4 ms·

First of all, there is no chance outside of some absurd contrived scenario for a jet to have lower co2 emissions than a train. When a CEO says something that t

First of all, there is no chance outside of some absurd contrived scenario for a jet to have lower co2 emissions than a train. When a CEO says something that transparently bullshit they are obviously lying in their interest you really shouldn't do their lying for them by parroting it. Second, carbon dioxide (which I assume you were shorthanding as 'carbon') is not even half of the greenhouse-gas/radiative-forcing effect of air travel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#/media/File:Radiative_Forcing_in_Aviation_1992.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati... So even if this CEO was technically right, he'd still be wrong in terms of what actually matters.

sandworm101 7y ago
No. He did not say that the jet burned less fuel. He was commenting that a highspeed rail journey, with the necessary connecting car/bus/light rail legs on each end, can sometimes require more carbon than a more direct aircraft flight. There are breaking points where an all-economy flight can be the most energy-efficient option. My home town (on an island) is a good example. I could take a direct flight to another city, or drive the 100's of KM by car+boat to the nearest passenger rail. And then I'd have to rent a car and drive several hundred more KM after stepping off the train. In such circumstances the direct aircraft connection is the lower-carbon option.
- cagenut 7y ago
  I see what you're doing even if you don't. This level of nitpickery and contrarian noise is the functional equivalent of denying reality. All you're doing is sewing doubt and throwing sand in the gears to make it harder for everyone else. You cannot continue to apply marginal optimization tactics to a solve for zero problem. It is simply a failure to understand and address reality.
rayiner 7y ago
Building HSR lines is extremely carbon intensive and only extremely busy lines will offset the cost of their construction: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... You basically need a line to be as busy as the northeast corridor in the US, otherwise you’re underwater carbon wise.
redis_mlc 7y ago
> there is no chance outside of some absurd contrived scenario Well, in the USA, any train that is interstate is required to be built as if it was a freight train, even if it's only carrying passengers 1 mile. And jet engines get 1% more efficient per year. So it is possible that a jet airplane will be more fuel-efficient for interstate travel than a train at some point.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  The first time I saw a Caltrain (small commuter train local service in the Bay Area) train pull into a station I thought it must be a Soviet ballistic missile train it was so huge and heavily armoured.

sandworm101 7y ago

No. He did not say that the jet burned less fuel. He was commenting that a highspeed rail journey, with the necessary connecting car/bus/light rail legs on each end, can sometimes require more carbon than a more direct aircraft flight. There are breaking points where an all-economy flight can be the most energy-efficient option. My home town (on an island) is a good example. I could take a direct flight to another city, or drive the 100's of KM by car+boat to the nearest passenger rail. And then I'd have to rent a car and drive several hundred more KM after stepping off the train. In such circumstances the direct aircraft connection is the lower-carbon option.

cagenut 7y ago
I see what you're doing even if you don't. This level of nitpickery and contrarian noise is the functional equivalent of denying reality. All you're doing is sewing doubt and throwing sand in the gears to make it harder for everyone else. You cannot continue to apply marginal optimization tactics to a solve for zero problem. It is simply a failure to understand and address reality.

rayiner 7y ago

Building HSR lines is extremely carbon intensive and only extremely busy lines will offset the cost of their construction: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... You basically need a line to be as busy as the northeast corridor in the US, otherwise you’re underwater carbon wise.

redis_mlc 7y ago

> there is no chance outside of some absurd contrived scenario Well, in the USA, any train that is interstate is required to be built as if it was a freight train, even if it's only carrying passengers 1 mile. And jet engines get 1% more efficient per year. So it is possible that a jet airplane will be more fuel-efficient for interstate travel than a train at some point.

chrisseaton 7y ago
The first time I saw a Caltrain (small commuter train local service in the Bay Area) train pull into a station I thought it must be a Soviet ballistic missile train it was so huge and heavily armoured.