Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How air travellers can cut their door-to-door emissions right now – by as much as 13% on the Sydney-Melbourne route (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For many of us, especially in Australia, flying is an essential form of transport, so how can we reduce its environmental impact? Getting to and from the airport is an overlooked aspect of air travel that offers an immediate way to cut total carbon emissions from the trip by a surprisingly large amount.

Our newly published research shows for an average economy passenger flying from Sydney to Melbourne, the carbon emissions from using a fossil-fuelled car to get to and from the airports make up a staggering 13.5% of the total door-to-door emissions.

Our research shows it's easily achievable if travellers can be persuaded to change how they get to and from the airport.

Two recent studies at the University of California, Davis, suggest showing consumers the emission outcomes of different gate-to-gate flight choices, such as aircraft types and transit stops, can prompt them to choose greener flights, reducing emissions by up to 3.8%. But air journeys don't start or end at airports.

Our air-travel carbon emissions are divided into ground and air segments and counted as airport and airline emissions respectively.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Classic pushing the carbon burden onto the consumer. Imagine if they just had a rail line too and from the airport? $22 for a one way bus ride that I have to take a $5 train ride to get to is not a great deal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

It's $2.40 for the train to Perth Airport, $5 if you pay cash/don't have a SmartRider. Honestly, it's more convenient than driving for a people like me who live on the same train line.

Pity I haven't flown anywhere since 2019 (The line only opened last year).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

Or.

Mad concept.

You actually fine and stop the massive polluters who destroy the planet.

Mad concept holding those accountable for their actions.

Don't blame the poor's for the rich excecs lavish lifestyle. Maybe stop mining every last mineral. Stop coal immediately

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Gods I wish the effects of pollution were properly costed in to the cost of travel. Maybe then there would be more incentive to get proper high-speed rail running down the east coast from Brisbane to Melbourne. It's ridiculous that the three routes involving Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne are all near the top of the heaviest flight corridors in the world. Two of those three could easily be replaced by high-speed rail, and even the third could probably be replaced for a certain subset of less time sensitive travellers.

If we did that, the "how travellers get to the airport" question would be moot. Train stations are so much easier to access by public transport already anyway.

But anyway, taking the article at face value, getting to the airport any way other than driving right now is so difficult in Brisbane, is possible only for the fiercely determined on the Gold Coast, and I've heard it's even worse in Melbourne.

Brisbane could at least solve the problem very easily. The government needs to nationalised the AirTrain that already exists so that it operates at affordable prices. Then the frequency needs to be something more reasonable, and it needs to operate the entire duration the airport is open. The train existing is no good if you have to wait 30+ minutes for it after you've finally gotten through all the customs and immigration rigamarole and collected you bag and just want to get home. Nor is it any use if your flight lands at 10 pm and the last train leaves at 10:08, long before you could possibly get to it.

You want people to use alternatives to get to the airport? Make it cheaper, easier, and more convenient than driving, don't put up huge barriers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I hope people get to read your thoughtful replies. Perhaps 'Active' will give them a chance.

At least I get a notification for this, other people aren't so lucky.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Thanks, I appreciate that.

But yeah, one of the things I actually quite like about Lemmy so far is that because it's a bit quieter, the chances that you can contribute meaningfully to a thread a day late are still pretty good.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

same in sydney, theres a perfectly good rail line to the airport. but it will cost more to get there and back with my family than it costs to park for a week. its rediculous really