Three industry professionals traveled 3,000 miles across America. Their mission: to dissect their carbon footprint. What they found was a complex calculation, with results more tightly-knit than anticipated – and a CO2 revelation.
The text discusses the carbon footprint of different modes of transport: planes, trains, and automobiles. The ranking of these methods in terms of their carbon footprint from lowest to highest is as follows:
Automobiles (specifically, carpooling with an electric vehicle): This method emerged as the least emission-intensive travel option for the journey, with emissions for each traveler in the electric vehicle being just over 18% of the equivalent emissions from a direct flight and 25% of the emissions from the predominantly diesel-powered train journey.
Trains (specifically, Amtrak trains, especially electric ones in the Northeast Corridor): Trains are generally a more eco-friendly option, especially when they are electric. Electric trains in the Northeast Corridor produce significantly fewer emissions than diesel trains, making them a better choice for the environment.
Planes: Surprisingly, in the context of this specific journey, flying had a higher carbon footprint compared to the other options, even though it covered a shorter distance. This was due to the absence of jet contrails and their associated water vapor emissions when traveling by train or car, which offset the higher CO2 emissions of flying. However, this may not be the case for all flights, as factors like the season, time of day, and flight load factor also play a role in emission effects.
It’s important to note that the ranking can vary depending on factors such as the specific route, the type of vehicle or train used, and the energy source for electric transportation. Additionally, the text emphasizes the need for improvements in train infrastructure and the transition to cleaner energy sources to further reduce emissions from train travel.
Ships and trains are way efficient. Airplanes should be used for 2000miles trips and beyond (or 1500, any number at which they would emit the same amount of co2 as land transportation)
The article takes into consideration quite a number of considerations, and concludes that - for the very specific journey that the authors took and were analyzing - their train journey actually "cost" over 366kg more CO2 emissions per person than a plane would have been. That said, it did note that
Thanks to the absence of jet contrails and their associated water vapor emissions – a major component of non-CO2 radiative forcing – we estimate that our total climate impact was 37% less than if we had flown, even if our CO2 emissions were 28% higher.
Regarding making the same journey by car, they say:
Carpooling from Boston, whether in an internal combustion gas engine or an electric vehicle, emerged as the least emission-intensive travel option for this journey. Additionally, driving could be a faster alternative to Amtrak if the team rotated driving responsibilities and continued without extended breaks. [Snipping a bunch of their considerations here, but feel free to read the article.] Consequently, emissions for each traveler in the electric vehicle stand at just over 18% of the equivalent emissions from a direct flight and 25% of the emissions from the predominantly diesel-powered train journey.
Consequently, emissions for each traveler in the electric vehicle stand at just over 18% of the equivalent emissions from a direct flight and 25% of the emissions from the predominantly diesel-powered train journey.
u could repurpose a 800Kwh Tesla Semi and turn it into a Tesla bus, in case u can’t run electric trains everywhere, and want to benefit from electric transportation without it costing a leg, all while still consolidating travel, and thus minimizing emissions. electric cars charged with fossil generated electricity save on 33% of carbon emissions, compared to gasoline cars. u would achieve the rest 66% by using solar generated electricity instead.
Add comment