1Hãy cầu xin Đức Giê-hô-va ban mưa cuối mùa, mưa mùa xuân.

Đức Giê-hô-va sẽ làm sấm chớp,

Và ban cho mưa dồi dào,

Để ai nấy có rau cỏ ngoài đồng.

2Vì các thần tượng chỉ nói điều hư không,Mat 9:36; Mác 6:34.

Các thầy bói chỉ thấy điều gian trá;

Chúng rêu rao những chiêm bao giả dối,

Và nói lời an ủi rỗng tuếch.

Vì vậy, dân chúng tan lạc

Như những con chiên khốn khổ vì không có người chăn.

3“Cơn giận Ta cháy phừng lên chống lại những kẻ chăn,

Ta sẽ trừng phạt các nhà lãnh đạo,

Khi Đức Giê-hô-va vạn quân thăm viếng bầy chiên Ngài, tức là nhà Giu-đa,

Thì sẽ khiến họ như ngựa chiến oai phong ra trận.

4Từ nhà Giu-đa, sẽ xuất hiện đá móng góc nhà,

Từ họ, sẽ xuất hiện cọc lều,

Từ họ, sẽ xuất hiện cung nỏ chiến trận,

Và từ họ, sẽ xuất hiện mọi thủ lĩnh.

5Họ sẽ như những dũng sĩ giày đạp quân thù trong trận chiến

Như bùn đất ngoài đường phố.

Họ sẽ chiến đấu vì Đức Giê-hô-va ở với họ,

Và những người cưỡi ngựa sẽ phải xấu hổ.”

Xa-cha-ri 10 | VIE2010 Kinh Thánh | YouVersion (bible.com)

Why Flying Carbon Class to COP26 is Cheaper Than Taking the Train

BY ARYN BAKER

Senior Correspondent

In less than two weeks, leaders from 196 countries and around 25,000 delegates, activists and protestors will descend on the Scottish city of Glasgow for the United Nation’s 26th global climate summit, or COP 26. It is no small irony that most of them will travel by air, the most carbon-intensive form of travel, emitting six times more CO2 per passenger mile than taking the train. The U.K., of course, is an island, so alternatives are limited. But even for those traveling from elsewhere in Great Britain, where trains are ubiquitous, it’s not an easy choice. A round-trip train ride from London to Glasgow costs nearly three times the price of an EasyJet flight, according to a quick search on the travel cost comparison website Omio.com. I would be thrilled to take the 25-hour train route from Rome, where I live, to Glasgow, but at a cost of more than $1,300 for a one-way trip, compared to a $500 round trip flight, TIME’s travel budget office may be less enthusiastic.

Within the E.U., where low-cost airlines dominate the market, the price difference can be even more stark. Aviation is responsible for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, and even more global warming when other greenhouse gas emissions such as nitrogen oxide are taken into account. Both the E.U. and the U.K. have committed to some of the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the world, and trains are far better for the climate than flying. So why is it still so much cheaper to take a plane?

There are a couple of reasons, says Andrew Murphy, aviation director at the European Federation for Transport and Environment, a sustainable transport organization. First and foremost, he says, the cost of a flight ticket doesn’t reflect the broader climate and environmental impacts, because it is undertaxed. It also doesn’t include the full cost of operating a flight because of numerous subsidies built into the aviation sector. “There is a reason why Ryanair can sell tickets for 19 Euros. On every step of the way, from designing the plane to running the airport to paying for the fuel there are subsidies involved.”

Policy makers could do a lot to help close the price gap: charging a tax on jet fuel, for example, something the E.U. doesn’t currently do. There is a proposal on the books to phase in jet fuel taxes over the next decade for flights within Europe, but it could be a hard sell politically. CO2 emissions from aviation are included in the E.U. emissions-trading system, in which emissions from businesses are capped and surplus allowances can be bought and sold. The current market price to pollute is around $50 per ton of CO2 , which isn’t enough to impact consumer choice, says Sola Zheng, an aviation expert at the U.S.-based environmental research organization International Council on Clean Transportation. She estimates that a $300 per ton price would lead to a 10% increase in ticket prices, which could reduce demand.

Some climate organizations are proposing that short-haul flights be done away with entirely. The U.K.-based Campaign for Better Transport is calling for a halt to all domestic plane journeys in Britain. In April, the French parliament voted to ban short-haul internal flights when rail alternatives could cover the journey in two-and-a-half hours or less. Germany’s Green Party is seeking a similar ban.

An all-stick approach to reducing carbon emissions isn’t going to work long term, however, and there could be a backlash if rail options don’t step up with viable alternatives. Railways are also subsidized, but in most countries there is very little competition among carriers, which keeps prices high. Nor is there a rail equivalent to Skyscanner or Expedia that allows for easy route and fare comparisons. “The rail market needs to become a bit more 21st century,” says Murphy. That means more flexible routes and competitive options. Austrian railway company ÖBB is expanding its overnight passenger train service throughout Europe and is positioning itself as a hipper, more climate-conscious alternative to budget flights. It’s a start, says Murphy, but there needs to be more if rail is to truly compete with air transport. “If you’re very concerned with your climate impact, you will go for the more expensive train option, but a lot of people don't have the means to do this. It should not have to be more expensive to make the more sustainable choice, and right now it is.”