Air travel, Transportation emissions

Climate change: Should you fly, drive or take the train?

[Editor: This story is Euro-centered, but the information is applicable here in the U.S.  — and VERY interesting…  – R.S.]

BBC News, 24 August 2019

Greta ThunbergThe climate campaigner Greta Thunberg chose to sail to a UN climate conference in New York in a zero-emissions yacht rather than fly – to highlight the impact of aviation on the environment. The 16-year-old Swede has previously travelled to London and other European cities by train.

Meanwhile the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have faced criticism over opting to fly to Sir Elton John’s villa in Nice in a private jet.

So what is the environmental impact of flying and how do trips by train, car or boat compare?

What are aviation emissions?

Flights produce greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) – from burning fuel. These contribute to global warming when released into the atmosphere.

An economy-class return flight from London to New York emits an estimated 0.67 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, according to the calculator from the UN’s civil aviation body, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

That’s equivalent to 11% of the average annual emissions for someone in the UK or about the same as those caused by someone living in Ghana over a year.

Aviation contributes about 2% of the world’s global carbon emissions, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). It predicts passenger numbers will double to 8.2 billion in 2037..

And as other sectors of the economy become greener – with more wind turbines, for example – aviation’s proportion of total emissions is set to rise.

Chart showing emissions from different modes of transport

How do emissions vary?

It depends where passengers sit and whether they are taking a long-haul flight or a shorter one.

The flight figures in the table are for economy class. For long haul flights, carbon emissions per passenger per kilometre travelled are about three times higher for business class and four times higher for first class, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

This is because there’s more space per seat, so each person accounts for a larger amount of the whole plane’s pollution.

Taking off uses more fuel than cruising. For shorter flights, this accounts for a larger proportion of the journey. And it means lower emissions for direct flights than multi-leg trips.

Also, newer planes can be more efficient and some airlines and routes are better at filling seats than others. One analysis found wide variation between per passenger emissions for different airlines.

For private jets, although the planes are smaller, the emissions are split between a much smaller number of people.

For example, Prince Harry and Meghan’s recent return flight to Nice would have emitted about four times as much CO2 per person as an equivalent economy flight.

Aeroplane flying overhead
Aeroplane flying overhead | Image copyright GETTY IMAGES

The increased warming effect other, non-CO2, emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, have when they are released at high altitudes can also make a significant difference to emissions calculations.

“The climate effect of non-CO2 emissions from aviation is much greater than the equivalent from other modes of transport, as these non-CO2 greenhouse gases formed at higher altitudes persist for longer than at the surface and also have a stronger warming potential,” Eloise Marais, from the Atmospheric Composition Group, at the University of Leicester, told BBC News.

But there is scientific uncertainty about how this effect should be represented in calculators.

The ICAO excludes it, while the BEIS includes it as an option – using a 90% increase to reflect it.

The EcoPassenger calculator – launched by the International Railways Union in cooperation with the European Environment Agency – says it depends on the height the plane reaches.

Longer flights are at higher altitude, so the calculator multiplies by numbers ranging from 1.27 for flights of 500km (300 miles) to 2.5 for those of more than 1,000km.

In the chart above, the high-altitude, non-CO2 emissions are in a different colour.

How does travelling by train compare?

Train virtually always comes out better than plane, often by a lot. A journey from London to Madrid would emit 43kg (95lb) of CO2 per passenger by train, but 118kg by plane (or 265kg if the non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger.

Chart showing emissions for different journ

However, the margin between train and plane emissions varies, depending on several factors, including the type of train. For electric trains, the way the electricity they use is generated is used to calculate carbon emissions.

Diesel trains’ carbon emissions can be twice those of electric ones. Figures from the UK Rail Safety and Standards board show some diesel locomotives emit more than 90g of C02 per passenger per kilometre, compared with about 45g for an electric Intercity 225, for example.

The source of the electricity can make a big difference if you compare a country such as France, where about 75% of electricity comes from nuclear power, with Poland, where about 80% of grid power is generated from coal.

According to EcoPassenger, for example, a train trip from Paris to Bordeaux (about 500km) emits just 4.4kg of carbon dioxide per passenger, while a journey between the Polish cities of Gdansk and Katowice (about 465km) emits 61.8kg.

As with plane journeys, another factor is how full the train is – a peak-time commuter train will have much lower emissions per person than a late-night rural one, for example.

Car exhaustImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Can driving be better than flying?

Yes, if the car’s electric – but diesel and petrol cars are also in many cases better options than flying, though it depends on various factors, particularly how many people they’re carrying.

According to EcoPassenger, a journey from London to Madrid can be done with lower emissions per passenger by plane, even accounting for the effect of high altitude non-CO2 emissions, if the car is carrying just one person and the plane is full. If you add just one more person into the vehicle, the car wins out.

Coaches also score well. BEIS says travelling by coach emits 27g of CO2 per person per kilometre, compared with 41g on UK rail (but only 6g on Eurostar) – though again this will vary depending on how full they are and the engine type.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg sailing on yacht to New York
Climate activist Greta Thunberg sailing on yacht to New York | Image copyright FINNBARR WEBSTER

What about travelling by boat?

The BEIS has also put a figure on ferry transport – 18g of CO2 per passenger kilometre for a foot passenger, which is less than a coach, or 128g for a driver and car, which is more like a long-haul flight.

But ferries’ ages and efficiency will vary around the world – and a ferry won’t get you to America, although a cruise ship or ocean liner would.

The cruise industry has long been under pressure to reduce environmental impacts ranging from waste disposal to air pollution, as well as high emissions – not only from travel but also from powering all the on-board facilities.

Carnival Corporation and plc, which owns nine cruise lines, says its 104 ships emit an average of 251g of carbon dioxide equivalent per “available lower berth” per kilometre.

And, while the figures are not directly comparable, they suggest cruising falls in similar territory to flying in terms of emissions.

Keeping Watch on Earth News

Earth Is Sizzling and Needs All the Help It Can Get

Inaction isn’t an option as global warming accelerates.

Bloomberg.com, by Noah Smith, August 23, 2019, 4:30 AM PDT

Carbon in the air.
Carbon in the air. Photographer: Mario Tama/Getty Images South America

As Greenland’s glaciers melt, Siberia’s permafrost turns to slush, the Amazon burns and the Arctic sizzles, this summer of record heat should serve as a reminder of the imminence of climate change. A warming world isn’t decades away — it’s here now, as the carbon emissions that accelerate warming keep rising.

It’s critical for the U.S. to reduce its own carbon emissions to help combat this threat. A number of Democratic politicians have released sweeping plans to do this. But decarbonizing the U.S. economy won’t be enough to prevent catastrophic warming, for two reasons. First of all, U.S. emissions are already dwarfed by the rest of the globe, and the disparity is increasing as developing nations catch up with rich-world living standards:

For an interactive view of this image, go to the original article on Bloomberg.

But even more importantly, much of the world is moving in the wrong direction. As part of its Belt and Road global development initiative, China is building coal plants in developing countries around the world. That threatens not just to increase emissions, but to create infrastructure around coal power in those countries that could lock them into reliance on fossil fuels as they industrialize. Meanwhile, fires are raging through the Amazon rainforest at a record pace, thanks in part to Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s weakened environmental protections and arson by ranchers eager for more land. The Amazon’s trees are vital for pulling carbon out of the air, so clearing of the ancient forest will accelerate climate change even more.

If the U.S. merely stays in its corner of the world and attends to its own emissions problem, it will have at most a marginal impact on the progress of climate change. This is a global crisis, and it needs global solutions. One approach is to use international accords like the Paris Agreement, which the U.S. unwisely withdrew from in 2017. We need more agreements like this, and there are plenty being proposed. But the failure of most nations to meet their Paris emissions targets, combined with lax requirements for developing nations, shows that this approach by itself is insufficient.

But there are several steps the U.S. can take to encourage other nations to reduce their emissions, even as it cuts its own.

The most obvious step is to directly transfer green energy technology to less advanced nations. This can be done through international institutions like the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, and with bilateral agreements with countries like India. The most important technology is improved energy storage, for use when wind and solar can’t generate power.

A second approach is to subsidize U.S. exports of green technology and low-carbon products, including green energy, storage, smart grids, building conversion kits and low-carbon cement and steel. This would include helping finance foreign purchases of these products. If the rules of the World Trade Organization forbid such subsidies, then the rules should be rewritten. This idea sometimes is referred to as a Green Marshall Plan, and has been touted by some of the current crop of presidential candidates.

A more dramatic version of this strategy is to pay developing countries to build green-energy infrastructure like flexible power grids, electric-vehicle charging stations and energy storage facilities — even if these products aren’t made in the U.S. This could be done through the same channels by which rich countries now offer official development assistance, or through the Green Climate Fund. Green infrastructure would help lock newly industrializing nations into using carbon-free energy sources.

Another idea, proposed by economist Bard Harstad, is for the U.S. and other rich countries to buy up coal deposits around the world and leave it in the ground. This will raise the price of coal relative to greener alternatives, and help prevent developing countries from building their infrastructure around coal. It also would assure that much of the fossil fuel in the world never gets burned.

Finally, there are more punitive measures. Carbon tariffs would tax the emissions embedded in imports, discouraging other countries from using carbon-intensive energy and production processes. The U.S. could go further, threatening to cut trade with nations like Bolsonaro’s Brazil unless they implement more stringent conservation policies. European countries are already taking some steps in this direction.

This last step would be a harsh and extreme policy. In most cases, it doesn’t make sense for rich countries to hold poor ones to their own environmental standards. But climate is an exception, because Brazilian deforestation and Chinese coal construction affect the entire globe. And the U.S. certainly shouldn’t seek to punish other countries for reckless environmental policies until it implements its own serious program of rapid emissions reductions. Yet in the end, steps like this may be necessary, since there’s only one Amazon rainforest in the world.

None of these policies is likely to be politically possible as long as Donald Trump is president, but after his departure a window for action may open. Any ambitious, comprehensive climate plan must address the international aspect of the problem.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Amazon Watch, Wildfire

Macron declares international crisis with 165,000 fires burning across Amazon Rainforest, 70,000 in Brazil

The Energy Mix, August 23, 2019
Emmanuel Macron / Twitter

With inadequate firefighting resources leaving massive swaths of the environmentally crucial Amazon rainforest in flames, and Brazil’s conspiracy-breathing president falsely blaming environmentalists and discounting his own government’s data, French President Emmanuel Macron is declaring an “international crisis” and urging the G7 countries to “discuss this crisis” at their meeting this weekend.

More than 165,000 fires were burning as of yesterday, more than 70,000 in Brazil.

“Satellite data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) shows an 85% increase in the rate of forest fires, with just half of these fires occurring in the Amazon,” UN Climate Action reports. “These fires are not just affecting Brazil; several South American countries, such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Colombia, are also currently dealing with forest fires.”

The fires “commonly occur during the dry season, caused by natural events such as lightning strikes as well as by farmers and loggers clearing land for grazing,” the publication explains. “Since July, there has been a sharp rise in deforestation, followed by an increase in burning in August. Local newspapers have reported that local farmers have been organizing fire days to illegally deforest land for cattle ranching.”

“What’s making it worse, say some, are some of the economic and environmental policies put in place by the Brazilian government under the leadership of President Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right politician who has questioned the existence of climate change,” CBC says. “With Brazil holding roughly 60% of the Amazon rainforest, there are concerns about what effects the fires will have ecologically and environmentally, particularly their potential to accelerate climate change.”

The immediate impacts are already spreading far and wide. “According to the European Union’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), the smoke from these fires is spreading across the Amazon region and as far as the Atlantic coast,” Climate Action writes. “The smoke has been so severe that it caused the skies to darken, plunging São Paulo into a blackout, and turning fresh water black despite being more than 2,000 miles away from the fires.”

At more than 5.5 million square kilometres, CBC notes that the Amazon rainforest “is home to roughly 40,000 plant species, 1,300 bird species and 2.5 million species of insects.” But Bolsonaro, who apparently takes umbrage at his international portrayal as “Capitão Motoserra” (Captain Chainsaw), “has opened up the rainforest for more development. He’s also transferred responsibility for the demarcation of Indigenous lands to the Agriculture Ministry, a move that some compare with a fox guarding the chicken coop.”

“This is the time of year when farmers set fires for cultivation and farming,” said Christian Poirier, program director for the non-profit Amazon Watch. But compared to the first seven months of 2018, “there’s been a 60% jump in deforestation,” he added. “What we’re seeing here is a direct result of mismanagement—the intentional environmental mismanagement by this government.”

Bolsonaro “has also been accused of turning a blind eye to illegal practices by farmers and those looking to make money from tearing down trees,” CBC says. “It’s extremely dangerous in that it gives carte blanche to illegal foresters, to land-grabbing mafias and illegal miners, who are now operating with impunity,” Poirier warned. “And we see fires as a result of that.”

CBC notes that the impacts of change in the Amazon, a “unique and important part of Earth’s ecosystem” that “exchanges a large amount of energy and water with the atmosphere”, don’t end at Brazil’s border.

“We are very concerned about these fires,” said Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary General António Guterres, “both for the immediate damage that they are causing and also because sustaining forest is crucial in our fight against climate change.”

“The Amazon rainforest is somewhat anomalous in that it is the biggest system of its kind on the planet in terms of how it feeds itself water,” explained Prof. Kai Chan of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. That mechanism “isn’t just sustaining rainforest but affecting the rain cycle elsewhere. If it breaks down, it will have major implications…it’s a massive issue.”

He added that “if we lose a few more percentage points of rainforest, we’re at risk of losing this whole system.” And “if we do reach that tipping point and the Amazon starts to shift toward being more savannah-like, that will affect precipitation…it will have a major impact on the global scale.”

Bizarrely, and with zero evidence, “Bolsonaro and his administration say media organizations are exploiting the fires to undermine his government,” CBC writes. “The Brazilian president also said there was a ‘very strong’ indication that some non-governmental groups could be setting blazes in retaliation for losing state funds.”

NGOs, needless to say, dispute the claim.

The latest polling in Brazil, meanwhile, shows that a massive 90% of voters—including the majority of Bolsonaro supporters, politicians representing rural and agriculture constituencies, and evangelicals want the country to intensify its efforts against Amazon deforestation, Avaaz reports.

“Despite the general assumption that the matter creates divergence between the conservative and the progressive, our surveys reveal that congressmen and voters across the political spectrum agree on one thing: the Amazon is a source of national pride, and its preservation is essential for our identity and the health of the environment, in Brazil and all over the world,” said Senior Campaign Coordinator Diego Casaes.