Again, advocates of HSR tout the efficiencies of conventional rail when selling HSR. You might be able to take a conventional coach train for 50 euros, but I usually pay much more to go far shorter distances on HSR.
Obviously you missed the news a few months ago about the TSA expanding their mission into other forms of transport beyond just airports. It's only a matter of time until they make taking a train as miserable as they make taking a plane.
HSR uses far more energy than conventional rail. In fact, HSR is more carbon-intensive than even automobiles. A British Department of Transport study from 2007 (
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/researchtech/research/newline/carbonimpact.pdf/) found that when all factors are considered, on a per-seat basis HSR is no more carbon efficient than automobiles. (Inter-city buses won out on efficiency) The more carbon-efficient rail is traditional rail, but then again mostly not in Europe but in Japan. And the only reason that it is so in Japan is because they literally cram people on trains like sardines. (That's hardly a selling point that would go over well in America)
