THE TECHNOCRATS OVERLOOK THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

The people who invented dirigisme implement it badly, again.  "France Just Banned Short-Haul Flights. Why Are So Few Routes Affected?"  It's always the Good Intentions.

To combat climate change, France has officially prohibited short domestic flights for journeys that will take less than 2.5 hours by train.

“This is an essential step and a strong symbol in the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” says Clement Beaune, France’s transport minister, in a statement, per CNN’s Saskya Vandoorne. “As we fight relentlessly to decarbonize our lifestyles,” he adds, “how can we justify the use of the plane between the big cities which benefit from regular, fast and efficient connections by train?”

Because even a country with some of the world's fastest passenger trains has a Passenger Rail network centered on Paris?

Critics say that the ban’s limitations are significant. So far, only three routes have been discontinued: the routes between Paris-Orly Airport and the cities Nantes, Bordeaux and Lyon. Additionally, the ban only applies to routes that have direct train service running “several times a day” on a schedule that will allow travelers to spend at least eight hours at their destination. It also doesn’t apply to connecting flights.

Symbolism over substance, concludes the article.

It's worse than that, notes French emigrant Veronique de Rugy.  "France's Ban on Short-Haul Flights Will Kill People."  That's the kind of thing economists have a history of calling attention to, with nobody paying attention.  Are infants safer because they must be in a car seat on an airplane?  The immediate consequence appears to suggest the answer is yes.  But as the tots are now occupying a seat, and paying a fare, their parents will substitute, and strap the kiddos in the car seats in the car, where they're at greater risk of dying in a car crash.  "You're 2,200 times more likely to die when traveling by car as opposed to by airplane."

The same incentives to substitute apply, even with family fares designated in euros.

Nothing today is more en vogue than climate theatrics, sometimes at the expense of realistic, helpful policies. Macron obviously relishes the opportunity to pose as a courageous hero astride a white horse helping to save humanity from its self-destructive addiction to fossil fuels.

As pointed out by many observers, France's ban on short-haul flights is riddled with so many exceptions that the resulting reduction of carbon emissions will fall far short of what Macron wants the world to believe. Nevertheless, maybe some flights will be banned and less aviation fuel will be burned.

Hooray! At least it's something!

Not so fast, Alphonse!

In the case of the ban on short-haul flights, it's easy to see what Macron sees and wants: more people traveling by train. Let's grant that this effect is good and then look beyond the initial claims about saving aviation fuel.

What about more people traveling by automobile? After all, rail travel isn't the only alternative to air travel, especially in France where train strikes are a regular occurrence. Denied the much greater speed of air travel, many people will opt to skip the inconvenience of buying a ticket altogether and travel by car.

One undesirable effect is a longer time spent traveling. Because people's time is valuable and could otherwise be spent working, studying or with family and friends, the cost of traveling what the French government considers to be short distances will rise. Did Monsieur Macron carefully weigh this cost against the ban's benefits? I'm pretty sure he didn't. He just assumed that people's time is of sufficiently low value to justify the flight ban. Tres arrogant!

Looking even further past "that which is seen," you'll see why any reduction in the burning of fossil fuels will almost certainly be less than what the French government hopes. Not only do automobiles, like airplanes, burn fossil fuel, but the amount burned by automobiles can be greater per passenger mile.

I've learned to be skeptical of using time savings as a meaningful metric in transportation allocation, and the effect, such as it is, will be attenuated on those TGV lines the technocrats would like to see their subjects riding; that is, when the trains are in fact running (and I can tell a few stories about spot strikes during my visit to Normandie five years ago).  But once you pile the family into the car, you're at that greater risk of a fatal crash.  "Political theater, it turns out, can be deadly."