COMMENTS: 86
Air Travel Is Killing the Planet
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
"We could close every factory, lock away every car and turn off every light in the country," he writes in New Statesman about Britain's ambitious goals to cut carbon use, "but it won't halt global warming if we carry on taking planes as often as we do."
Lynas is referring to a report from the respected Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, which notes that if the UK's annual 12 percent rise in air travel continues until 2050, the resulting increase in carbon dioxide (a leading cause of the greenhouse effect) would overwhelm progress in every other sector. Indeed, factoring in the projected growth of air travel, carbon emissions would have to be reduced to zero in manufacturing, ground transportation and private households to meet the British government's 2050 green goals.
The story is the same in most other countries where the rise of budget airlines and globalizing businesses along with steady increases in tourism, immigration and people's innate curiosity to see the world add up to more air passengers every year. Globally, air travel has increased 9 percent annually for the past 40 years, notes the French magazine Alternatives Économiques.
I am, I confess, part of this problem. I never set foot on an airliner until age 23 but now I fly as many as 10 times a year for work and vacation. I think of myself as an environmentally conscious person -- riding my bike for most trips around town and trying to recycle every last scrap in the house. Yet a look at the Atmosfair website (www.atmosfair.de) is sobering. The round-trip journey from my home in Minneapolis to the Ode office in the Netherlands (which I make several times a year) creates 4,560 kilograms (5 tons) of carbon dioxide.
While that sounds bad enough, Atmosfair (a joint project of German environmental groups and travel agencies) informs me that this is equivalent to the carbon output for the entire year for five people in India. As for my conscientious bike riding, well, one transatlantic round-trip flight contributes to global warming at twice the rate of driving a medium-sized car 12,000 kilometres (7,500 miles) a year. And the U.S. green group Natural Resources Defense Council notes carbon isn't even the whole problem -- nitrogen dioxide and water-vapour emissions from jetliners also worsen the greenhouse effect.
What are travellers, especially ones whose livelihoods depend on frequent flying, to do? Atmosfair and other websites will calculate the carbon output of your flying (or driving or home-energy use) and offer you the chance to offset these environmental costs with a donation to various projects that eliminate greenhouse gases. Al Gore, who constantly jets around the world to draw attention to the problem of global warming, told National Geographic Traveler magazine, "I buy offsets for every bit of it... My wife and I put money into a project in India that substitutes highly efficient solar units at $300 (240 euros) a pop for very dirty kerosene burners, which verifiably reduces a lot of C02."
Climate Care, a British non-profit group, will offset the C02 of my U.S.-Netherlands trip for about $10 (8 euros). (Carbon calculation is still a new idea and there is some discrepancy on the price of my carbon "bill" between various websites; Climate Care came in the cheapest.) Its projects range from funding energy-conservation programs in Kazakhstan and South Africa to providing efficient cooking stoves in Honduras and Madagascar to backing reforestation initiatives in Uganda.
GreenSeat, a Rotterdam-based organization that also calculates carbon use and offers an offset program, is mounting an international petition campaign urging air carriers and travel agents to include a carbon-offsetting option as part of the standard ticketing procedure.
Meanwhile, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines is cutting emissions by boosting fuel efficiency. By running engines only when necessary, reducing the weight of onboard supplies and other strategic measures, it now averages 28 kilometres per litre (66 miles per gallon) of jet fuel per passenger, which is better than other airlines and even tops most motorists driving alone in their cars.
Alternatives Économiques draws attention to the fact that jet fuel, unlike gasoline used in cars and buses, is not taxed anywhere in the world except the Netherlands. This means that other airlines have less incentive to improve fuel efficiency, and the price passengers pay for tickets does not reflect the environmental costs of flying.
Richard Branson, the brash entrepreneur behind Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Rail, hopes to make air travel more sustainable by investing up to $1 billion U.S. (790 million euros) in what he calls, of course, Virgin Fuel. "It'll be a clean fuel," he told Business 2.0 magazine. "And if we've got it right, it could be a very important breakthrough. We think this fuel will work in cars and trucks and trains within a year. And we're hoping that it might work in commercial jet engines within five years." Branson's Virgin Rail is also helping the situation with its new high-speed rail service between London and Manchester, which is luring many travelers out of plane seats, reports the Guardian.
While most people are not likely to stop flying, many in the environmental movement and even the travel industry question our overreliance on airplanes for trips that might more sensibly be made by other means of transportation. Mark Ellingham, founder of the popular Rough Guide travel handbooks, advocates that travellers "fly less often and stay longer." In the vacation-strapped U.S., for instance, surveys show that people now take many long-weekend trips by air rather than going on one- or two-week holidays. That obviously creates far more greenhouse gases.
Ellingham advocates a Slow Travel movement, along the lines of the Slow Food movement, in which people savour their vacation experiences. "Travelling slower gives you a sense of place," he told Sierra magazine. "Trains give you the chance to talk to people, to see a landscape unfold."
The growing network of high-speed trains across Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan offer a vision of the future in which planes are used mainly for overseas and long-distance journeys, not short hops from Amsterdam to Paris, or Toronto to Montreal. The world's high-speed rail leaders, France and Japan, are developing trains that travel 350 kilometres (220 miles) an hour. China has unveiled a maglev (magnetic levitation) train that reaches 500 kilometres (310 miles) an hour, whisking passengers between central Shanghai and PuDong airport 30 kilometres (20 miles) away. Construction is slated to begin soon on a 160-mile maglev line between Shanghai and Hangzhou.
Inspired by the success of the European and Asian trains, many other nations across the world, including Mexico, Brazil and Israel, are planning their own high-speed rail networks. Amtrak, the U.S. rail system, last year unveiled its Acela Express train, which hits a top speed of 150 miles (95 kilometres) per hour from Washington to New York to Boston.
Even the most time-pressed business travellers are finding that air travel is not so speedy these days when you figure in congested roads on the way to the airport and long lines at security gates. Flying has become increasingly inconvenient and uncomfortable in recent years so that now trains and buses, once regarded as old-fashioned and low class, seem luxurious in comparison. Airport hassles have spawned a new generation of comfortable, non-stop, intercity bus services such as Megabus and Lux Bus America in the U.S. -- a development no one saw coming a few years ago.
A picture of green transportation for the future would let us choose -- depending on our needs and the nature of our trips -- between clean-fuel cars, comfortable buses, fast trains and planes using less fuel and creating fewer emissions -- as well as the option for business travellers of not leaving home at all, and meeting instead by video conference.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 17, 2006 1:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» look beyond your own experience
Posted by: edith
» RE: look beyond your own experience
Posted by: rsaxto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 17, 2006 2:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once went to a talk in a small town in the UK. It was a panel debate on the environment and the coming crisis. It was a mix bag of people: a guy who sold solar panels, another guy who worked for a financial magazine, the head of an oil company, and the head of Greenpeace. They were asked how they got there. The answers caught everyone by surprise. The solar and financial guys came by train: very green. The big oil guy has a hybrid car and always uses it: also very green. And the Greenpeace guy? He came by 4x4 because he claimed 'you can't get to this town by public transit and I am very busy and need to get to another talk after this one.' He blew his organisation's credibility out the window. And that is the crux of the problem: people are less inclined to believe the boys and girls who cry wolf when they are mostly wealthy people who live a fast-paced, jet-set life.
In order to address the flying emissions problem, we need to engineer out high emission aircraft. This can be done over a period of ten years and Boeing is already starting this with its new Dreamliner. We should also explore underwater tunnels and high speed trains, dirigibles, gliders, etc.
And here is the kicker: we would have a greater success at making the switch if we did this by not stopping people travelling or by introducing punitive taxes. Instead let's do this by creating a market for the more environmental option. Make it possible for people to choose the airline that flies the greener plane. Only fly on airlines who buy the Dreamliner. That would do more to change the situation than the environmentalists approach: punitive taxes, negative campaigns telling people not to travel, hypocritical behaviour as they still dart to conferences around the world (ask your campaigner at Greenpeace how many trips they take a year, ask their executives), attempts to stop modernising airports.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Libertarians get this issue wrong everytime...
Posted by: Wells
» You mock the market, but it works best
Posted by: Bobsays
» mocking the market...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: Libertarians get this issue wrong everytime...
Posted by: eringhorm
» Politicians get this issue wrong every time...
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Environmentalists get this issue wrong everytime
Posted by: expatjourno
» It's frightening I know, but everything I say is true
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Environmentalists get this issue wrong everytime
Posted by: tlannin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flairndip on Oct 17, 2006 4:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Slow travel
Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Slow travel
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielgeery on Oct 17, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I can make the following happen for less than $2,000, using off-the-shelf materials, I can only wonder what a concerted international effort might accomplish. If the Wright Brothers actually made a wrong turn--as I think they did--we've been on the wrong road ever since.
If you know of more efficient vehicles than these, please let me know...
solar flight
high speed prototype airship
P.S. How can anyone with half a brain on this planet NOT be an environmentalist?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Interesting
Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: nvironmentalist suggests another way
Posted by: Pirate1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jesse on Oct 17, 2006 6:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another issue is making a distinction between things that must travel quickly--such as human organs--and things that needn't do so, such as sneakers. Many things are shipped by air freight that would just as well work via airships or seaborne shipping. (This would require getting away from "just in time" inventory, but there are sound macroeconomic reasons to do that, and in fact the better information flow offers ways to do it, ironically enough).
The second bit is to encourage rail travel in countries that use air the most. That is the US, Australia, Brazil and to a lesser degree Russia and China. India has an extensive rail network already, and Russia needs to fix its own. The US needs to restore what it had--there is no reason on earth that it should take longer now to get from New York to Chicago by train than it did in 1960. (I was shocked too, but look at the old schedules of the 20th Century Limited and Amtrak's). In the US this would require a big infrastructure investment, but we've subsidized cars here long enough. Imagine how different LA would look if GM was required--as the rail comanies were--to build its own roads. ("Market" solutions are rarely really that--there are policy decisions that make certain things from a consumer perspective more or less attractive).
A third idea--maybe a good first step for the US--is to link via rail all those cities that are more than 30 miles from an airport to a major hub. Right now, we waste a lot of air time traveling from say, Chicago to Madison or Milwaukee to Madison. There is no reason you can't use the old railbeds that served (and in some cases still serve) freight and link every town in Iowa to Des Moines. If you drew a circle of 150 miles around the big airports, got rid of the itty bitty ones, and expanded some the ones that exist, you would cut a lot of airline use. With the rail links you would also ease the traffic as well.
Such a system, combined with a larger regional rail network, cold cut airplane use by a third at least. Again I ask why people fly or drive from San Fran to LA when the rail bed has been sitting idle for decades--or in one case (the Bay Bridge) removed. (The one Amtrak uses now is different and doesn't go to San Fran any longer).
By rail, I can get from Paris to Prague in less than a day. Why can't I do the same from New York to St. Louis?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think we can offer combined solutions
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: I think we can offer combined solutions
Posted by: danielgeery
» Irresistable
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Irresistable
Posted by: Jesse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Oct 17, 2006 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will be impossible to stop air travel. Hundreds of billions of US$ are wrapped up in the vertical markets that make up the air travel industry. They will not go away.
There is NO alternative fuel that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses that can be used for air transport. We can't logically discuss this issue without also talking about the alternative.
If we even considered an end to air travel, modern civilization would come to a total halt - and the extremist Muslim world's dream of stopping Western civilization will have come true.
Do you want the terrorists to win?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fuel Alternative Please
Posted by: danielgeery
» A leader of no one...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: A leader of no one...
Posted by: symcokid
» Actually, air travel has been quite helpful to terrorists
Posted by: expatjourno
» Actually there is a replacement for fossil fuels. It's called HEMP !
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: db
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: Pirate1
» How about hemp for plane? Hemp replaces petro on everything and
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: irreverentprimate on Oct 17, 2006 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here's an email exchange i traded with carbonfund.org on the topic of how much of donations go to overhead:
Hi Erik,
7% of our contributions goes to overhead, with the rest going to our mission. Good point about the details. When we get the new site up, it will all be there.
Craig
I wrote:
i've been trying to talk my parents into donating to carbonfund.org but they won't do it until they find out how much of their contribution will actually go to support develop clean energy projects, and how much gets used to pay carbonfund's administrative costs. i looked on the website's FAQ page but didn't see a percent figure for administrative/overhead costs. can you tell me so i can tell my parents?
thanks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: calistogababe on Oct 17, 2006 7:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.terrapass.com
Cheers!
Suzanne
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 17, 2006 7:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If in fact, the weather is cooler, that may well portend the onset of warming in the long run.
Why?
Because massive quantities of polar ice breaking off and floating toward temperate zones cool of the ocean water as they melt, thus affecting the weather.
Check this article out.
But I guess this is too convoluted for some of the assorted faith-based knuckle draggers plaguing this site.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: some bona fide morons here
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: some bona fide morons here
Posted by: cold2touch
» Enviro-fascists should come clean
Posted by: Bobsays
» Sophisticated economies go with Green practices
Posted by: edith
» RE: Sophisticated economies go with Green practices
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Fascists should come clean
Posted by: cold2touch
» asking questions is not moronic
Posted by: edith
» RE: asking questions is not moronic
Posted by: cold2touch
» Priceless
Posted by: edith
» RE: Priceless
Posted by: cold2touch
» No Atmospheric Warming
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Uccellla on Oct 17, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EconProf on Oct 17, 2006 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An aeroplane carries more people than a car!
Posted by: bugs
» RE: An aeroplane carries more people than a car!
Posted by: EconProf
» Yes, it's a per person figure
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Yes, it's a per person figure and time constraints
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Yes, it's a per person figure
Posted by: EconProf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 17, 2006 9:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» you are right
Posted by: cold2touch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 17, 2006 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But here in the "technologically superior" U.S.? We are considering a 150mph train in one corridor between Boston and Washington that will probably not achieve that speed because of inferior roadbed. Meanwhile, most of our passenger trains lumber along at 50-60mph while we still lob 300,000-pound commercial jets between cities only a few hundred miles (or less) apart. Most jet fuel consumption occurs on the climb to cruising altitude, and this is true whether the flight is for 10 or 12 hours, or for less than one. For example, on the west coast, the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco is 370 miles, or about 1 hour flight time – IF weather, etc., doesn't delay takeoff. Driving to a traffic-isolated airport consumes from one to two hours (or more); wading through security and the sea of passengers waiting for intermittant flights wastes another two hours or more; add to that the traffic from, say, SFO to downtown San Francisco and the total trip time is around 6+ hours.
Trains could run from downtown to downtown; and even with a few stops along the way, a train at 200mph would still make the same trip, including commuting to and from more convenient stations, in approx. four to five hours – at 1/5th to 1/10th the energy consumption and greenhouse gas production. Trains are relatively unaffected by weather and can be powered by either on-board diesel engines or by the electrical grid. It seems logical to promote high-speed trains for short-to-medium transportation, so what's the problem with us? One phrase: laissez-faire capitalism. America is still suffering from a hangover left to us by the Robber Barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Should we look upon our position of falling off of the back of the movement for a greener and more sensible transportation future as yet another triumph for "free market" capitalism? Simply "letting the market decide" no longer works for us or the rest of the planet – but, boy, does it work for rapacious corporations.
Some "progress."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: GLee
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: edith
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 17, 2006 10:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NDnative on Oct 17, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: Gakl
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: NDnative
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: nickptar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 17, 2006 4:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Ellingham, founder of the popular Rough Guide travel handbooks, advocates that travellers "fly less often and stay longer." In the vacation-strapped U.S., for instance, surveys show that people now take many long-weekend trips by air rather than going on one- or two-week holidays. That obviously creates far more greenhouse gases.
Then there are the rest of us who don't take weekends or vacations because a) we can't afford them anyway and b) it takes four jobs per household to support of family; i.e., there's just no time for leisure, period. The internet is the closest my kids will ever come to exploring the world thanks to the hefty price tags attached to travel these days by corporate goons.
I loved the part about China's maglev trains! Haaaaahahahaha! Most folks in the U.S. still insist that maglevs are the stuff of science fiction (and their TeeVee re-asserts this daily on the Discovery Channel)--kinda like the oft-cited view by politicians on investment in solar panels.
A look through the comments shows just how far behind the U.S. is and will continue to be, because we're ruled, funded, and kept in the dark ages by right-wing anti-ecological nutjobs who just can't get enough of making specious arguments and rhetorical floops to justify keeping things the way they are.
A maglev from Ventura to SF would be nice.... but for the foreseeable future, it'll remain the stuff of sci-fi writers. We could have had a connecting rail line from Westlake to Moorpark (where there's a train station...) but now, we got a widened highway. Whoopeee, I can drive my busted up inherited 4X4 to the futbol pitches a whole ten seconds quicker now. That's progress in 'Mer'kuh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DON'T BLAME 'GOONS' FOR YOUR FAILURES
Posted by: gellero
» RE: DON'T BLAME 'GOONS' FOR YOUR FAILURES
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: intriguing piece
Posted by: cold2touch
» MORE IGNORANCE
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SlowTrav on Oct 17, 2006 4:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There is a Slow Travel movement!
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: There is a Slow Travel movement!
Posted by: Gakl
» How about a "slow time" movement.
Posted by: Gakl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 17, 2006 9:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dismalscientist on Oct 18, 2006 5:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article doesn't even mention the other large problem--night flights do far more damage than day flights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Night Flights
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberalgunowner on Oct 19, 2006 6:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal - the fuel (and environmental damage) most of you never see but use daily.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are very right
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thejollyreaper on Oct 22, 2006 10:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but this article and discussion seem to miss an obvious and very important transportation option... boats.
for god's sake, you can travel from tokyo to singapore without ever setting foot in an airport. i'm travelling across asia right now and hope to make it to new zealand without air travel.
ferry boats are fast, luxurious and efficient ways to transport hundreds of people at a time. from japan to korea it's six hours in a boat, much cheaper than a plane and, most importantly, a lot more fun!! There are restaurants, karaoke rooms, a movie theater and lounge areas inside the boat, as well as a wonderful deck you can walk around on to see the ocean pass by.
you aren't strapped into a tiny little seat, you can lay down in your cabin and sleep or meet other travellers from around the world. once i took a boat between countries the first time, i was an immediate convert.
we used to have passenger ships linking all the continents. we can again. we don't really need airplanes for squat, not even to cross the great waters. an efficient train network on land and a comparable boat network on the sea would substantially reduce environmental impact while making travel a pleasure again and reducing the cost.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 17, 2006 1:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» look beyond your own experience
Posted by: edith
» RE: look beyond your own experience
Posted by: rsaxto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 17, 2006 2:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once went to a talk in a small town in the UK. It was a panel debate on the environment and the coming crisis. It was a mix bag of people: a guy who sold solar panels, another guy who worked for a financial magazine, the head of an oil company, and the head of Greenpeace. They were asked how they got there. The answers caught everyone by surprise. The solar and financial guys came by train: very green. The big oil guy has a hybrid car and always uses it: also very green. And the Greenpeace guy? He came by 4x4 because he claimed 'you can't get to this town by public transit and I am very busy and need to get to another talk after this one.' He blew his organisation's credibility out the window. And that is the crux of the problem: people are less inclined to believe the boys and girls who cry wolf when they are mostly wealthy people who live a fast-paced, jet-set life.
In order to address the flying emissions problem, we need to engineer out high emission aircraft. This can be done over a period of ten years and Boeing is already starting this with its new Dreamliner. We should also explore underwater tunnels and high speed trains, dirigibles, gliders, etc.
And here is the kicker: we would have a greater success at making the switch if we did this by not stopping people travelling or by introducing punitive taxes. Instead let's do this by creating a market for the more environmental option. Make it possible for people to choose the airline that flies the greener plane. Only fly on airlines who buy the Dreamliner. That would do more to change the situation than the environmentalists approach: punitive taxes, negative campaigns telling people not to travel, hypocritical behaviour as they still dart to conferences around the world (ask your campaigner at Greenpeace how many trips they take a year, ask their executives), attempts to stop modernising airports.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Libertarians get this issue wrong everytime...
Posted by: Wells
» You mock the market, but it works best
Posted by: Bobsays
» mocking the market...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: Libertarians get this issue wrong everytime...
Posted by: eringhorm
» Politicians get this issue wrong every time...
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Environmentalists get this issue wrong everytime
Posted by: expatjourno
» It's frightening I know, but everything I say is true
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Environmentalists get this issue wrong everytime
Posted by: tlannin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flairndip on Oct 17, 2006 4:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Slow travel
Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Slow travel
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielgeery on Oct 17, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I can make the following happen for less than $2,000, using off-the-shelf materials, I can only wonder what a concerted international effort might accomplish. If the Wright Brothers actually made a wrong turn--as I think they did--we've been on the wrong road ever since.
If you know of more efficient vehicles than these, please let me know...
solar flight
high speed prototype airship
P.S. How can anyone with half a brain on this planet NOT be an environmentalist?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Interesting
Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Interesting
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: nvironmentalist suggests another way
Posted by: Pirate1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jesse on Oct 17, 2006 6:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another issue is making a distinction between things that must travel quickly--such as human organs--and things that needn't do so, such as sneakers. Many things are shipped by air freight that would just as well work via airships or seaborne shipping. (This would require getting away from "just in time" inventory, but there are sound macroeconomic reasons to do that, and in fact the better information flow offers ways to do it, ironically enough).
The second bit is to encourage rail travel in countries that use air the most. That is the US, Australia, Brazil and to a lesser degree Russia and China. India has an extensive rail network already, and Russia needs to fix its own. The US needs to restore what it had--there is no reason on earth that it should take longer now to get from New York to Chicago by train than it did in 1960. (I was shocked too, but look at the old schedules of the 20th Century Limited and Amtrak's). In the US this would require a big infrastructure investment, but we've subsidized cars here long enough. Imagine how different LA would look if GM was required--as the rail comanies were--to build its own roads. ("Market" solutions are rarely really that--there are policy decisions that make certain things from a consumer perspective more or less attractive).
A third idea--maybe a good first step for the US--is to link via rail all those cities that are more than 30 miles from an airport to a major hub. Right now, we waste a lot of air time traveling from say, Chicago to Madison or Milwaukee to Madison. There is no reason you can't use the old railbeds that served (and in some cases still serve) freight and link every town in Iowa to Des Moines. If you drew a circle of 150 miles around the big airports, got rid of the itty bitty ones, and expanded some the ones that exist, you would cut a lot of airline use. With the rail links you would also ease the traffic as well.
Such a system, combined with a larger regional rail network, cold cut airplane use by a third at least. Again I ask why people fly or drive from San Fran to LA when the rail bed has been sitting idle for decades--or in one case (the Bay Bridge) removed. (The one Amtrak uses now is different and doesn't go to San Fran any longer).
By rail, I can get from Paris to Prague in less than a day. Why can't I do the same from New York to St. Louis?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think we can offer combined solutions
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: I think we can offer combined solutions
Posted by: danielgeery
» Irresistable
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Irresistable
Posted by: Jesse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Oct 17, 2006 6:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will be impossible to stop air travel. Hundreds of billions of US$ are wrapped up in the vertical markets that make up the air travel industry. They will not go away.
There is NO alternative fuel that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses that can be used for air transport. We can't logically discuss this issue without also talking about the alternative.
If we even considered an end to air travel, modern civilization would come to a total halt - and the extremist Muslim world's dream of stopping Western civilization will have come true.
Do you want the terrorists to win?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fuel Alternative Please
Posted by: danielgeery
» A leader of no one...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: A leader of no one...
Posted by: symcokid
» Actually, air travel has been quite helpful to terrorists
Posted by: expatjourno
» Actually there is a replacement for fossil fuels. It's called HEMP !
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: db
» RE: usual KRAP!!
Posted by: Pirate1
» How about hemp for plane? Hemp replaces petro on everything and
Posted by: NDnative
Comments are closed-
Posted by: irreverentprimate on Oct 17, 2006 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here's an email exchange i traded with carbonfund.org on the topic of how much of donations go to overhead:
Hi Erik,
7% of our contributions goes to overhead, with the rest going to our mission. Good point about the details. When we get the new site up, it will all be there.
Craig
I wrote:
i've been trying to talk my parents into donating to carbonfund.org but they won't do it until they find out how much of their contribution will actually go to support develop clean energy projects, and how much gets used to pay carbonfund's administrative costs. i looked on the website's FAQ page but didn't see a percent figure for administrative/overhead costs. can you tell me so i can tell my parents?
thanks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: calistogababe on Oct 17, 2006 7:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.terrapass.com
Cheers!
Suzanne
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 17, 2006 7:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If in fact, the weather is cooler, that may well portend the onset of warming in the long run.
Why?
Because massive quantities of polar ice breaking off and floating toward temperate zones cool of the ocean water as they melt, thus affecting the weather.
Check this article out.
But I guess this is too convoluted for some of the assorted faith-based knuckle draggers plaguing this site.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: some bona fide morons here
Posted by: danielgeery
» RE: some bona fide morons here
Posted by: cold2touch
» Enviro-fascists should come clean
Posted by: Bobsays
» Sophisticated economies go with Green practices
Posted by: edith
» RE: Sophisticated economies go with Green practices
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: Fascists should come clean
Posted by: cold2touch
» asking questions is not moronic
Posted by: edith
» RE: asking questions is not moronic
Posted by: cold2touch
» Priceless
Posted by: edith
» RE: Priceless
Posted by: cold2touch
» No Atmospheric Warming
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Uccellla on Oct 17, 2006 8:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EconProf on Oct 17, 2006 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An aeroplane carries more people than a car!
Posted by: bugs
» RE: An aeroplane carries more people than a car!
Posted by: EconProf
» Yes, it's a per person figure
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Yes, it's a per person figure and time constraints
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Yes, it's a per person figure
Posted by: EconProf
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 17, 2006 9:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» you are right
Posted by: cold2touch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 17, 2006 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But here in the "technologically superior" U.S.? We are considering a 150mph train in one corridor between Boston and Washington that will probably not achieve that speed because of inferior roadbed. Meanwhile, most of our passenger trains lumber along at 50-60mph while we still lob 300,000-pound commercial jets between cities only a few hundred miles (or less) apart. Most jet fuel consumption occurs on the climb to cruising altitude, and this is true whether the flight is for 10 or 12 hours, or for less than one. For example, on the west coast, the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco is 370 miles, or about 1 hour flight time – IF weather, etc., doesn't delay takeoff. Driving to a traffic-isolated airport consumes from one to two hours (or more); wading through security and the sea of passengers waiting for intermittant flights wastes another two hours or more; add to that the traffic from, say, SFO to downtown San Francisco and the total trip time is around 6+ hours.
Trains could run from downtown to downtown; and even with a few stops along the way, a train at 200mph would still make the same trip, including commuting to and from more convenient stations, in approx. four to five hours – at 1/5th to 1/10th the energy consumption and greenhouse gas production. Trains are relatively unaffected by weather and can be powered by either on-board diesel engines or by the electrical grid. It seems logical to promote high-speed trains for short-to-medium transportation, so what's the problem with us? One phrase: laissez-faire capitalism. America is still suffering from a hangover left to us by the Robber Barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Should we look upon our position of falling off of the back of the movement for a greener and more sensible transportation future as yet another triumph for "free market" capitalism? Simply "letting the market decide" no longer works for us or the rest of the planet – but, boy, does it work for rapacious corporations.
Some "progress."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: GLee
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: edith
» RE: Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 17, 2006 10:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NDnative on Oct 17, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: Gakl
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: NDnative
» RE: MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: nickptar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 17, 2006 4:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Ellingham, founder of the popular Rough Guide travel handbooks, advocates that travellers "fly less often and stay longer." In the vacation-strapped U.S., for instance, surveys show that people now take many long-weekend trips by air rather than going on one- or two-week holidays. That obviously creates far more greenhouse gases.
Then there are the rest of us who don't take weekends or vacations because a) we can't afford them anyway and b) it takes four jobs per household to support of family; i.e., there's just no time for leisure, period. The internet is the closest my kids will ever come to exploring the world thanks to the hefty price tags attached to travel these days by corporate goons.
I loved the part about China's maglev trains! Haaaaahahahaha! Most folks in the U.S. still insist that maglevs are the stuff of science fiction (and their TeeVee re-asserts this daily on the Discovery Channel)--kinda like the oft-cited view by politicians on investment in solar panels.
A look through the comments shows just how far behind the U.S. is and will continue to be, because we're ruled, funded, and kept in the dark ages by right-wing anti-ecological nutjobs who just can't get enough of making specious arguments and rhetorical floops to justify keeping things the way they are.
A maglev from Ventura to SF would be nice.... but for the foreseeable future, it'll remain the stuff of sci-fi writers. We could have had a connecting rail line from Westlake to Moorpark (where there's a train station...) but now, we got a widened highway. Whoopeee, I can drive my busted up inherited 4X4 to the futbol pitches a whole ten seconds quicker now. That's progress in 'Mer'kuh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» DON'T BLAME 'GOONS' FOR YOUR FAILURES
Posted by: gellero
» RE: DON'T BLAME 'GOONS' FOR YOUR FAILURES
Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: intriguing piece
Posted by: cold2touch
» MORE IGNORANCE
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SlowTrav on Oct 17, 2006 4:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There is a Slow Travel movement!
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: There is a Slow Travel movement!
Posted by: Gakl
» How about a "slow time" movement.
Posted by: Gakl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 17, 2006 9:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dismalscientist on Oct 18, 2006 5:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article doesn't even mention the other large problem--night flights do far more damage than day flights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Night Flights
Posted by: gellero
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberalgunowner on Oct 19, 2006 6:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal - the fuel (and environmental damage) most of you never see but use daily.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Oct 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are very right
Posted by: Bobsays
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thejollyreaper on Oct 22, 2006 10:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but this article and discussion seem to miss an obvious and very important transportation option... boats.
for god's sake, you can travel from tokyo to singapore without ever setting foot in an airport. i'm travelling across asia right now and hope to make it to new zealand without air travel.
ferry boats are fast, luxurious and efficient ways to transport hundreds of people at a time. from japan to korea it's six hours in a boat, much cheaper than a plane and, most importantly, a lot more fun!! There are restaurants, karaoke rooms, a movie theater and lounge areas inside the boat, as well as a wonderful deck you can walk around on to see the ocean pass by.
you aren't strapped into a tiny little seat, you can lay down in your cabin and sleep or meet other travellers from around the world. once i took a boat between countries the first time, i was an immediate convert.
we used to have passenger ships linking all the continents. we can again. we don't really need airplanes for squat, not even to cross the great waters. an efficient train network on land and a comparable boat network on the sea would substantially reduce environmental impact while making travel a pleasure again and reducing the cost.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




