Twelve police were wounded on Saturday (17 June) in clashes with demonstrators in France’s Savoie department where a protest against a high speed rail project in the Alps turned violent, authorities said.
Twelve police were wounded on Saturday (17 June) in clashes with demonstrators in France’s Savoie department where a protest against a high speed rail project in the Alps turned violent, authorities said.
I already said this in another post, but international trade of goods is perfectly fine. in this case there is already a line which is underused, at 20% usage. What we don’t want more of is international passengers traffic. This is a huge luxury and people need to get rid of the idea that traveling far is a given. No, it’s not. Not any more. It was, with the profusion of energy, but now it’s not any more.
I do want people to do less travel between states, because we cannot afford it on a carbon level, and train are still heavily propelled with coal electricity (41%,). We will need to trade metals between states for example, but the traffic of passengers will become a luxury that we will have to get rid of, or at least maintain, but certainly not expand with high speed trains. You can send your complains to the laws of physics, because I’m not enforcing anything, I’m just stating the reality that we need to think twice about how we spend our last resources. Just because people say “train, train” doesn’t mean it’s the right type of train in the right place. We are that deep into the crisis.
tldr: Sending people even faster from Paris to Turin is not a priority and doesn’t deserve neither the bigger tunnel in Europe nor 30B€. The priority is to remove trucks from the roads and rethink the railway in the inner country.
Yeah, that has zero chance of ever working. Its completely unrealistic, furthermore I’d argue that its a pro-fascist stance simply because by virtue of imposing those kind of restrictions on people and commerce will very likely lead to fascists taking power. I can easily see that happening.
For example in this case, the only way to achieve this is either 1) faster rail alternative that’s better than transporting via trucks (which you very explicitly do not want) or 2) state force via taxes on trucks/roads/fuel.
The moment you do the second options fascists, nazis, white supremacists and the rest of the filth will undoubtedly surge in the polls.
We’ve seen what happened with just a immigrant crisis.
This kind of move will not only cartoonishly fail to achieve any of its goals but it’ll put fascists in power.
This won’t happen, climate change is not the type of thing where people notice its effects relatively immediately. And for that reason they’re not going to vote for the ones who wish to install draconian measures and greatly hamper the economy and all that suffering that comes with that.
“Fascist, nazi, white supremacists”… I’m not sure that you are debating seriously, /u/grus.
On top of that I see that you are subscribed to /m/shitposting, /m/unpopularopinion and /m/noncredibledefense.
I’m not interested anymore, I posted some source, read it or not, I’m out.
What are you talking about, of course I’m very serious. Have you not seen the rise of the far right in Europe?
Well, this has to be the silliest thing you’ve said so far. Disregarding my argument simply because I’m into jokes?
Translation: I have no counter-arguments so I choose to run.
You would’ve looked better if you didn’t say anything at all and just stopped replying.