Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Air Travel Is Killing the Planet

By Jay Walljasper, Ode. Posted October 17, 2006.


Burning jet fuel creates a large -- and growing -- share of greenhouse gases. But there may still be ways to see the world without harming it.
Advertisement

Global warming is now at the top of world concerns as scientists, politicians and everyday citizens ponder how to take immediate action against this slow-burning crisis. Yet British environmental activist Mark Lynas warns that all our success in conserving energy and using new fuels might be overwhelmed by a major greenhouse problem no one talks about: air travel.

"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.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: travel, environment, airlines

Jay Walljasper is the executive editor of Ode Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
video
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 17, 2006 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With video conferencing, web cams and numerous tv travel channels I really don't see the point of flying at all. It's been about 30 years since I have been in an airplane! Numerous air flights in today's ruined atmosphere ain't nothing but creating a ruined planet for our descendents. Added to the gross ruination caused by the Bushies it makes our future really problematical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmentalists get this issue wrong everytime
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 17, 2006 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be clear: any attempt tp stop people travelling will not fly as a political programme. There are more and more flights on offer because flying is now a mass participation thing, not just the preserve of the elite. Some of the biggest travellers I have ever known have been environmentalists, always racing to another international conference ('I've got to get there to get the message out!'), or to another campus.

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]

» mocking the market... Posted by: Wells
Slow travel
Posted by: flairndip on Oct 17, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a fantastic idea. I am all for it. Now let's hope US companies will start to increase employee vacation time so that people can travel slowly!

[« 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
Environmentalist suggests another way
Posted by: danielgeery on Oct 17, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously we've got a ways to go, but if you contemplate flying a balloon instead of a rock you may have a better outcome. Lighter Than Air vehicles versus HTA, may ultimately solve the problem.

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
I think we can offer combined solutions
Posted by: Jesse on Oct 17, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think, combining what Bobsays -- making it possible for people to choose more environmentally friendly airlines--and taxing the fuel, or even altering the fuel we do use--would make a huge difference. I realize that airplanes use the fuel they do for a reason. But that doesn't rule out better fuel mixtures and more efficient planes. The trick is phasing out the old fleets.

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]

» Irresistable Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Irresistable Posted by: Jesse
Fuel Alternative Please
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Oct 17, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, yes air travel is a huge contributor to C02, but there is no replacement for fossil fuels for air travel.

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
usual KRAP!!
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Oct 17, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual the enviro-whackos take any mundane activity and turn it into a global enviromental catastrophe. Now its flying that is the primary cause of a global warming that isn't really there. In case you havent heard the average temp for 2006 in the U.S. is .7 degrees less that the previous year. For my friends across the great pond know that any hysteria regarding climatic destruction is a load of old bullocks. Even if global warming turns out to be true I certainly hope that the banana crop here in Maryland turns out to be bumper.

[« 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
another carbon off-setting website
Posted by: irreverentprimate on Oct 17, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
check out http://www.carbonfund.org/site/

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]

You can also use TerraPass to offset car and air travel
Posted by: calistogababe on Oct 17, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I purchase TerraPass for my car and flights... It's easy to do online and I also learn a lot from their newsletter and alerts.

http://www.terrapass.com

Cheers!
Suzanne

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some bona fide morons here
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 17, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How are global warming deniers different from holocaust deniers? Both seek to deny an obvious catastrophe by using specious arguments, like "hey, it's kinda chilly today, so I guess the global warming is a crock".
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
» RE: Fascists should come clean Posted by: cold2touch
» Priceless Posted by: edith
» RE: Priceless Posted by: cold2touch
» No Atmospheric Warming Posted by: edith
An annual 12 percent rise in UK air travel until 2050
Posted by: Uccellla on Oct 17, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah yes, another prediction from the gospel according to The Church of Perpetual Prosperity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An aeroplane carries more people than a car!
Posted by: EconProf on Oct 17, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim that “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” ignores the fact that the flight transports many more people than the car trip. Suppose there are 250 people taking the flight and one person in the car. The flight is then equivalent to a car trip of just 48 kilometres (30 miles) (48=12,000/250 and 30=7,500/250). Given that a round-trip transatlantic flight is roughly 13000 kilometres (≈ 8000 miles), the flight is thus about 270 times more efficient than the car trip! Even if there are 4 people in the car, the flight is almost 70 times more efficient!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contrails
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 17, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not talking about the 'chemtrail' conspiracy here, but normal contrails that result from the combustion of jet-fuel (consist mainly of H20). Its been proven that those contrails consolidate with each other and actual can form clouds. This artificial formation of clouds has an impact on the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you are right Posted by: cold2touch
Marching boldly into the. . .past.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 17, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
France (and some of the rest of Europe) has had 180mph+ train service for more than 15 years; Japan has had 160mph (and now 200mph+) train service for more than three decades; and even China – CHINA – is building a 300mph+ MagLev system.

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]

Cut back on the non-sensical.
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 17, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Air travel is killing the planet no doubt, but then why exacerbate our demise with non-sensical flyovers of four military jets at the onset of football games, 'Hail to the Chief' melodrama and all other such festivities? How neccessary are the numerous air shows, what a waste of precious fuel, oh, and all those rockets blasting off into 'The Wild Blue Yonder'. I almost forgot the useless wars we have going on nonstop - maybe it's too late to even worry about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MORE BIG GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATIC BS article ! Shut the F*** UP and talk about HEMP instead !
Posted by: NDnative on Oct 17, 2006 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we have to sacrifice everything? This article is just another slap in the face telling readers to stop flying ! The only reason air travel is killing the planet is the fuel is PETRO rather than a clean alternative renewable biofuel such as HEMP ! How many times do I have to nail Alternet until they finally wake up and give HEMP a chance ! It's bad enough that the language of this article looks like a BIG OIL CEO ! Besides changing the fuel consumption and emissions, try alternative renewable biofuels for a change. Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel endorsed it and if it worked in cars, it would work in place without a doubt !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

intriguing piece
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 17, 2006 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loved this part:

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]

» RE: intriguing piece Posted by: cold2touch
» MORE IGNORANCE Posted by: gellero
There is a Slow Travel movement!
Posted by: SlowTrav on Oct 17, 2006 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I run the Slow Travel website (www.slowtrav.com), an online community where we focus on slower and sometimes longer trips. Most of us do fly from the US/Canada to Europe, but once there we spend a week or more in a place, usually staying in vacation rentals, instead of moving about spending 2 nights here, 3 nights there, in hotels. We think that, like the Slow Food movement, this is getting back to basics. Don't rush around so much; see one place in depth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TAXES ON FUEL
Posted by: gellero on Oct 17, 2006 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jet fuel is not taxed anywhere but the Netherlands? What's he been smoking?? Anyone who has a plane (I do and make no apologies for it ), jet or otherwise, knows that in the USA, excise and sales taxes are added to the bill

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad math hurts good ecology
Posted by: dismalscientist on Oct 18, 2006 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without denying that air travel is a HUGE problem, I wish people would be more precise with numbers--is that 5 tons created by flying per person, per flight, per seat? How does that compare with one person in a car? Two? Taking a bus? Driving a hybrid?

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
Coal is overlooked as a killer
Posted by: liberalgunowner on Oct 19, 2006 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big Coal is probably much worse than aviation pollution. Take a trip to the coalfields of central Appalachia - there you can witness mountain tops shorn off and pushed into the river valleys below. Coal fired power plants in the midwest have rendered many or most of our inland waters with with fish that contain so much mercury that we have to careful in our consumption of them.

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]

Coal
Posted by: gellero on Oct 21, 2006 11:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quit whineing about the past.....new coal plants have new technology to correct what is NOW recognized as a problem. The real problem is the turd world. One Mexican bus probably puts out the same amount of pollution as 100 American cars. Go to the turd world and see for yourself. Those corrupt societies ( and they are the majority) will never adhere to a treaty like Kyoto, which is why any thinking citizen should oppose it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are very right Posted by: Bobsays
boats
Posted by: thejollyreaper on Oct 22, 2006 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as an amerikan citizen living in asia, i can testify to the enormous difference between public transportation infrastructure in asia and the states. it's shocking!

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]