On short-haul flights

25 Jun 2008

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

I work in the touring music business, based in the U.K. but touring worldwide. I have noticed recently that the record companies are booking cheap flights for short distances, e.g., London-Manchester, about 200 miles. Over such short distances, there is no saving in time, due to travel to and from airport, checking in, etc. Trains would be quicker, but unfortunately in the U.K., trains are more expensive. I would like to speak with these companies about their continued use of flights where inappropriate but would like to be able to present facts and figures to bolster the argument. Can you help?

Helen G.
London, England

Dearest Helen,

Isn't there an opportunity for bands to recover the difference in ticket costs by busking in the train aisles? More seriously, I wonder if you could make economic arguments for train travel based on the expense of travel to and from airports. I leave the economics to you. Meanwhile, I found some lovely European transport emissions studies for you to pass around. Your clients will fall asleep reading them, and you can sneakily change the plane reservations while they catch a kip.

Rockin' in the rail world.

Compared to both regular old trains and high-speed rail -- compared to anything, really -- airplanes are a terrible way to travel. Planes are a hassle, with bad air, few views, cramped seats, and high greenhouse-gas emissions. For some travel, such as transoceanic or cross-American, planes are the only feasible option unless one has oodles of time. An average round-trip transatlantic flight will add three to four tons of carbon to each passenger's personal footprint, though, so consider carefully before flying.

Short-distance plane flights, such as Helen mentions, are considered worse than long-haul flights. Firstly, they are unnecessary, as other less-polluting transport modes exist that can cover the same distance. Secondly, the takeoff and landing of a flight expend the highest energy, burn the most fuel, and contribute the bulk of pollution. Short flights are largely takeoff and landing, so they are more polluting per passenger mile than medium and long-haul flights.

And much worse than all other forms of transport. The European Federation for Transport and Environment and Climate Action Network Europe find that no matter how you slice it, planes have an adverse climate impact two to ten times that of trains. Their study, "Clearing the Air: The Myth and Reality of Aviation and Climate Change," approaches each "planes aren't so bad" argument with refuting data. It's clearly written and worth looking over [PDF]. One interesting aspect of the study for Helen's purposes is the comparison, on page 9, of emissions from trains and planes (and cars and buses) per euro spent on an 800-kilometer journey. Planes are again much worse than all other vehicles.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Sometimes when one is arguing, though, one needs more solid numbers. "Clearing the Air" gives comparative numbers; if you need the original values and would care to calculate train/plane emissions numbers for specific travels, their source was "To Shift or Not to Shift" by CE Delft (look under Publications/2003). Both reports used a wide array of factors to attempt accurate averages. I think you wouldn't want to do all that math, even if it meant utter accuracy, so let's find some basic emissions factors for short flights and inter-city train, from the U.K. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

More email alerts | Privacy

For a passenger on national rail, multiply the kilometers traveled by 0.0602 and you'll have the kilograms of CO2 emitted. For a passenger on a domestic flight, multiply the kilometers traveled by 0.1580 and then again by a 109 percent "uplift factor" (allowing for travel along the curve of the Earth rather than in a straight line, and circling before landing). Keep in mind that these aviation numbers will not include radiative forcing, the additional high-altitude impact of airplane emissions, which might treble the results for planes. DEFRA doesn't include them, but you probably should (they argue that radiative forcing science is uncertain, which to my view means we should assume the worst) -- so multiply the plane result by three, a rounded up scientific estimate of radiative forcing factors.

There we have it. The basic argument: Planes are far worse than trains (and their role in climate change is currently a hot topic in Europe). Stun them with as many numbers as you please, and best of luck.

Radiatively,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (6 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Train to Washington state

Thanks, Umbra! My wife and I wanted to do the right thing this summer and booked a train from Saint Paul to Washington state rather than an airplane. I was fairly certain already that this would be much more energy efficient and less polluting, simply because that seemed to be a reasonable assumption, but I am very grateful for the numbers! Keep up the good work!

by JakobFabian01 at 8:08 PM on 25 Jun 2008

RFI

Climate scientists involved in aviation emissions are of the opinion that 3 is too high an RFI to apply. In fact they're of the opinion that the RFI shouldn't be used but as they haven't proposed a suitable alternative, it's the best we've got. The recently updated Defra carbon factors referenced in Umbra's reply contain the following on the matter:

"The emission factors refer to aviation's carbon dioxide emissions only. There is currently uncertainty over the non-CO2 climate change effects of aviation (including water vapour, contrails, Nox etc) which may indicatively be accounted for by applying a multiplier. The appropriate factor to apply is subject to
uncertainty but was estimated by the IPCC in 1999 to be in the range 2-4, with current best scientific evidence suggesting a factor of 1.9.
If used, this factor would be applied to the emissions factors set out here."

Even without the RFI, it's clear that travelling from London to Manchester (or indeed much of the UK, Brussels, Amsterdam or Paris) by plane is crazy.

by scatter at 1:39 AM on 26 Jun 2008

Transfers

The cost argument is probably the biggest hurdle because we all know most record companies are money-grabbing and eco-unfriendly.

If the train is indeed quicker and requires less in terms of transfers, then you need to factor the cost of time and the cost of transfers to make a true comparison.

And don't forget that for some people, 'less hassles' and 'no need to pack carefully' is priceless.

by witmol at 5:16 AM on 26 Jun 2008

Wimp Rock...

What kind of "rock band" takes a train or any form of mass transit?

Rock bands are supposed to buy the crappiest panel van that can hold their equipment, purchased for less than $100 until they make it. Once famous, they can buy their own private planes. Until, finally, they simply hole up in their mansions and don't go anywhere at all because they've built a $10 million basement studio so they can write songs about how terrible it is to be a rich rock star (cf. Pink Floyd's The Wall).

by jabailo at 4:47 PM on 26 Jun 2008

Make Trains Cheaper than Planes

A British climate change website called The Nag launched a campaign a month or two back asking people to send e-mails to the Transport Minister, Ruth Kelly and Alistair Darling to ask them to help make trains cheaper than planes.

So if any other Brits are out there that would like to see cheaper trains visit this page to send some letters to Mr. Darling and Ms. Kelly.

by lilac at 11:56 PM on 26 Jun 2008

The music industry's response

Julie's Bicycle is a UK based organisation finding ways to reduce the music industry's greenhouse gas emissions. Helen G will find lots of useful stats and ideas in 'First Step' - a report prepared by Julie's Bicycle which explores the annual GHG emissions from the UK music industry. Take a look at www.juliesbicycle.com and get involved!

by helenheathfield at 10:23 AM on 07 Jul 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Unnecessary Evil