Sometimes the media is just really annoying. That’s a common observation, and I’m a member of the tribe, but still.
Case in point: If you happened to see a headline this morning about a new study that examines the climate impact of various transportation modes, it likely read something like, “Train Can Be Worse For Climate Than Plane” or “Airliners Can Be More Eco-Friendly Than Trains.” If you are an appropriately cynical reader of headlines, that word “can” probably tipped you off that something weird was afoot.
After all, in the realm of pure possibilities, of course planes can be greener than trains. So can an SUV with 7 passengers. The real question is not about exceptional cases, but about averages.
And, in spite of a lot of overheated prose suggesting the study has “seriously undermined a major piece of received wisdom regarding transport: namely, the belief that railways are more eco-friendly than airliners” — that’s not really the case at all. This selfsame study shows that, in general, trains are substantially more climate-friendly than planes and vastly moreso than cars and light trucks. (Click on the link and see Fig 1)
What the headline writers did was cherry pick the trains with the highest calculated c02 emissions–the Green Line in Boston–were a bit higher than the emissions for some aircraft. And therefore planes can be greener.
For the sake of argument let’s accept all the assumptions made by the authors, who calculate that when you include infrastructure in the carbon footprint of rail, it’s bigger than most people think. There’s nothing new in that.
What’s totally missing in their “complete” estimates for these various transportation modes are the virtuous effects of rail: creating denser communities where people tend to walk more, own fewer cars, live in smaller abodes, and spend less time stuck in traffic jams. And planes create no such positive effects–which isn’t an anti-aviation argument, it’s just a fact.
The New Scientist–generally an excellent publication–goes with this very stupid lede: “True or false: taking the commuter train across Boston results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than travelling the same distance in a jumbo jet. Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is false.”
So, next time you want to travel ten miles? Consider doing it by jumbo jet. Just don’t drive to the airport, ’cause that’ll mess up the numbers.
UPDATE: I was catching up on some Bellows reading last night and saw that Ryan Avent makes some of the same points here. I swear I wasn’t cribbing 
June 8th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“Exciting media opportunity”? But we count on you to be calm and reasoned, not excitable like the journalists you’re criticizing here!
June 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Touche!
-JR
June 8th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
The point I feel was most missed is the potential for change.
An electric train system can run on electricity, without any modifications, that is generated by solar panels or nuclear generators or windmills or even republicans on exercise bikes or anything else people can dream up.
A modern SUV can run on gasoline with maybe 10% bioethanol. Maybe biobutanol. Maybe a few other esoteric fuels that may work out. And maybe, if designed right, 90% bioethanol.
It’s far easier to build a fairly small number of greener power plants, especially as existing plants wear out, than it is to retrofit each of the 250 million cars on the road, given that we can barely make a decent electric car for around town and are some distance away from a no-compromises electric car.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Jebediah, you’re jewish?!
June 9th, 2009 at 12:47 am
You are being intentionally obtuse. There is a lot of good understanding that can come from this study if you are looking. What really happened here is you had a knee jerk reaction to something that you didn’t understand.
First of all, the efficiency angle is minimal in its impact on CO2 emissions in comparison to the generation type. Rail, by itself, does not save us very much in CO2. In some cases, it may actually not save us. Speaking in averages, if you really want that, the reduced CO2 from the higher operating efficiency of trains is not really worth the cost.
Rail, in combination with clean energy generation saves us a lot, however. I’m surprised that you didn’t pull this idea from the study. Its simple: Rail alone is costly and reduces CO2 by very little. Rail combined with nuclear power saves us a lot, and it is not that much more expensive.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:21 am
[...] as well, one we’ve forgotten for the last 60 years. The Infrastructurist, dismantling the study, said it best: What the headline writers did was cherry pick the trains with the highest calculated c02 [...]
June 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Danny:
You’re the one being obtuse. Rail, when infrastructure costs are added in, is more expensive than an unrealistic airplane flight that does not have infrastructure added in. It would be interesting to add the air infrastructure, because that ten-mile flight would require airports so close to each other that they’d wipe out everything in between.
The strength of intra-city rail is that it encourages the kind of dense development that makes people have to travel shorter distances. CO2 burned per passenger mile is one thing; the number of miles that person travels per year is another.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
[...] type d’article donne cependant lieu à quelques réactions, mais elles compensent malheureusement rarement les dégâts déjà [...]