More Expensive Than Flying on Most Routes
A Greenpeace study across 142 European routes in 31 countries found train travel is more expensive than flying on 54 percent of routes; the Cologne-Manchester route showed a train ticket costing fifteen times more than a flight.
- What are the key findings of the Greenpeace study comparing the cost of train travel versus air travel across Europe?
- A new Greenpeace study reveals that train travel in Europe is more expensive than flying on most cross-border routes. Only 46% of the 142 routes studied offered cheaper train fares. Half of the journeys to, from, and within Germany were more expensive by train.
- What policy recommendations does Greenpeace propose to address the cost disparity and promote climate-friendly travel?
- The substantial price difference, exemplified by a 15-fold cost increase for a Cologne-Manchester train journey compared to a flight, underscores the need for policy changes. Greenpeace advocates for increased European direct trains, reduced train taxes, and fairer aviation taxes to make train travel a more viable and affordable climate-friendly alternative.
- How does the pricing discrepancy between train and air travel relate to the environmental impact of each mode of transportation?
- The study highlights a disparity in pricing between train and air travel across Europe, with significantly higher train prices on popular routes to France, Spain, the UK, and Italy. Conversely, train travel is generally cheaper to cities in Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, and Belgium. This pricing discrepancy contrasts sharply with the environmental impact, where flying is far more damaging.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the higher cost of train travel compared to air travel, framing the issue as a problem of unfair pricing rather than a broader discussion of transportation policy. The use of phrases like "absurd" and "climate-damaging" creates a strong negative connotation towards air travel and implies a moral imperative to choose train travel. The inclusion of the statistic about 1% of the world's population causing half of flight emissions is likely intended to evoke strong emotional responses, further strengthening the framing.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language, such as "absurd," "climate-damaging," and "ungerechteste Art" (most unjust way), to negatively portray air travel. These terms are not neutral and contribute to a biased framing of the issue. More neutral language could include terms such as "high-emission" or "less sustainable" instead of "climate-damaging.
Bias by Omission
The study focuses on price comparisons between train and plane tickets, but omits analysis of other factors influencing travel choices, such as travel time, comfort, and convenience. The impact of these factors on passenger decisions is not considered, potentially leading to an incomplete picture of why people choose air travel over train travel. Additionally, the study doesn't discuss the potential economic impact of shifting travel to rail, such as job losses in the airline industry.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice between train and plane travel as solely a matter of price and environmental impact. It overlooks the complexity of travel decisions, which involve multiple factors like time constraints, comfort preferences, and the availability of direct connections. The implication that choosing air travel is inherently unethical is an oversimplification.
Sustainable Development Goals
The study reveals that train travel within Europe is often more expensive than air travel, disincentivizing the use of a more sustainable transportation method. This contradicts efforts to reduce carbon emissions from transportation and mitigate climate change. The high cost of train travel, coupled with subsidies and tax breaks for air travel, actively promotes climate-damaging behavior.