Does it really still have to be: Flying through Germany by plane, where the train is often so much faster? Can't we finally do something about these flights? Many Germans think that a third count a ban on short-haul flights among the most important traffic measures in the fight for the climate, even before the home office, no other is more popular. And now there is also a model: France bans domestic flights that are not connecting flights if the train does not take longer than two and a half hours on the route. Last week the law was finally passed in parliament. Wouldn't this be the time to follow suit in Germany?
Even short-haul domestic flights are rarely booked just for the fun of flying.
And not so often either, because they would be cheaper.
If you compare train and plane correctly, then the train is often the cheaper means of transport.
Traveling by train is slower than you think
The deception lies in the expenditure of time. Climate protectors like to calculate that flights are no faster than train journeys. After all, you still need time to check in and to get to the airport. Most of the time, at the start and at the end of the journey, they set aside the time it takes to get to the airport. Very few travelers live directly at the main train station. Some live in the city, for them the bill is still right. Others live in the city, but they are heading towards the airport - for some of them, the way to the plane is almost as long as the way to the main train station. And the people in the surrounding area first! In Munich, the airport is far to the north - but even there, the trip to the main train station is only worthwhile for a few residents.Even from the south of Munich, the route over the motorway ring to the airport is often faster than the traffic jam or the S-Bahn to the ICE. Even a small amount of time saved can mean that flights are useful - namely when you already have an appointment in the other city at nine in the morning and cannot spend the night.
All of these are individual topics that do not apply to everyone.
Everyone lives in a different place and has their own schedule.
But nobody is forced to get on the plane.
Whoever buys the ticket has a reason for it.
If the airplane is really that useless, then the demand will dwindle by itself.
By the way, she already does.
The flights that are currently being banned in France hardly exist in Germany.
Even the much-discussed flight from Nuremberg to Munich has been suspended in the pandemic for months, Lufthansa sends a bus twice a day.
Even before the pandemic, all domestic flights together were only responsible for 0.3 percent of total German CO2 emissions.
Would like to pursue climate protection with such a small diamond, that still needs 330 other bans before Germany is CO2-neutral.
Climate protection works better differently
The right way is another.
Climate change must be combated at its cause: the greenhouse gases.
A CO2 price can ensure that fossil kerosene becomes more expensive and one day the use of CO2-neutral aviation fuel, which so far still seems quite expensive, will be worthwhile.
If the price is combined with emission certificates, there is a fixed upper limit for CO2 emissions that is not exceeded in the whole of the EU.
This limit continues to decrease from year to year.
This has worked extremely well in recent years: the sectors to which emissions trading applies have easily achieved their CO2 targets.
More climate protection does not need a flight ban, but a faster meltdown of the certificates.
Because that's the real irony of everything: the EU is already demanding emission certificates for flights within Europe. Although they do not cover all the climate effects of flying, they do cover CO2 emissions. For every domestic flight that does not take place, certificates are released - and then the greenhouse gas is emitted elsewhere.