Brit's Eye View: What should greens do about air travel?

When is it necessary, and what are the alternatives?

Posted by Peter Madden (Guest Contributor) at 7:08 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Peter Madden, chief executive of Forum for the Future, writes a monthly column for Gristmill on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe.

airplane The Bishop of London recently proclaimed that flying on holiday is a sin, a view that seems increasingly to be shared by greens in the U.K.

Our environment minister, David Miliband, castigated Prince Charles for flying to America to receive an award, suggesting that he should have collected it via video-link. Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet and one of the more rigorous of our green thinkers, wants us to "drastically reduce or stop flying."

This of course raises a problem of public acceptability; for most people, flying is still something to aspire to.

It also raises some particular problems for environmentalists. Global travel and networking are important both to how we frame our challenges and how we resolve them.

Many people I know became interested in sustainable development through experiencing other cultures and places, often in different parts of the world. I myself spent my 20s working on poverty and development issues in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and this is an important part of who I am. George Monbiot rails against flying in his excellent book Heat. Yet, as he himself admits, his overseas experience as a young anthropologist in the Amazon helped to define him and give him the powerful voice he has today. Firsthand experience of the beauty and the destruction of the natural world has galvanized countless people into action.

Young people in the U.K. certainly want to experience the world. Forum for the Future recently conducted the largest-ever survey in the U.K. of what young people want from their future. Fifty-five thousand teenagers responded. Unsurprisingly, this generation is very environmentally aware. Ninety-one percent think climate change will be hitting hard in 20 years. Over 60 percent say they sometimes walk or cycle instead of travelling by car for environmental reasons, and 40 percent had bought locally produced food instead of imports. However, only 4 percent said that they had consciously decided not to take an air flight for environmental reasons. They seem willing to change their behaviors on almost every aspect of climate change except flying.

The environmental movement is very much an international movement. Problems such as climate change are clearly global ones. So how do we deal with the need for global networking and interventions to solve global problems? It is quite tricky to decide in advance whether an international negotiation -- such as those held in Rio or Kyoto -- is worth going to. There must be legitimate arguments that staff of development and human-rights organizations need to get on a plane to do their jobs. Who is to make these moral and value judgements?

So, we want to fly to save the planet, but cannot all do so without destroying the planet. Is there an answer?

Unlike with car travel, there are no easy technological solutions. Major breakthroughs in aviation technology would appear to be at least 20 years off.

We should certainly make flying more expensive by doing more to internalize the costs, through emissions-trading schemes, taxing aviation fuel, and auctioning takeoff and landing slots.

We also need to do a lot more to make the alternatives truly attractive. Train travel could replace a huge number of short-haul flights. And what about removing the need to travel at all? The things that allow us to communicate without moving could also be vastly improved. I recently saw some cutting-edge video-conferencing technology called Halo that Hewlett-Packard has developed. It is not cheap, but it does show what can be done. However, electronic communication is unlikely to replace the desire to experience other places and cultures firsthand.

Of course, we should buy good quality offsets for those flights we have to take. But again, offset should always be the last choice in the carbon-management hierarchy.

So, there are no easy answers to this one. If the growth in flying continues on its present trajectory, it will wipe out many of the other carbon savings we will struggle so hard to make.

Monbiot suggests that we should reserve the few flights we do take for "love miles." I quite like this concept because my family and friends are scattered across the globe and I do want to be able to go very occasionally to weddings, funerals, and so on. I also believe that the impact of our work can still justify the occasional flight.

We will, however, have to be more discerning about flying. Tackling climate change means restricting the growth of aviation and making flying something precious again. Should we, for example, prioritize flying people rather than freight, or save slots for long-haul rather than short-haul?

We will also want to make the journey itself a greater part of the experience. When we vacation, we should slow down and enjoy the ride. That means you guys in the U.S. might have to start campaigning for longer holidays. I think your average paid holiday is around 13 days a year. In the European Union, we get more than double that!

For story: Brit's Eye View: What should greens do about air travel?
39 Comments | Post a Comment

Business travel

I haven't seen the numbers, but my hunch is that business travel dwarfs holiday travel in terms of its impact on emissions, and this is an area where I see some hope. Videoconferencing is finally getting to the point where you can attend a meeting or conference virtually and it's a pleasant experience. I've watched a few online videoconferences recently from my computer and they were great; the only thing I missed was the networking opportunities from hanging out with people before and after the presentations. But really those opportunities seldom lead to anything anyway so I wouldn't miss 'em.

I used to travel frequently for work but do so less and less often now that people are becoming more comfortable meeting by conference call or webconference. I actually think 9/11/2001 has something to do with it as well...it's a bigger hassle to travel now than it used to be, so business people are more willing to consider staying put and doing their deals remotely.

by bhurley at 8:25 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Do this

Influence people who know Branson to get him to withdraw funds from fuel farming and instead apply it to solid oxide fuel cell/turbine research and development. Boeing is working on this for backup generator power for their planes.

But this has the potential to reduce fuel use for airpolanes by 75%. the other crucial area for development funds is biodiesel fuel from algae grown in solar collectors.

These two technologies would make Branson actually worth his "sir" nomenclature, if he helped them along. They are both operating now on the experimental and beta scale, why not give them a billion each Sir?

Drop fuel farming as a cause, please? Thanks.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:56 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Greening the campaign trail

I was thinking about the abundance of air travel that our presidential candidates (and all members of Congress) do so routinely, and wondering why, with so much potential to shape perception, we haven't heard of a commitment from Hilary, Obama, even Vilsak and Kucinich to make their campaigns 100% carbon neutral?

by Marc in Cleve at 9:03 AM on 21 Feb 2007

internal air travel changes...

Good call Marc...
I think we should also continue to put pressure on the airlines. Branson had some valid recommendations about how air travel can be "cleaner" especially during take-off and landing, which the majority of emissions is generated.

For a review, linked textcheck it a summary of his recommendations here...

by ltlf653 at 9:11 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Water Vapor

An important thing to understand about air travel is that water vapor in the air, unlike water vapor on the ground is a forcing not a feedback. Vapor released in the comparatively dry stratosphere tends to linger: the amount that stays is not a simple feedback determined by temperature, because the stratosphere is so far from saturation.

Than means the big problem with air travel is water vapor not carbon. Greenhouse effects from water vapor in air travel is two to five times the effects of fossil fuel burned to fuel airplanes. However our opinions may differ about hydrogen for energy storage on the ground, in the air no one questions that a plane fueled by hydrogen fuel cells - even if the hydrogen was created from renewable electricity - would have more warming effect than planes driven by our current kerosene derived jet fuel.

Question - how do solid oxide fuel cells and turbines measure up in this respect? That is how are they are controlling water vapor?

Incidentally, I think trains have potential to replace more than short haul flights. A great many long haul flights are completely over land; a great many more have a large percentage of their path over land. Very high speed trains could replace all land routes for planes while providing comparable journey length. In many cases their energy efficiency would be comparable to plane travel rather than an improvement as with lower speed trains. But any water vapor from trains would be at ground level, where it is harmless, and in addition you can provide the electricity to run them from renewable sources, or at the very least combined cycle turbines deployed in combined heat and power applications which would give you better life cycle efficiency than jet engines.

by Gar Lipow at 9:21 AM on 21 Feb 2007

correction

The actual figure is that total impact per mile from air travel is two to four times the impact of CO2 and other combusition products from the burning of fossil fuel alone. So impact from water vapor varies from the same as fossil fuels to three times that of fossil fuels.

by Gar Lipow at 9:29 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Putting a price on envrionmental damage

would solve the problems with airline travel. In fact, that would solve a lot of environmental problems. The airlines would look for ways to lower damage to increase business ...you get government to create level playing fields that would unleash the free market on the problem. One answer might be diversification by the likes of Boeing into high speed trains or whatever.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:43 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Also boats and sail ships,

by sunflower at 9:44 AM on 21 Feb 2007

ships; sin

Wow, Sunflower, that is so cool, a neo-Age of Sail!

Not quite so romantic, but very well put, is BHurley's hope that videoconferencing will more and more replace business travel.

The subject came up on another thread in Gristmill last year, and I do not recall there was an answer: Among all airline passengers, how many are flying for business, and how many for pleasure?

Marc in Cleve makes a reasonable request of flying politicians. As perhaps not so anomalous an example of how they travel, a number of them, including many of the major candidates, had to add a couple of flights to their travel plans in order to attend Harry Reid's futile session on the anti-surge resolution this past Saturday.

Actually, it would be terrific, if the House and the Senate could have their sessions by videoconferencing, instead of insisting that everyone be physically present. For one thing, the cloakroom imbroglios would be less intense.

(If the "Cleve" in the name "Marc in Cleve" means Cleveland, Marc should not be too hard on Cleveland's own Dennis Kucinich, a stellar fellow. Just by being vegan, DK is doing a great deal of good for the planet.)

On "sin": Two cheers for the Bishop of London. I have been saying much the same for years, i.e. frivolous fuel-burning transportation is morally questionable, and probably wrong. "Sin" is perhaps a bit too strong, though, generally.

(At the moment I am down on the Church of England, for not standing up to the conservative bullies within the Anglican Communion, and defending the Episcopal Church's right to interpret Scripture and Tradition as the Americans see proper, including their support of gay rights.)

I would go further, though: Driving to church on Sunday is not required, is it? So, if I were bishop, I would pronounce from my chair that driving to church is as much a "symptom of sin" as is flying on holiday.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 11:12 AM on 21 Feb 2007

Become Jewish - cuts driving by over 14%

Observant Jews are not allowed to use their cars on the Sabbath, so in theory that cuts their car use by 14.3%, not counting the festivals.

Zen Jews such as myself also meditate and do yoga on the Sabbath, which provides inner light and energy, so we don't need so much warming up!

We also argue a lot, which provides even more heat.

http://ecoxiety.blogspot.com - the lighter side of environmental disaster

by ecoxiety at 12:31 PM on 21 Feb 2007
[ Parent ]

Trains, planes and ceiling wax

Mixed metaphors, unite!

I'm with BioD on this one - build the environmental costs into the system and the problem will fix itself.

I love trains and boats, actually. I've always wanted to take the Orient Express (murder notwithstanding) and love the romance (if not the reality) of sleeper trains; must be all those old movies on PBS. And cross-Atlantic boat travel - will I get to fall in love w/ Cary Grant on the way home? At the moment, however, it is simply not practical, takes far too much time, and generally the train is more expensive than a flight to the same destination (see Amtrak trains between Boston-NY-DC and flights to the same cities).

On the issue of sin: Sin is a concept I have a great deal of trouble with, actually. Frankly, it pisses me off that the Bishop of London has declared my vacation in Mexico "sinful" when I'm guessing I live a much more carbon-friendly lifestyle than he does. Building ginormous, drafty, window-packed cathedrals in which to worship God is not sinful, but my vacation is? Harumph. My deciding not to go to Mexico on vacation may make me feel individually virtuous, but it's not going to do a damn thing for the global climate. The most important thing individuals can do is to put pressure on the system to change, so that we don't have to choose between the environment and vacation.

And then we can go back to sinning the old-fashioned way, with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.

by kmp at 12:44 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Zen Jews rock!

I hear you, Kaela. We shall have to await Sunflower's explanation of what he had in mind, regarding sailing ships. But I think three of Peter Madden's points are, first, let the trip take as long as it takes, secondly, the traveling thither and back should be as interesting as the destination, and thirdly, Americans need a lot more leisure time.

On Gothic architecture: There is nothing intrinsically sinful about building lofty cathedrals, I think -- well, there were serious labor issues, but that all happened and was over with by the time the Renaissance roled around -- , worshippers just huddled together beneath their blankets on the frigid floor, and offered up their cold-inflicted sufferings. It is when anyone tries to heat those things that they become sinful. Or rather, that is the moral problem of the congregation.

Ecoxiety, I love your attitude. Here you have got this cranky old self-centered desert god on top of a mountain, who blasts the Egyptians, but decides capriciously to get the Israelites trooping after him ... Anyway, fine, why not.

Still, are there not a fair number of Shomrei-Shabbat who light things on Friday afternoon, and keep them going all through Shabbat? (Unscrewing refrigerator bulbs does not strike me as a remarkable environmental virtue.)

All the same, Zen Judaism sounds great, especially if it can include a deep-ecology element.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:32 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Air Travel Efficiency

With all the talk of the Evil of air travel, I SWEAR that, mile for mile, Air Travel was still less of an Environmental impact, as determined by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

I mean, being able to fly over things HAS to really up efficiency.
I know a 747 uses like a gallon of fuel a second, but at the same point, it does move a few hundred people all at once....

Are we just assuming Travel is completely frivulous? If that's the case, I'd have to STRONGLY disagree with that assumption.

by TheSSG at 5:12 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Air efficiency

>With all the talk of the Evil of air travel, I SWEAR that, mile for mile, Air Travel was still less of an Environmental impact, as determined by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Link please. I suspect this missed the effect of water vapor and NO2. (Also, what are they comparing to? A Hummer with one passenger? Maybe they have a point. A Scion Escort with two passenges? I doubt it.

Again, I think light rail of up to 150 mph can displace short journeys with a huge gain in ecoefficiency. Short hop air trips are especially ecointensive. it takes a lot more fuel to takeoff and to land than to keep going. So while short trips are responsible for a lot higher percentage of greenhouse gases than they are of air miles.

Electric rail driven by low carbon electricity can reach up 300 mph (only with maglev so far). This is not neccesarily more energy efficient than air travel, but if used to subsitute for air journeys, tickets would cost about the same, so you could plan and fill seat capacity as throughly as airliens do. Again you could drive a maglev by renewable electricty -something we dont' currently have the technology to do with airplanes.

I don't want to give up high speed travel. People getting travel to distant places and meet other people is the good kind of globalization - something that is easier to do when you can move fast than when you can move slow. But air travel produces a kind of pollution we are not going to know how to mitigate much for the next twenty years. So it is going to be important that we save air travel for the last resort, getting other transit and communications modes up to snuff so that air travel does not have to be used so heavily.

by Gar Lipow at 6:15 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Ecological footprint

Readers of Grist are invited to check their ecological footprint (for free) at www.myfootprint.org

by ajithsrn at 6:47 PM on 21 Feb 2007

"It is better to travel hopefully..."

Persuading most people to give up air travel won't be easy. The fact that so many are willing to be packed into tiny, noisy, uncomfortable tubes of planes, with a screaming baby on one side and a talkative know-it-all on the other, just for the sake of getting somewhere that much faster, says something about the psyche of the average human being and their desperation to get places. So basically, speed has to be de-glamorised. If the common perception of travel as a waste of time can be altered, maybe folks will realise they don't want to be sardines. As the only aerial comfortable alternative is fewer seats in planes, and therefore more planes in the air, flying is a lose-lose situation.

I know it sounds a bit old-fashioned, but modern high-speed air travel has completely eroded the differences between cultures and societies. You grab a Big Mac, hop on a plane, hop off it in a completely different part of the world, and then face the age-old dilemma: another Mac, or BK? Basically, there is not point in so much travel for pleasure if there is no difference between places. Cut flights for business purposes and use video-conferencing (it doesn't matter about not being able to meet new people - most of us know our internet friends better than the people in the next apartment), fill up business class with regular passengers and use planes for long-haul flights, give longer holidays and thus give people a chance to take their time over getting places and appreciate the distances involved. Remember: "it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive", particularly if the hotel has lost your booking.

OK, enough ranting. I think I must sound about thirty years older than I actually am. But then, it's true, I don't like flying; and it's also true that I fly constantly throughout the year, as there's no other way of getting out of where I live. That should be changeable.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 7:24 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Traveling hopefully...

I like that very much. I love traveling slowly, by bicycle if possible: the experience of the journey is so worth it. You really know where you are if you see all the places in between there and here.

Right now I travel locally (within ~75 miles) by bike, foot, and bus, but fly at least once a year to see family and friends on the other side of the US. I like to think that I've built up a bit of karma along with my leg muscles by not owning a car, and justify my flights that way...but I do love the idea of traveling across the country by train. Which, as a matter of fact, can be comparable to plane fare if you pick the "off" dates (non-weekend/holiday)and elect to sleep in your reserved coach seat. I checked the Amtrak site. So what's the problem? Vacation time. If I spend 4-6 days in travel, I'll have precious few left to spend once I get where I'm going. So I'm now traveling in hopes of more vacation time, or maybe a bit more pay so that I can take more unpaid vacation (which works out to same thing in the end). Or maybe I'll find a country with better labor practices, and move there by ship...

by jnelblack at 8:50 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Inefficiency of Planes, Trains, and Slow Stuff

basically, speed has to be de-glamorised.

Fortunately, tico, there are some answers to that challenge: slow food, slow cities, traffic calming. Makes you want to breathe a sigh of relief, eh?

I started taking the train for most of my long distance travel a couple years ago (though I still take a plane every once in a while when convenience lures me -- that is, when it actually is more convenient to fly). It's such an enjoyable experience: you can meet random people and have interesting conversations. Just on my last train trip trip I talked with a neuroscience PhD student, a woman who lived in Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war, an Amish father traveling to a doctor in Mexico, a guy traveling from Pennsylvania to Seattle, and a tourist from Taiwan.

As for TheSSG's comment, the BTS keeps data on energy intensity of passenger modes. Even when you don't take into account water vapor, planes were already almost twice as inefficient as planes. In 2001, the last year for which train statistics are available, trains used 2,100 btu/passenger mile, and planes averaged over 3,900 btu/pm. When you add in the water vapor problem Gar mentioned, planes rise above every other mode in their negative effect on global warming.

by Brudaimonia at 9:09 PM on 21 Feb 2007

flying v. driving

Flying is potentially much more efficient than driving: four tires on the road vs. two wings in the air: which one produces more friction?

However, flying 800 miles an hour is slightly different from a single-engine cessna moving at about 100 mph. I think if there is a study by the UCS with a conclusion that flying is more efficient, it doesn't refer to jet planes.

Those were my two cents.

by atreyger at 9:41 PM on 21 Feb 2007

trains are romantic, but...

I adore trains. I have taken long train trips--like, Santa Fe to Chicago and NYC--by train, and it was great, even at twice the price of an equivalent plane ticket. That said, I have to tell you the economy rooms--which are still very expensive--are miserably cramped. The more luxurious rooms are usually booked up, not to mention out of any normal person's financial reach if you intend to travel again in the next decade. If trains had affordable accomodations in which a person could roll over without falling out of bed, or even stretch all the way out (and I'm short!), it would make me much more likely to try to come up with the cash and the several extra days of free time on a semi-regular basis.

I will say the best New Year's Eve I've ever spent was on a train, with champagne and plastic snap-together flutes and some bread and cheese and grapes. It was a cramped party, but a party nonetheless. Certainly better than anything you could acheive on a plane!

by willa at 9:59 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Partying on an A380 vs same on a train

Willa wrote:

It was a cramped party, but a party nonetheless. Certainly better than anything you could acheive on a plane!

Really?
airchive.com/Memorabilia/Airbus/*A380-2.jpg
airbusa380.com/html/inside/images/02.jpg
airbusa380.com/html/inside/images/01.jpg
airchive.com/Memorabilia/Airbus/*A380-3.jpg

by Nucbuddy at 10:44 PM on 21 Feb 2007

Clippers

They had clipper sailing ships and clipper planes.

A sort of combination is hydrofoil sailing ships powered by really large kites. Small sailboats with hydrofoils have been kite powered and attained trmendous speed.

And a company makes really large kites to power ships.

With wind rotor/generators in the kites, the electric power can be used for additional stability and speed.

I think 100+ mph speeds would be possible, and totally green with this design.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:27 PM on 21 Feb 2007

8 billion flights

We humans took 8 billion individual flights last year. How many of your share of that number were a necessity?

by Ru at 12:37 AM on 22 Feb 2007

"the good kind of globalization"

TheSSG, which may or may not stand for Super-Sonic Goose, wrote:
<<
Are we just assuming Travel is completely frivulous [sic]? If that's the case, I'd have to STRONGLY disagree with that assumption.
>>

And I agree with the gist of what that bold infinitive-splitter SSG is saying. And I entirely agree with the observations of Gar Lipow and Peter Madden, on the terrific importance and value of being able to travel, for benefits both cultural and personal.

But when I say that "frivolous travel" is morally questionable, I of course am not referring to the kind of travel that Peter and Gar have in mind. I never meant to suggest that "travel is completely frivolous," whatever the Bishop of London and other well-meaning Brits may be saying.

Willa, I have been on the Lamy-to-Chicago train, going and coming, a couple of times, as well as on other Amtrak trains in which I (or we) had a room, and on the Canadian counterpart between Toronto and Vancouver. At times, the quarters felt cramped, but I never felt they were oppressively so. In fact, I rather enjoyed observing the space-saving efficiency of design, especially in the older trains.

And then, there are a few public areas where one can go and stretch out, with a book, or a pen and paper, or a pencil and pad, or just to gaze out the window.

You see amazing things out of the windows of trains. In Colorado, along the Colorado River, I saw my first bald eagles. I also saw those irreverent young people in rafts on the river, who have a tradition apparently of mooning the Amtrak train as it passes. Within the train, ladies were turning away, and fluttering their fans, and even swooning; outraged gentlemen were shaking their fists, and crying, "Why, I'll write to the governor about this!"

Well, ... no, not really.

I never had a New Year's Eve party aboard a train, complete with champagne. That sounds like a brilliant idea, actually: then on New Year's Day, you arrive in a new city. On the other hand, once, but only once, I got picked up, late one evening in the dining car, and had a chance to visit a compartment much larger than any I had previously seen ...

Mind you, none of that was in the course of what would deserve to be called "frivolous travel," even if it had its light-hearted moments.

Amazing, your idea for a New Revised Clipper Ship, for the Intercontinental Traveler of Today!, sounds spectacular. You might have to move to some place like Portland, ME, at some point, or Halifax, to get it built.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 5:11 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Lake Superior

Is a great testing ground Canis.

Extra short, dangerous waves. I can't believe it but others are starting to talk up the idea of floating wind/wave power generation out on the big lake too.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 5:16 AM on 22 Feb 2007

altitude

Monbiot made the point in his book that although fuel consumption per passenger mile may be lower for jets than cars, the heat-trapping effect of the gases at altitude was far greater than at ground level.

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 7:53 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Sailing is freedom

There is nothing more romantic than sailing. I love sailing Puget Sound and in deep ocean water. I spent six months on an huge old brigantine sailing ship and sailed her from Juan de Fuca to San Diego. It is an efficient and sustainable way to travel and ship goods. As Canis said, life is a journey, not a destination.

Even an atheist will make a deal with God, or Aigaios Poseidon Neptune, when caught in the teeth of a hurricane

by sunflower at 8:22 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Response

Great discussion. A couple of points.

I didn't really set out the maths in my piece, but if we need to cut emissions by 60-80% to avoid dangerous climate change, then the massive projected growth in aviation makes that impossible.

On the efficiency of planes, yes, the water vapour makes things worse and trains are generally better. There is quite a good report by a fairly dry bunch of Brit scientists that covers this - the press release is on www.rcep.org.uk/news/02-04.htm

The point about planes being quite efficient in comparative terms is also right. But the problem here is one of sheer distance. The average British motorist drives around 7,000 miles in a year. A single return flight London to New York is also 7,000 miles. Start taking a few long-haul flights a year, and you can see what that does to your personal carbon budget...

And yes, we should get our politicans out of planes and back on old-fashioned campaign buses.

by Peter Madden at 9:18 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Options

Trains, buses, cars, and boats can be renewable electric... but not planes.

by sunflower at 9:26 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Train, yes - Bus, no...

And yes, we should get our politicans out of planes and back on old-fashioned campaign buses.

Domestic Air Travel - 3,297 BTU/Passenger mile
Transit Bus - 3,496 BTU/Passenger mile
Rail (Amtrak) - 2,100 BTU/Passenger mile

And while a campaign bus is probably newer and better maintained, there are also probably far fewer people on it.

Common sense is an oxymoron...

by Engineer at 9:29 AM on 22 Feb 2007
[ Parent ]

Business vs. leisure

According to the TIA, about 18% of air trips are for business

http://www.tia.org/Travel/traveltrends.asp

In terms of buses vs. air:

Because of water vapor and NO2 affects still better to use buses than air travel - though in pure impact terms rail would be better. You could use hybrid buses though and probably improve the mileage. Also average passenger loading for transit buses is 9 passengers. So a campaign bus probably would not have a worse load factor. (Note: yes I know buses have standing room only during peak hours. But you have to average in off peak travel, and traveling empty to and from storage yards. So you end up with the ~9 load factor.) Also campaign buses won't stop every five minutes along crowed routes the way transit buses do. So a campaign bus would probably have a whole lot better number than the one you cite.

by Gar Lipow at 10:13 AM on 22 Feb 2007

Out of comfort level

In my activist days I used to fly often, to conferences and workshops and speaking engagements. One of my topics was bioregionalism. I'll never forget David Haenke's reply when someone asked him, "What is a bioregionalist?" "Someone who flys around the world telling people to stay home" was the answer. At first I loved flying but it got old. Compared to those days, I rarely fly. The last time was to Greece, a little over two years ago. It was a ghastly flight, comfort-wise, but worth it. Places aren't all the same, certainly western culture has more than its share of influence but the differences are real and important and every time I go someplace that's culturally different I learn so much, including about myself and my place on the Earth. It renews my spirit, gives me hope, and expands my dreamtime, as my friend and traveling companion puts it. Airports, on the other hand, suck. Coming back from Greece we had to connect in Zurich. It was early morning and we were hungry for breakfast. What were we faced with but yucky chain "restaurants" offering precooked crap. And we weren't even in the U.S.! After Greece this was such an insult. I was angry and frustrated and almost burst into tears. I think if more Americans visited other cultures we would have greater respect for differences, and less fear of them. We're so used to sameness. Moving out of our comfort level is important and maybe it would even help motivate us to make changes at home. Just a thought.

by SMLowry at 10:37 AM on 22 Feb 2007

The DC-3 Ultimate Flying Machine

Flying became unromantic after the DC-3. Humphrey Bogart cruising over the Himalayans...that's flying...where you could still open the door and parachute out as the bad guy holds you at gunpoint.

Possibly the best Alternative Energy blog I read: New Energy and Fuel

by jabailo at 10:44 AM on 22 Feb 2007

jets vs small planes

Does anyone have numbers for the difference between jets and small prop planes in terms of global warming contributions?

I travel to a lot of small Alaskan villages (including my husband's family's town), many of which are only reachable by small plane, and I don't really know what the impact of that is.

Of course, I am also guilty of traveling on jets to get to Alaska. This summer, I plan to get around that problem by walking there instead. But since I expect it to take many months, it's not a super practical option most of the time...

-Erin
www.groundtruthtrekking.org

by mckittre at 1:34 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Jets vs. small planes

Small planes are not really an improvement, unless you are talking propeller driven. Those fly lower and slower. But at that point we could build a train system that would get you there as fast, and not even a particularly expensive train system. Incidentally I have a post higher up responding to this one, focusing specifically on solutions - if anyone wants to comment there.

by Gar Lipow at 2:08 PM on 22 Feb 2007

walking to Alaska!

Oh my, Erin! You absolutely must take with you two dogs, three chickens, one guy who is good with tents, camp-fires and computers, and one literary agent. Maybe a cat, but that would definitely skew the story line.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 5:52 AM on 23 Feb 2007

What should flight attendants do?

In thinking about the debate on the damage to the environment caused by airplane flights, I've begun to wonder what one is supposed to do if one makes one's living as a flight attendant. I'm not one myself; however, I recently talked about this to a flight attendant friend. Should flight attendents pay to offset the carbon they expend every time they fly (two, three, four times a week) or give up their jobs and find some other career? Just a thought--Josie

by Josie at 10:24 AM on 23 Feb 2007

Flight Attendents

Part of why I'm really against people taking person responsibility for social problems. Buying offsets is an easy way out. (You may want to look at the debates on Grist and Gristmill on that subject.)Quitting your job is an unreasonable demand. Anyway if a flight attendant quits, the plane does not stop flying.

What I'd ask of your friend is harder. Lobby to cut subsidies for planes and increase them for trains. Lobby to tax flying at a higher rate, and to stop expanding airports, and even to reduce runways and gateways. Along with this support more light rail and more high speed rail to replace air routes. (Find an environmental group that supports these thing, and support that group.)

In the long run this will reduce the demand for flight attendants on planes; but train routes that replace flights will need attendants of various sorts as well. So your friends will probably also want to lobby for some sort of guarantee that people who lose jobs in the air industry will be offered first shot at the new jobs in the rail industry; and that the new rail industry will be required to offer decent wages, working hours, and benefit packages. They will want to pressure any environmental group they support to include these provisions when they fight to shift travel from air to rail.

by Gar Lipow at 11:38 AM on 23 Feb 2007

Plane or boat across the Atlantic?

Thanks for lots of interesting comments - I was hoping to hear more about the journeys that can't be 'trained', i.e overseas travel.

I'm very eco-conscious but my parents (and my childhood home) are on a Caribbean island, and I'm in Britain, and I would actually like to see them again sometime soon!

So I'm asking for help and information...I've been looking into travelling by cargo ship, but, aside from being surprisingly pricey, I'm not even sure that the 14-day (give or take a few days) journey from Tilbury in the UK to St. Martin in the Caribbean would be less polluting than the 7-8 hour flight from Gatwick to Antigua or St. Kitts. Does anyone know? It sounds like the most environmentally-sound way to cross the Atlantic would be by sailing, but alas I can't sail and I don't think the middle of the Atlantic is the best place for a novice sailor.

Any ideas?

by nevis11 at 6:10 AM on 13 Apr 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.