5 ms·
probably 10x more eco-friendly I don't claim to have done the numbers myself, but during the volcanic shutdown last year, More Or Less' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/p
by eftpotrm 16y ago
probably 10x more eco-friendly
I don't claim to have done the numbers myself, but during the volcanic shutdown last year, More Or Less' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd) presenter was stranded on the far side of Europe and calculated the emissions cost of travelling back overland by various means as he did. The answer - it was roughly level; the problem wasn't so much the plane as the long-distance travel.
- epistasis 16y agoI'd love to see the numbers on this, I agree that it's usually long-distance travel that's the problem. A typical single passenger automobile trip has about equivalent CO2 emissions, per-passenger, as a typical jet trip. (At least whenever I've run the numbers.) But since the bus ride is less than the cost of gas for an automobile, I would think that the bus must be per-passenger somewhat more efficient. It's hard to get much of a discount on commodities like fuel.
- danielharan 16y agoCO2 emissions depend on distance travelled, since take-off consumes a lot more than being at cruising altitude - short-haul is about 50% more costly. This doesn't take into account increased impacts from night travel for planes, or that buses will tend to be fuller. See e.g. http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-travel/ http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-air-t...