As cheap airlines increase, more people have been able to access air travel. A good thing for many of us. But at what cost to the climate?
According to the David Suzuki Foundation air travel accounts for 4-9 per cent “of total climate change impact of human activity”. As many have said — this appears to be insignificant. However, air travel’s contribution is disproportionate.
The Tufts Climate Initiative website states that if Americans fly return to Europe “you’ll add about 3-4 tonnes to your carbon footprint. With one flight you will have caused more emissions than 20 Bangladeshi will cause in a whole year. Unfortunately they are the ones who will lose their homes and livelihood once sea level rise inundates their low lying country”.
The carbon emissions of an aircraft are produced at high altitudes. Studies have shown that the impact is “two to four times greater” then the actual carbon dioxide emissions if produced at ground level.
Some tips:
Avoid air travel if possible. A hard decision when you have spent the last two years trying to earn enough money for that Thai holiday. It’s a case of numbers. The number of flights increase – so does the impact.
Try other modes of transport. Trains and buses. Emissions can be 3-7 times lower and why not see more of your own country? Local tourism will love it and you will help support your local economy. For those of us living in Australia who want to visit other countries flying is our only option. But isn’t the rest of the world wanting to come here?
The grass isn’t always greener. Plus, we here in Australia are lucky — we have so many attractions the rest of the world envies. I’ve always found it hard to really enjoy beaches in Asia when I’ve spent most of my life on Australian beaches. Clean beaches, clean water and in many cases almost no one else to step on your towel.
The issue for the future? If Australian tourism depends on overseas visitors, and places like the Barrier Reef are under threat from Climate Change are we to return to ocean travel? In an instant, I want it now world, I doubt many would have the patience to travel by ship for a month. The solution is hard, but it depends on how much we want to really do something to fix a global problem.
Thanks for your comment Susanna.
As the Australian Academy of Science points out:
“The fastest trains in commercial operation today are the French ‘train à grande vitesse’ (TGV), the Japanese ‘shinkansen’ (or bullet train) and the German InterCity Express (ICE). The TGV routinely travels at 300 kilometres per hour through the French countryside and has been clocked at 515 kilometres per hour in test runs. The bullet train averages 262 kilometres per hour between stations and has recorded 443 kilometres per hour in test runs, while the ICE has a top operational speed of 280 kilometres per hour and has recorded 408 kilometres per hour in trials.”
In terms of greenhouse-gas emission, according to the UNEP:
“In terms of travel, trains are by far the most climate friendly mode of transport, but how much they actually save depends on how many people are on the train and what energy source it uses.
“For example, trains in Switzerland run on electricity from a mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power. In Norway trains use 95 per cent hydroelectric power. Local shopping malls are also located close to public transport stops. In France, trains run on nuclear power, as most of the country’s electricity is nuclear-based.
“Transporting goods by train is also the most carbon friendly way. Shipping one tonne of goods by train in Europe emits 2.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere. However, transporting the same in a short haul plane will emit 330 kilograms of CO2 equivalent, 209 kilograms on a medium hall plane (travelling 5000 – 8000 kilometres) and 117 kilograms on a long haul plane travelling more than 8000 kilometres.”
As the UNEP points out, the source of electricity generation is an important consideration.
Japan’s electricity generation is from a mix of fuel sources. The major sources being nuclear and LPG. Nuclear energy, as you would be aware, may not produce the harmful greenhouse gases, however in my opinion, nuclear waste is unacceptable and should not be considered as an option to fossil fuel generation.
“Today[2006], hydroelectric power, nuclear power, coal and natural gas are used for base load and mid-range load whilst oil is used for peak loads together with pumped storage hydroelectric power.
Of note is the number of nuclear reactors in use.
“The 52 existing nuclear rectors operating in Japan supply one third of the nation’s electricity, giving it the third largest stock of nuclear power plants in the world, after the US and rapidly catching up with France”.
For more information take a look at Sharon Beder’s report http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/japan.html
As for sea travel.
“The worldwide fleet of 90,000 ships transports 90 per cent of the world’s goods, and shipping emissions are projected to grow by more than 70 per cent by 2020, as global trade expands.
“In terms of sea travel, an unpublished report by the International Maritime Organization revealed that shipping emitted around 800 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007. This amounts to around three per cent of global emissions. For many years shipping had been thought to be one of the better forms of transport for keeping GHGs down, but studies show that its global CO2 emissions are double those of aviation, and rising rapidly” (UNEP).
For more facts and figures see the following address
http://www.unep.org/climateneutral/Topics/Transport/tabid/154/Default.aspx
Sorry for the long reply, but I hope the above information helps, or at least guides you in the right direction.
I’m having a hard time finding comparative cost and climate change impact of bullet train travel vs automotive or airline travel. Info about Japanese bullet trains indicates they have among the best if not THE best safety per passenger mile records. I’m guessing the same is true of climate change impact but would like to see figures.