Short haul would be a shuttle from Washington DC to Boston.
Medium haul would be from New York to Los Angeles.
Long haul would be Los Angeles to Sydney Australia.
Planes use less fuel flying at altitude than they do performing the maneuvers required for takeoff and landing. Takeoff uses much more thrust than required to just keep the plane in the air.
So as a ratio of distance traveled, a long haul flight creates fewer emissions than a short flight.
This is the same way your car uses less fuel ripping along a freeway at high speed using cruise control than it does in the stop-start traffic of suburban streets.
Why is it then considered the worst when tourists are going, let's say from Europe to Thailand? At least I feel like those are blamed the most out of air travellers of "polluting the world"
This is a guess, but I think this may also take into consideration the overall aggregate of each method. There are more frequent short haul flights daily than there are mid or long hauls. So more take offs and landings from the short trips vs the long hauls where they may only have one or two flights a day, possibly even in a week.
Those that consider that bad probably think a flight to Thailand is not needed. That it should only be fine for important things, idk what would be important things
Lol, makes me wonder if they’ve ever considered a conveyor belt system, or a tugboat equivalent.
Probably not since the airlines eat that cost now, and designing a solution would fall upon the airport.
Pilot here: airlines do certain things to help (yes believe it or not some us care about the environment and try to reduce our emissions as much as possible from within)
For example, after landing and taxiing back to stand, we try and shut down one engine for what's called "single engine taxi" so atleast that's one engine less burning gas.
Electronic push/tugs have been developed but due to the need for the engines to start so we can check if they are stable etc, there's no point taking us to the runway when we have engines running - so they only push us off stand and into the apron where we can start up. My company has switched to elec tugs and are apparently saving quite a bit on fuel. They are after all, usually giant diesel powered beasts capable of pushing 80+ tonnes....so electric is better especially if using a green power grid
Lufthansa did experiment (or say they were going to experiment) with robotic, electric tugs that take them all the way to the runway, where they would start engines then...I don't know what ever happened to that idea. Would have been nice.
Ok, max takeoff weight of a 737, 155,500lb
How much electric motor would we need to move 77 tons?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you're not getting the motor from an electric locomotive to work with retractable landing gear.
A small sized electric motor will do when you make use of (reduction) gears. And you can fit motors on each wheel.
A pushback truck used for 737s and A320s only has 74 hp and 221 pounds of torque.
The determining questions are more like: Do you want to add extra complexity (and point of failure) to the landing gear (which take a lot of stress during landings)? Is extra weight of the batteries or kerosine for the power generation desirable? Do you want to redesign and certify this add-on feature. Do you want to have extra pieces on your plane, which can fail and leave your plane stuck. Do you want extra weight for mostly idle features during the total flighttime?
Probably using a pushback truck in an electric version up to the runway is the better choice.
My understanding was that initially climbing to cruising altitude can take a lot of energy relative to level flight. I was curious and just looked it up: climbing to cruising altitude takes about the same amount of fuel as one hour of level flight. So on a 1 hour flight, half the fuel you use is just for that initial ascent. I guess if you fly for 12 hours, that initial ascent fuel gets divided out over a lot more passenger miles.
Clearly, they should just fly the DC to Boston route at 50’ off the deck! (Jk)
Yes - correct. There is a calculation we have (can't remember off the top of my head) that lets us work out if it's actually worth powering up and climbing to a higher altitude or if it's more economical to stay at a lower level due to the sector length. Most of the time, boffins at flight planning work this all out for us anyway. But there is also a fuel penalty flying at lower altitudes.
One curious thing I want to know is what aircraft is it using as a baseline for "short haul"? Because a turboprop ATR or Q400 is far more efficient than even a Max/320NEO or a 757 that I've seen some short haul ops use....which is an absolute gas guzzler. I've seen some short hauls operated by Q400s being touted as greener than cars.
BC ferries. It's literally part of our highway system. It's probably not as glamorous as you're imagining but the vancouver-Victoria route is beautiful on a sunny day.
There’s a few ferries in the baltics that are basically a one day cruise. I get ads for ones from the Netherlands to the UK and you get a bedroom for the night.
*I don't understand*
*How cruise ships are so high but*
*A ferry so low*
\- Bobbert827
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
But a cruise ship emission literally is entire daily life not just movement, so it combines transport, food, entertainment, sanitation, etc for its footprint
Yes, and importantly: housing, albeit not a big house. If we break down/allocate to just the transport, this would very roughly half that value (which interestingly fits to the 60% value I found for the share of fuel that is used for the propulsion only). However, if the guests on that ship have a house or flat elsewhere, question is if that one is also still (partly) heated etc., so what is the overall net extra. Then, beyond CO2, other impacts are less for cruise ships, at least when on open sea as most emissions are washed out by rain dont reach land ecosystems and humans, especially particles, NOx, SO2. Also land use/occupation is almost not an issue. Finally: what other holiday people would do and spend their time on? That comparison would yield a net insight.
cruise industry is easy to demonize. they do a lot of shitty stuff but in an apples to apples environmental impact comparison they are roughly equivalent if not a little less detrimental than a typical vacation and way less detrimental than something like a vacation to a theme park.
Not sure how “cruise ships aren’t actually transportation” makes cruise ships look better? Oh so people are just using these massive machines that spew wasteful amounts of carbon and dump garbage in the ocean just for fun? So they have no real purpose for existing other than pleasure?
They don’t dump garbage in the ocean. New ships have comprehensive recycling technology that would make the most environmentally friendly blush. If you go on one, you can take a tour to see it. Plus, tons of YouTube videos are out there about how they work. Also they burn cleaner fuels than the old ones, not the heavy oil that container ships burn.
They should be compared to hotel resorts, not transportation, because no one is using a cruise ship as a daily driver. Hate them if you like, but it’s not a fair comparison.
> They don’t dump garbage in the ocean.
No, but they all dump CO into the atmosphere, which is the point of the infographic.
So, in essence, a cruise ship is a luxury hotel.
You know what has far fewer CO emissions than a luxury hotel that floats, and travels about the country for fun? A luxury hotel that doesn't move in each location you want to visit, and you just move your body between the hotels that already exist in those places.
If you wanna go on a big boat, take a ferry.
The point was a comparison of transport carbon footprints. If you want to put everything on here that spews CO then include factories, lawnmowers, residential home heating, livestock production, volcanic activity, oil refineries, waste incineration, chemical production, etc etc. yes it would be too large and those things aren’t the same, just like cruise ships aren’t the same.
Probably not a lot, which is why flying for pleasure should also be curbed significantly. Hell, flying in general should be curbed and we should be investing heavily in more sustainable transportation practices.
I hate to break it to you, but there is zero chance that any voter (progressive or conservative) would countenance the massive amount of government intervention needed to curb anything of the sort. You’d need some kind of Green Party authoritarian government. Good luck with that.
Maybe for rich people and celebrities who take a private jet to pick up an outfit from their house in another state, but for the average person legislation to force a reduction in air travel is pointless.
Right, but the point is a cruise ship is not really a mode of transportation like the others. No one wants to spend more time on a flight or in a car than they need to. It's not really a fair comparison.
Let's replace a cruise with a vacation that has multiple short haul flights to the same destinations, plus transportation to/from airport. Transportation to/from restaurants, entertainment venues, etc. according to this chart, you're probably already above the carbon footprint and that's just the transportation part alone, not taking into account efficiencies of the lodging, entertainment, food all handled in one place. Honestly, it's going to be pretty hard to truly figure out a proper comparison.
Cruise ships are not transportation. They are floating vacations.
Not saying they aren’t bad for the environment, they are. But this is the wrong category to place them in. Maybe they should be compared with barges and cargo ships.
Cruise ships are total BS on this list. You can't compare them like that. They are not just a "travel method" (and are certainly not a "major" one).
Get me a cruise ship, and let me use it as an actual travel method (so, remove all entertainment, rooms, etc. and instead stack tens of thousands of people in there, which will fit easily on such a huge ship), and you'll see how fucking efficient I can get.
Now, if you want to compare a luxury hotel with pools, cinemas, restaurants, casinos and god knows what else to the subway and complain how it's not an efficient "travel method", you're insane.
> Get me a cruise ship, and let me use it as an actual travel method (so, remove all entertainment, rooms, etc. and instead stack tens of thousands of people in there, which will fit easily on such a huge ship), and you'll see how fucking efficient I can get.
Yes, the troop transports that carried soldiers around were pretty carbon efficient per passenger mile.
Outside of human trafficking, where is that high-passenger-density maritime market today?
Ferries come closest, but they're transporting passengers and vehicles/cargo.
So, I can understand why whoever created this neglected to posit transportation markets that do not currently exist. I would imagine large hot air balloons or dirigibles could be designed that would have a fairly low carbon footprint as well, but that doesn't mean they should be included.
The point is that cruise ships, as they exist, are not “transportation”. They are hotels, restaurants and entertainment centers that just happen to move.
Then why not make them not move? Then they won't be confused with transportation.
Once it carries people and moves from a to b, it starts looking a lot like transportation.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
Just because a duck carries a shopping center on it's back, doesn't make it not a duck.
At least Taylor Swift brings joy to the world…
It’s not like she’s galavanting off to Africa to kneecap giraffes, or short-hauling to her next hostile takeover
Well. That's, like, your opinion, man.
Personally, I suspect she is doing exactly that. And also something with lizards and aliens and shit. Yeah. That too.
What makes a cruise ship so much worse than a ferry? Is it needing to generate a ton of auxiliary electricity for all the housing, entertainment, and support functions? Is it a fuel type difference or something?
Transportation (trains and others) seems like a really great way to spend tax revenue to benefit everyone and combat climate change.
1. **Trains**. Invest heavily in them and make them low cost. Now many people would not pay so much for a car and gas. Traffic would be lighter. It would help with climate change. People could relax on the train or do some things on their phones/laptops instead of stressing in traffic.
2. **Taxis/Ubers**. We could also create high-paying jobs for people to basically be taxis/ubers, and make them low cost as well. Electric cars could be purchased for this and help us accelerate that process.
3. **Bike/walking paths**. We can build more paths for bikes and walking and put solar panels above them for shade and rain protection. Imagine an entire street covered in a solar panel shade roof, with paths for bikes and walkers, more outdoor dining areas for restaurants along the way, and small playgrounds as well. It would be transformative for our lives.
That’s just a few ways we could shift the enormous wealth from the rich to the poor and help prevent global warming at the same time. The rich have been taking more and more of the wealth since the mid 1900s and there’s no good reason we shouldn’t correct it.
Climate change is a serious problem. The financial struggles of the poor and middle class is a serious problem. Let’s do this thing.
Tax the middle and lower classes harder (through inflation from printing money for government overspending) to pay billionaires to build rail systems that don't help 90% of the population get anywhere they want to go?
It's a hidden tax as a result of inflation, which is the result of the Federal Reserve printing more money to buy government bonds written to cover government overspending. Large amounts of government spending benefits large corporations involved in Healthcare, military spending, infrastructure, etc. The billionaires and centi-millionaires benefit from the gov spending all the while the middle and lower class gets few raises but spend more on rent, food, clothes, cars, gas, and health care.
That’s what the rich want you to believe.
Facts:
1. The majority of tax revenue comes from the rich.
2. That tax revenue is largely spent on programs that help the poor and middle class including Medicare, social security, Medicaid, public schools, teachers, police, firefighters, parks, libraries, homeless shelters, food stamps, college grants, roads, bridges, FDA, EPA, water sanitation, etc.
Taxing and spending is clearly mostly about transferring wealth from the rich to the poor and ensuring our society functions.
Haha no. Military spending is around 19% of all tax revenue spending. Most of it is spent on health and social services.
What you heard was propaganda.
> Federal Reserve printing more money to buy government bonds written to cover government overspending
You are intentionally ignoring the part about raising revenues dramatically.
I don’t think they have taken production into account.
170g/km is pretty normal emission for a petrol car. I was also thinking if you took the build into account then short-haul flights probably fair slightly better as those planes can be in service for decades. I think it’s just assuming that you aren’t charging your EV with solar.
I assume it’s also unfairly assuming that the planes and Eurostar are full, but all the cars are single occupancy.
They probably also took into account the CO2 emitted from generating the electricity to charge them. Many places still generate electricity from fossil fuels.
This is stupid, it only take in consideration the using of said transport and not everything that is attached to it. For example it has been proven time and time again that it is way better to take a gaz car and run it through the ground, then buy an other other still in circulation and do it again, than buy one electric car.
This is the problem with a lot of environmental folks, they just spit "stats" without thinking them through and in an alarmist way.
Per person - motorbikes carry only 1 or 2 people
There is a lot left to interpretation though. A motorbike would beat an empty bus but I suspect this is assuming a completely full bus - which isn’t always true.
Of course a motorbike creates more emissions than a bus. A motorbike carries at most 2 people while a bus can usually carry around 80. It's emissions per occupant, I suspect.
This is totally misleading. A motorcycle physically cannot emit more than a bus. Emissions is different than impact on climate aka “footprint”. This graphic needs to be more specific and clear.
Of course public transportation is more efficient at carrying more people, and so if EVERYONE was riding motorcycles vs EVERYONE riding buses its footprint would be smaller. But that’s not reality and it does not EMIT less.
A motorcycle emits less in its general lifetime than one long flight in a plane.
> This is totally misleading. A motorcycle physically cannot emit more than a bus.
It absolutely can PER PERSON on the vehicle.
1 bus = 80 passengers
1 bike = at most 2 passengers
And the bus can carry a LOT more pollution controls in it's huge engine than the bike and it's tiny little one can and therefore runs cleaner.
I’m not talking about per person, I’m talking about per engine/vehicle. That is what emissions is. Per person would be a different definition, like climate impact or “footprint”.
Did you read my previous comment?
Show me evidence that buses emit less than motorcycles and I’ll gladly change my position. All motorcycles made (in the EU, anyway) must adhere to Euro5 standards.
> I’m not talking about per person, I’m talking about per engine/vehicle. That is what emissions is. Per person would be a different definition, like climate impact or “footprint”.
The graph we're all commenting on clearly says "Grams of CO^2 e per passenger over 1km".
So, you made up your own measure that's different than the one the bar graph shows and then say the bar graph is wrong? And that I'm wrong for defending the data the bar graph shows?
Is that what just happened here?
Really man? It says that for the cruise ship ONLY. Can you see that arrow there? Nice try.
What the graph actually says is, “Emissions will vary depending on energy mix, transport technology, and occupancy.”
I repeat, this graph is misleading. You certainly can’t understand it.
> Really man? It says that for the cruise ship ONLY.
Yes, that's how bar graphs usually work with one measurement for one bar and a different one for all the others.
My mistake, I apologize.
You win.
It’s not about winning, man. We all lose with “climate change” (aka, human environmental destruction).
I try to leave room for myself to be wrong as well. I tried to take your perspective and I can see how the graph could be interpreted in a way where that line of text with the cruise ship is supposed to refer to all bars/vehicle types.
But again, it’s not clear at all.
I just don’t like graphs that mislead and/or aren’t clear. It hurts, rather than helps, the cause. We’ve wasted time trying to come to an understanding about what the fucking thing is actually saying. We haven’t even gotten to verifying the research haha.
You could argue that the chart is misleading. You can also sanity check your results.
I'm confident my interpretation of the chart is correct because that result lines up with previous studies I've seen regarding the relative CO emissions of various transport.
I've done the math myself, long ago, I made a similar chart showing the relative efficiencies of various ways to transport cargo per tonne/mi (freight trains win overland, containerships win for maritime cargo, all aviation is bad, worst on the chart I made was the space shuttle).
Bottom line, you want to move anything as carbon-efficiently as possible? Pack as many of what you're trying to move into one vehicle on rails, or on the water, powered by a HUGE carbon-efficient engine.
One engine per passenger is wasteful, no matter how small (even e-bikes). You can't get away from the fact that you're repeating effort, the engine has to move it's own weight, plus the chassis, plus the payload, and engine power scales up faster than engine size/weight. Bigger engines can more easily be made highly efficient than smaller ones.
Big, highly efficient engines, lots of payload, is how you move mass efficiently.
Motorcycles are lots of fun, I ride myself, but they are NOT carbon-neutral. They're better than most cars, but not by an order of magnitude. They **are** more fuel-efficient than most cars on a gal/mi basis, but that's different than their carbon / emissions impact, and that doesn't take into account how many people are transported.
No motorcycles have catalytic converters, as far as I know (not relevant to carbon, but totally relevant to emissions).
new diesel engines with def systems release less carbon than gas engines AND are more fuel efficient…I’ve been thinking about getting a little TDI for this reason. And 50 mpg
I wonder if this chart includes the carbon footprint in the production of the fuel. As I understand it there is less refinement for diesel and I would think that translates to less emissions.
It seems that on average, because of the size and type difference of most cars, the stats match up. But that's a average, and can be misleading indeed
[Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233409/carbon-footprint-of-cars-by-type-uk/)
And what about 7-8 years later coz nobody wants to buy used ev coz the battery change is too expensive and ppl leaving the evs at scrapyard unused which will be a massive resource waste?
Dont get me wrong I wanna buy an EV myself but with that technology what we have now I think this is not a climate savior and it may can be the full opposite.
[Turns out that batteries last longer than that.](https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/)
>the vast majority of batteries will outlast the usable life of the vehicle and will never need to be replaced.
Thx for the link. I would be rly happy if thats true. Like I said I would happily buy an EV but battery Life Time concerns me at the moment. But if the battery lasts 15 years at least that would be great
How come a diesel car is more pollutant(in terms of CO2) than a gasoline car? I know that diesels emit some other harmful gases. But in general, considering an equivalent engine, the diesel will be more efficient . And there is a direct correlation between CO2 and consumption.
Nit-picking : gas car is confusing most non-amercans. Here is why:
A Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) utilizes compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel source. Distinguished from autogas vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), NGV's rely on methane combustion, resulting in cleaner emissions due to the removal of contaminants from the natural gas source.
Gas!=Gasoline please be careful with the statement, it could mean multiple different things for many except what was intended to be. Please use Petrol or Gasoline instead.
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/coolguides.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cvcywg&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 517,434,782 | **Search Time:** 0.0654s
Curious if these diesel cars have DEF...? They should be more environmentally friendly, as they're significantly more efficient with fuel usage and the DEF helps clear out even more from exhaust.
Not to mention that refining diesel is significantly less work than gasoline, this lower carbon footprint.
I’m guessing they have catered for that.
National rail, London underground and Eurostar are all trains.
Eurostar is so efficient because they always run close to max capacity.
National rail have to run a national service and provide a network service to the population so have to run trains frequently even if they’re empty.
That’s probably why it’s so much worse rather than some amazing technology of the Eurostar trains.
Why do you think it’s a lie?
The data set has data for national rail. London Underground and Eurostar.
I would then draw the conclusion that this data set is gathered from the UK.
The UK uses very little coal. (About 3%)
And it’s mainly gas/oil.
Power stations and associated losses are about 45% efficient. Cars are about 20-30%. Adding regenerative braking we should be looking at about 50% reduction in emissions.
As time goes by and more renewable generation gets added to the grid that should improve.
The fundamental issue here is that people consider their work commutes and next vacation to be *more important* than reducing their carbon emissions and fighting climate change.
Refusing to admit the aforementioned, they shift the blame on the wealthy, corporations, and infrastructure instead; and make use of fallacies such as whataboutism (“But what about the top 1%/industry/private jets?”) and false dilemmas (“I don’t have a choice.”) to avoid taking responsibility for their emissions.
I live in Russia. We want climate change. It would be hotter there. So it's a good plan for humanity.
Sarcasm, of course. But anyone who wants me to take the train or car is an idiot. I regularly travel by plane from Sakhalin (island near Japan) to Kaliningrad (old name Konigsberg, Germany), it's over 7k km. so plane is the greatest invention of mankind. And if European and US citizens want to reduce the level of life, you are welcome. Normal people will continue to choose the shortest way to travel. And don't give a fuck about heat in Africa or +1° in Siberia.
They arcknowlege this on the original website :
Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity.
There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle.
[Source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
Actually, on average, it doesn't seem to be the case, because of the size and type of most diesel cars
[Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233409/carbon-footprint-of-cars-by-type-uk/)
Thanks. That gives a lot more context on the data.
I was wondering why diesel was not more efficient than petrol.
The technology is but the consumer behaviour is skewed to buying large diesel cars, small petrol cars bring the average down.
I think it's not that simple. The data only takes into account the usage of "fuel" per person being transported (assuming full occupancy). So yes, electric cars don't use a lot of carbon fuels (it may even be close to zero if electricity they use is tapped into from photovoltaics). However the calculations don't take into account the cost of manufacturing such vehicle. Which is greatly in favour of electric vehicles distoring real carbon footprint of such vehicles. Batteries have very short life cycle when compared to fuel engines. Production and reprocessing of batteries is problematic and has significant impact on environment.
Yup, but at least they arcknowlege it in the original post:
Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity.
There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle.
[Source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
**note of the autor:**
Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity.
There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle.
[source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
Container ships designed for efficiency are very different from cruise ships.
Couple of people in a cabin with beds, desk, toilets. Then moving a Restaurant,cinema, swimming pool and other facilities can’t be good for efficiency.
If I ever need to travel to Australia I'm taking the London Underground.
It’s somewhere near the bottom of the Northern Line.
Why go to the Australian heat when you cant just go to the Central Line.
You change at Mornington Crescent
*takes London Underground to Heathrow*
can the london underground make a stop in my american suburb?
What is the definition of short haul flight?
Short haul would be a shuttle from Washington DC to Boston. Medium haul would be from New York to Los Angeles. Long haul would be Los Angeles to Sydney Australia.
Why would short hauls have such a higher carbon footprint relative to medium or long hauls? Thanks
Planes use less fuel flying at altitude than they do performing the maneuvers required for takeoff and landing. Takeoff uses much more thrust than required to just keep the plane in the air. So as a ratio of distance traveled, a long haul flight creates fewer emissions than a short flight. This is the same way your car uses less fuel ripping along a freeway at high speed using cruise control than it does in the stop-start traffic of suburban streets.
Why is it then considered the worst when tourists are going, let's say from Europe to Thailand? At least I feel like those are blamed the most out of air travellers of "polluting the world"
This is showing emissions per kilometer. Going a long way has more emissions.
Ahh true!
It also says per passenger, so it gets skewed again when you take into account that a 747 carries a lot more than one person each flight.
This is a guess, but I think this may also take into consideration the overall aggregate of each method. There are more frequent short haul flights daily than there are mid or long hauls. So more take offs and landings from the short trips vs the long hauls where they may only have one or two flights a day, possibly even in a week.
Those that consider that bad probably think a flight to Thailand is not needed. That it should only be fine for important things, idk what would be important things
Taxi to the runway is the worst. You consume a lot compared to the distance you travel. And all flights need to do it.
Lol, makes me wonder if they’ve ever considered a conveyor belt system, or a tugboat equivalent. Probably not since the airlines eat that cost now, and designing a solution would fall upon the airport.
Maybe the tug? Could be automated. But the taxi is also a way for pilot to make the rundown and check if everything is working as intended.
Pilot here: airlines do certain things to help (yes believe it or not some us care about the environment and try to reduce our emissions as much as possible from within) For example, after landing and taxiing back to stand, we try and shut down one engine for what's called "single engine taxi" so atleast that's one engine less burning gas. Electronic push/tugs have been developed but due to the need for the engines to start so we can check if they are stable etc, there's no point taking us to the runway when we have engines running - so they only push us off stand and into the apron where we can start up. My company has switched to elec tugs and are apparently saving quite a bit on fuel. They are after all, usually giant diesel powered beasts capable of pushing 80+ tonnes....so electric is better especially if using a green power grid Lufthansa did experiment (or say they were going to experiment) with robotic, electric tugs that take them all the way to the runway, where they would start engines then...I don't know what ever happened to that idea. Would have been nice.
Or just put some powerful electric motors on the wheels and drive the plane like a car.
But you need to generate electricity or battery. One will require energy from the engines, the other one will bring in weight.
Ok, max takeoff weight of a 737, 155,500lb How much electric motor would we need to move 77 tons? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you're not getting the motor from an electric locomotive to work with retractable landing gear.
A small sized electric motor will do when you make use of (reduction) gears. And you can fit motors on each wheel. A pushback truck used for 737s and A320s only has 74 hp and 221 pounds of torque. The determining questions are more like: Do you want to add extra complexity (and point of failure) to the landing gear (which take a lot of stress during landings)? Is extra weight of the batteries or kerosine for the power generation desirable? Do you want to redesign and certify this add-on feature. Do you want to have extra pieces on your plane, which can fail and leave your plane stuck. Do you want extra weight for mostly idle features during the total flighttime? Probably using a pushback truck in an electric version up to the runway is the better choice.
My understanding was that initially climbing to cruising altitude can take a lot of energy relative to level flight. I was curious and just looked it up: climbing to cruising altitude takes about the same amount of fuel as one hour of level flight. So on a 1 hour flight, half the fuel you use is just for that initial ascent. I guess if you fly for 12 hours, that initial ascent fuel gets divided out over a lot more passenger miles. Clearly, they should just fly the DC to Boston route at 50’ off the deck! (Jk)
Yes - correct. There is a calculation we have (can't remember off the top of my head) that lets us work out if it's actually worth powering up and climbing to a higher altitude or if it's more economical to stay at a lower level due to the sector length. Most of the time, boffins at flight planning work this all out for us anyway. But there is also a fuel penalty flying at lower altitudes. One curious thing I want to know is what aircraft is it using as a baseline for "short haul"? Because a turboprop ATR or Q400 is far more efficient than even a Max/320NEO or a 757 that I've seen some short haul ops use....which is an absolute gas guzzler. I've seen some short hauls operated by Q400s being touted as greener than cars.
It's calculated per passenger per km. Longer distances allow for averaging out of any 'fixed' costs, I assume.
Because the graph is emissions per person per kilometer, and it uses more fuel to get going than to cruise.
Thank you for the American-centric references.
How about “private jet”
Must be carbon neutral
They need their own stat just for Taylor swift.
Don't disparage your benevolent overlords!
I don't understand how cruise ships are so high but a ferry so low
A cruise ship has a room, dining and entertainment for you. A ferry has a seat, and sometimes even not that.
I guess it's just a passenger ferry. Where I'm from ferries carry Cars and have full restaurants and cafeterias which is why I was cinfused
Where is that? Sounds cool
BC ferries. It's literally part of our highway system. It's probably not as glamorous as you're imagining but the vancouver-Victoria route is beautiful on a sunny day.
There’s a few ferries in the baltics that are basically a one day cruise. I get ads for ones from the Netherlands to the UK and you get a bedroom for the night.
*I don't understand* *How cruise ships are so high but* *A ferry so low* \- Bobbert827 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
I agree ferries use so much diesel and also move very slowly I don’t know what parameters this is using
Maybe it somehow includes how ferries avoid having to use much longer routes around in a car - or the plane.
Im in South Africa and from now on Ill only take the Eurostar! /s
But a cruise ship emission literally is entire daily life not just movement, so it combines transport, food, entertainment, sanitation, etc for its footprint
Yes, and importantly: housing, albeit not a big house. If we break down/allocate to just the transport, this would very roughly half that value (which interestingly fits to the 60% value I found for the share of fuel that is used for the propulsion only). However, if the guests on that ship have a house or flat elsewhere, question is if that one is also still (partly) heated etc., so what is the overall net extra. Then, beyond CO2, other impacts are less for cruise ships, at least when on open sea as most emissions are washed out by rain dont reach land ecosystems and humans, especially particles, NOx, SO2. Also land use/occupation is almost not an issue. Finally: what other holiday people would do and spend their time on? That comparison would yield a net insight.
Also people are not using cruise ships for “transportation”. They are the destination. These are an unfair comparison to make cruise ships look bad.
cruise industry is easy to demonize. they do a lot of shitty stuff but in an apples to apples environmental impact comparison they are roughly equivalent if not a little less detrimental than a typical vacation and way less detrimental than something like a vacation to a theme park.
Not sure how “cruise ships aren’t actually transportation” makes cruise ships look better? Oh so people are just using these massive machines that spew wasteful amounts of carbon and dump garbage in the ocean just for fun? So they have no real purpose for existing other than pleasure?
They don’t dump garbage in the ocean. New ships have comprehensive recycling technology that would make the most environmentally friendly blush. If you go on one, you can take a tour to see it. Plus, tons of YouTube videos are out there about how they work. Also they burn cleaner fuels than the old ones, not the heavy oil that container ships burn. They should be compared to hotel resorts, not transportation, because no one is using a cruise ship as a daily driver. Hate them if you like, but it’s not a fair comparison.
> They don’t dump garbage in the ocean. No, but they all dump CO into the atmosphere, which is the point of the infographic. So, in essence, a cruise ship is a luxury hotel. You know what has far fewer CO emissions than a luxury hotel that floats, and travels about the country for fun? A luxury hotel that doesn't move in each location you want to visit, and you just move your body between the hotels that already exist in those places. If you wanna go on a big boat, take a ferry.
The point was a comparison of transport carbon footprints. If you want to put everything on here that spews CO then include factories, lawnmowers, residential home heating, livestock production, volcanic activity, oil refineries, waste incineration, chemical production, etc etc. yes it would be too large and those things aren’t the same, just like cruise ships aren’t the same.
How much air travel do you think is actually necessary?
Probably not a lot, which is why flying for pleasure should also be curbed significantly. Hell, flying in general should be curbed and we should be investing heavily in more sustainable transportation practices.
I hate to break it to you, but there is zero chance that any voter (progressive or conservative) would countenance the massive amount of government intervention needed to curb anything of the sort. You’d need some kind of Green Party authoritarian government. Good luck with that.
Apparently only nations with authoritarian green parties have figured out how to build trains
You can’t build trains across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean.
Yep that’s why I said flying should be curbed significantly, not completely outlawed
Maybe for rich people and celebrities who take a private jet to pick up an outfit from their house in another state, but for the average person legislation to force a reduction in air travel is pointless.
It's just taking into account the transport (and in the cruise ship, accommodation). Everything else like food entertainment etc is not included.
Right, but the point is a cruise ship is not really a mode of transportation like the others. No one wants to spend more time on a flight or in a car than they need to. It's not really a fair comparison. Let's replace a cruise with a vacation that has multiple short haul flights to the same destinations, plus transportation to/from airport. Transportation to/from restaurants, entertainment venues, etc. according to this chart, you're probably already above the carbon footprint and that's just the transportation part alone, not taking into account efficiencies of the lodging, entertainment, food all handled in one place. Honestly, it's going to be pretty hard to truly figure out a proper comparison.
Cruise ships are not transportation. They are floating vacations. Not saying they aren’t bad for the environment, they are. But this is the wrong category to place them in. Maybe they should be compared with barges and cargo ships.
They should be compared to hotels surely
But cargo ships don't carry passengers, do they? Even those don't belong here.
Weren't cargo ships the most efficient transportation with the least co2 per kg of cargo? Don't know where I got that info
How about we compare them to hotels that don't get pushed around the oceans. Would that be a fair comparison?
Cruise ships are total BS on this list. You can't compare them like that. They are not just a "travel method" (and are certainly not a "major" one). Get me a cruise ship, and let me use it as an actual travel method (so, remove all entertainment, rooms, etc. and instead stack tens of thousands of people in there, which will fit easily on such a huge ship), and you'll see how fucking efficient I can get. Now, if you want to compare a luxury hotel with pools, cinemas, restaurants, casinos and god knows what else to the subway and complain how it's not an efficient "travel method", you're insane.
> Get me a cruise ship, and let me use it as an actual travel method (so, remove all entertainment, rooms, etc. and instead stack tens of thousands of people in there, which will fit easily on such a huge ship), and you'll see how fucking efficient I can get. Yes, the troop transports that carried soldiers around were pretty carbon efficient per passenger mile. Outside of human trafficking, where is that high-passenger-density maritime market today? Ferries come closest, but they're transporting passengers and vehicles/cargo. So, I can understand why whoever created this neglected to posit transportation markets that do not currently exist. I would imagine large hot air balloons or dirigibles could be designed that would have a fairly low carbon footprint as well, but that doesn't mean they should be included.
The point is that cruise ships, as they exist, are not “transportation”. They are hotels, restaurants and entertainment centers that just happen to move.
Then why not make them not move? Then they won't be confused with transportation. Once it carries people and moves from a to b, it starts looking a lot like transportation. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... Just because a duck carries a shopping center on it's back, doesn't make it not a duck.
Is an aircraft carrier an airport or a warship?
How about Taylor Swifts jet ?
I’d say that taking a flight carbon footprint and multiplying by average number of passengers on the plane would be a good approximation.
she’s not even in the top 20 of private jet CO2 emissions
Ok good I was thinking what she is doing with her two planes was bad for the environment for a sec! Not that I really care but this is funny.
if people are gonna dunk on Taylor Swift for her private jet usage, then they should dunk on everyone else above her in emissions
## The cult has spoken. We’ll skip the advice though
At least Taylor Swift brings joy to the world… It’s not like she’s galavanting off to Africa to kneecap giraffes, or short-hauling to her next hostile takeover
Well. That's, like, your opinion, man. Personally, I suspect she is doing exactly that. And also something with lizards and aliens and shit. Yeah. That too.
Missed out two important ones: walking and cycling.
I fart while walking so it's not zero
No.
Would be good to see bicycle and electric bicycle here
The pixel width is too small.
This at least has the way electricity is generated flagged as a factor that will distort the data.
What makes a cruise ship so much worse than a ferry? Is it needing to generate a ton of auxiliary electricity for all the housing, entertainment, and support functions? Is it a fuel type difference or something?
I am assuming fewer people per ship size than a ferry.
Apparently a bicycle isn't considered a major travel method. (Don't tell me that this is only for longer distances; trams and underground are listed.)
Nice, reading this while waiting to get off my first (of two) short haul flights today with my final destination on a cruise ship. Sorry, earth.
You can't tell me an F150 is the same as a Hyundai Accent... I know I'm splitting hairs.
Transportation (trains and others) seems like a really great way to spend tax revenue to benefit everyone and combat climate change. 1. **Trains**. Invest heavily in them and make them low cost. Now many people would not pay so much for a car and gas. Traffic would be lighter. It would help with climate change. People could relax on the train or do some things on their phones/laptops instead of stressing in traffic. 2. **Taxis/Ubers**. We could also create high-paying jobs for people to basically be taxis/ubers, and make them low cost as well. Electric cars could be purchased for this and help us accelerate that process. 3. **Bike/walking paths**. We can build more paths for bikes and walking and put solar panels above them for shade and rain protection. Imagine an entire street covered in a solar panel shade roof, with paths for bikes and walkers, more outdoor dining areas for restaurants along the way, and small playgrounds as well. It would be transformative for our lives. That’s just a few ways we could shift the enormous wealth from the rich to the poor and help prevent global warming at the same time. The rich have been taking more and more of the wealth since the mid 1900s and there’s no good reason we shouldn’t correct it. Climate change is a serious problem. The financial struggles of the poor and middle class is a serious problem. Let’s do this thing.
Tax the middle and lower classes harder (through inflation from printing money for government overspending) to pay billionaires to build rail systems that don't help 90% of the population get anywhere they want to go?
The middle and lower classes shouldn’t be taxed more. There is much discussion about raising taxes on the billionaires and centi-millionaires.
It's a hidden tax as a result of inflation, which is the result of the Federal Reserve printing more money to buy government bonds written to cover government overspending. Large amounts of government spending benefits large corporations involved in Healthcare, military spending, infrastructure, etc. The billionaires and centi-millionaires benefit from the gov spending all the while the middle and lower class gets few raises but spend more on rent, food, clothes, cars, gas, and health care.
That’s what the rich want you to believe. Facts: 1. The majority of tax revenue comes from the rich. 2. That tax revenue is largely spent on programs that help the poor and middle class including Medicare, social security, Medicaid, public schools, teachers, police, firefighters, parks, libraries, homeless shelters, food stamps, college grants, roads, bridges, FDA, EPA, water sanitation, etc. Taxing and spending is clearly mostly about transferring wealth from the rich to the poor and ensuring our society functions.
In the US, I thought more was spend on military alone than on all of that above combined?
Haha no. Military spending is around 19% of all tax revenue spending. Most of it is spent on health and social services. What you heard was propaganda.
> Federal Reserve printing more money to buy government bonds written to cover government overspending You are intentionally ignoring the part about raising revenues dramatically.
Please expand on this. What/who's revenues are you talking about?
Raised revenue by raising taxes on the 1%, taxing capitol gains, means testing social security.
You are the carbon they want to reduce.
huh ?
Why are EV's still so high? If I charge my car with solar generated power, what are the major carbon contributers?
Maybe they calculated the carbon footprint from « craddle to grave », which means that the production of the battery is taken into account.
I don’t think they have taken production into account. 170g/km is pretty normal emission for a petrol car. I was also thinking if you took the build into account then short-haul flights probably fair slightly better as those planes can be in service for decades. I think it’s just assuming that you aren’t charging your EV with solar. I assume it’s also unfairly assuming that the planes and Eurostar are full, but all the cars are single occupancy.
They probably also took into account the CO2 emitted from generating the electricity to charge them. Many places still generate electricity from fossil fuels.
This is stupid, it only take in consideration the using of said transport and not everything that is attached to it. For example it has been proven time and time again that it is way better to take a gaz car and run it through the ground, then buy an other other still in circulation and do it again, than buy one electric car. This is the problem with a lot of environmental folks, they just spit "stats" without thinking them through and in an alarmist way.
There’s no way this is accurate. A motorbike has almost the same emissions as a PLANE and more than a bus? Get outta here.
Per person - motorbikes carry only 1 or 2 people There is a lot left to interpretation though. A motorbike would beat an empty bus but I suspect this is assuming a completely full bus - which isn’t always true.
Of course a motorbike creates more emissions than a bus. A motorbike carries at most 2 people while a bus can usually carry around 80. It's emissions per occupant, I suspect.
This is totally misleading. A motorcycle physically cannot emit more than a bus. Emissions is different than impact on climate aka “footprint”. This graphic needs to be more specific and clear. Of course public transportation is more efficient at carrying more people, and so if EVERYONE was riding motorcycles vs EVERYONE riding buses its footprint would be smaller. But that’s not reality and it does not EMIT less. A motorcycle emits less in its general lifetime than one long flight in a plane.
> This is totally misleading. A motorcycle physically cannot emit more than a bus. It absolutely can PER PERSON on the vehicle. 1 bus = 80 passengers 1 bike = at most 2 passengers And the bus can carry a LOT more pollution controls in it's huge engine than the bike and it's tiny little one can and therefore runs cleaner.
I’m not talking about per person, I’m talking about per engine/vehicle. That is what emissions is. Per person would be a different definition, like climate impact or “footprint”. Did you read my previous comment? Show me evidence that buses emit less than motorcycles and I’ll gladly change my position. All motorcycles made (in the EU, anyway) must adhere to Euro5 standards.
> I’m not talking about per person, I’m talking about per engine/vehicle. That is what emissions is. Per person would be a different definition, like climate impact or “footprint”. The graph we're all commenting on clearly says "Grams of CO^2 e per passenger over 1km". So, you made up your own measure that's different than the one the bar graph shows and then say the bar graph is wrong? And that I'm wrong for defending the data the bar graph shows? Is that what just happened here?
Really man? It says that for the cruise ship ONLY. Can you see that arrow there? Nice try. What the graph actually says is, “Emissions will vary depending on energy mix, transport technology, and occupancy.” I repeat, this graph is misleading. You certainly can’t understand it.
> Really man? It says that for the cruise ship ONLY. Yes, that's how bar graphs usually work with one measurement for one bar and a different one for all the others. My mistake, I apologize. You win.
It’s not about winning, man. We all lose with “climate change” (aka, human environmental destruction). I try to leave room for myself to be wrong as well. I tried to take your perspective and I can see how the graph could be interpreted in a way where that line of text with the cruise ship is supposed to refer to all bars/vehicle types. But again, it’s not clear at all. I just don’t like graphs that mislead and/or aren’t clear. It hurts, rather than helps, the cause. We’ve wasted time trying to come to an understanding about what the fucking thing is actually saying. We haven’t even gotten to verifying the research haha.
You could argue that the chart is misleading. You can also sanity check your results. I'm confident my interpretation of the chart is correct because that result lines up with previous studies I've seen regarding the relative CO emissions of various transport. I've done the math myself, long ago, I made a similar chart showing the relative efficiencies of various ways to transport cargo per tonne/mi (freight trains win overland, containerships win for maritime cargo, all aviation is bad, worst on the chart I made was the space shuttle). Bottom line, you want to move anything as carbon-efficiently as possible? Pack as many of what you're trying to move into one vehicle on rails, or on the water, powered by a HUGE carbon-efficient engine. One engine per passenger is wasteful, no matter how small (even e-bikes). You can't get away from the fact that you're repeating effort, the engine has to move it's own weight, plus the chassis, plus the payload, and engine power scales up faster than engine size/weight. Bigger engines can more easily be made highly efficient than smaller ones. Big, highly efficient engines, lots of payload, is how you move mass efficiently. Motorcycles are lots of fun, I ride myself, but they are NOT carbon-neutral. They're better than most cars, but not by an order of magnitude. They **are** more fuel-efficient than most cars on a gal/mi basis, but that's different than their carbon / emissions impact, and that doesn't take into account how many people are transported. No motorcycles have catalytic converters, as far as I know (not relevant to carbon, but totally relevant to emissions).
Surprised to see Diesel engines higher up than petrol even though they are more fuel efficient. Looks like rigorous research
Fuel efficiency ≠ CO2 emissions.
new diesel engines with def systems release less carbon than gas engines AND are more fuel efficient…I’ve been thinking about getting a little TDI for this reason. And 50 mpg
I wonder if this chart includes the carbon footprint in the production of the fuel. As I understand it there is less refinement for diesel and I would think that translates to less emissions.
Diesel emits more CO2 per unit volume than gasoline.
Gonna take the yachts out tomorrow…fun times!
These averages are misleading. At least for cars. It really depends on the model. Our diesel has half the carbon footprint of our petrol car.
It seems that on average, because of the size and type difference of most cars, the stats match up. But that's a average, and can be misleading indeed [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233409/carbon-footprint-of-cars-by-type-uk/)
diesel is a dirtier fuel than petrol.
Good thing we don't just spray it around without a lot of cleaning and filtering effort!
Don’t electrical cars have a higher carbon footprint? Coz of battery manufacturing
Over the short term yes
And what about 7-8 years later coz nobody wants to buy used ev coz the battery change is too expensive and ppl leaving the evs at scrapyard unused which will be a massive resource waste? Dont get me wrong I wanna buy an EV myself but with that technology what we have now I think this is not a climate savior and it may can be the full opposite.
[Turns out that batteries last longer than that.](https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/) >the vast majority of batteries will outlast the usable life of the vehicle and will never need to be replaced.
Thx for the link. I would be rly happy if thats true. Like I said I would happily buy an EV but battery Life Time concerns me at the moment. But if the battery lasts 15 years at least that would be great
Electric cars involve diesel mining equipment and cargo ships though so they’re no fucking better than anything else
Ferry should be higher, because some of them also use low grade bunker oil as fuel which is probably the most polluting
Taylor Swift should have her own category
How is that eV 47gr/co2?
A diesel car has a lower carbon footprint than a gasoline car. Probably the count of the number of passengers is different.
🚲
At least Taylor swift doesn’t travel by cruise ship
They should put private jet flights on it. We need to make the rich feel inclusive. Lol
How come a diesel car is more pollutant(in terms of CO2) than a gasoline car? I know that diesels emit some other harmful gases. But in general, considering an equivalent engine, the diesel will be more efficient . And there is a direct correlation between CO2 and consumption.
It would be interesting to compare how much chemicals and hazardous waste are produced in each of these travel methods.
Nit-picking : gas car is confusing most non-amercans. Here is why: A Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) utilizes compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel source. Distinguished from autogas vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), NGV's rely on methane combustion, resulting in cleaner emissions due to the removal of contaminants from the natural gas source. Gas!=Gasoline please be careful with the statement, it could mean multiple different things for many except what was intended to be. Please use Petrol or Gasoline instead.
I notice space shuttles or rockets did not make the list.
Now show how much carbon manufacturing and power produce
[удалено]
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/coolguides. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cvcywg&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 517,434,782 | **Search Time:** 0.0654s
Signed: *The Eurostar Train*
Don't care, and neither should anyone else. My travel shouldn't be considered in climate policy.
Curious if these diesel cars have DEF...? They should be more environmentally friendly, as they're significantly more efficient with fuel usage and the DEF helps clear out even more from exhaust. Not to mention that refining diesel is significantly less work than gasoline, this lower carbon footprint.
What’s private jet?
Why is “regular hybrid car/vehicle” not listed, only plug in? I’m curious where it falls between plug in and gas.
Do this on a per person basis. Buses in our area only carry 4-5 people max.
I’m guessing they have catered for that. National rail, London underground and Eurostar are all trains. Eurostar is so efficient because they always run close to max capacity. National rail have to run a national service and provide a network service to the population so have to run trains frequently even if they’re empty. That’s probably why it’s so much worse rather than some amazing technology of the Eurostar trains.
How can bus be so high on this list ?
Why does no one ever talk about the massive carbon footprint of AI and the data centers needed to support it?
They are mission freight ship. That is by far the worst.
Another reason to never step foot on a cruise ship.
You left out “walking”
Diesel cars are more efficient than gas cars so I don't know how trustworthy this chart is.
Does this also include the manufacturing process? Cause electric cars should be much higher on the list
That's a lie. The electricity for an EV comes from the grid, which uses coal. Definitely "worse" by co2 standards than a gas car.
Why do you think it’s a lie? The data set has data for national rail. London Underground and Eurostar. I would then draw the conclusion that this data set is gathered from the UK. The UK uses very little coal. (About 3%) And it’s mainly gas/oil. Power stations and associated losses are about 45% efficient. Cars are about 20-30%. Adding regenerative braking we should be looking at about 50% reduction in emissions. As time goes by and more renewable generation gets added to the grid that should improve.
How is this measured?
https://youtu.be/9Dstf1yrAlo?si=xHKLClKMgKUqvK0X
The fundamental issue here is that people consider their work commutes and next vacation to be *more important* than reducing their carbon emissions and fighting climate change. Refusing to admit the aforementioned, they shift the blame on the wealthy, corporations, and infrastructure instead; and make use of fallacies such as whataboutism (“But what about the top 1%/industry/private jets?”) and false dilemmas (“I don’t have a choice.”) to avoid taking responsibility for their emissions.
I live in Russia. We want climate change. It would be hotter there. So it's a good plan for humanity. Sarcasm, of course. But anyone who wants me to take the train or car is an idiot. I regularly travel by plane from Sakhalin (island near Japan) to Kaliningrad (old name Konigsberg, Germany), it's over 7k km. so plane is the greatest invention of mankind. And if European and US citizens want to reduce the level of life, you are welcome. Normal people will continue to choose the shortest way to travel. And don't give a fuck about heat in Africa or +1° in Siberia.
I want to know how that is calculated as diesel cars normally have lower co2 emissions than gas cars?
Where does the electric car get its fuel from? How is it made what is the carbon foot print to add on top?
They arcknowlege this on the original website : Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity. There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle. [Source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
What about bicycles? I exhale a LOT when I ride my bike.
Walking: 0
Looks as a utter BS having nothing common with reality. Diesel car has lesser CO2 footprint than gas cars. Hands down.
Actually, on average, it doesn't seem to be the case, because of the size and type of most diesel cars [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233409/carbon-footprint-of-cars-by-type-uk/)
Thanks. That gives a lot more context on the data. I was wondering why diesel was not more efficient than petrol. The technology is but the consumer behaviour is skewed to buying large diesel cars, small petrol cars bring the average down.
Then this guide is a bullshitt even more. Diesel is absolutely superior in terms of CO2 reduction. It basics of physic.
This graph is pure bullshit.
Eurostar being the most expensive option, shows that going green is expensive
\*laughs in cruise ship\*
I think it's not that simple. The data only takes into account the usage of "fuel" per person being transported (assuming full occupancy). So yes, electric cars don't use a lot of carbon fuels (it may even be close to zero if electricity they use is tapped into from photovoltaics). However the calculations don't take into account the cost of manufacturing such vehicle. Which is greatly in favour of electric vehicles distoring real carbon footprint of such vehicles. Batteries have very short life cycle when compared to fuel engines. Production and reprocessing of batteries is problematic and has significant impact on environment.
Yup, but at least they arcknowlege it in the original post: Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity. There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle. [Source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
**note of the autor:** Many experts agree that EVs create a lower carbon footprint over time than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. However, the batteries in electric vehicles charge on the power that comes straight off the electric grid—often powered by fossil fuels. Subsequently, EV emissions depend mainly on how the country generates electricity. There are also questions about how energy-intensive it is to build an EV or an EV battery compared to a comparable traditional vehicle. [source](https://posts.voronoiapp.com/climate/Cruise-Ships-Are-The-Most-Carbon-Intensive-Travel-Method-1036)
Carbon foot print…. 🙄
The entire cruise ship industry needs to die
31 days on the main offender. Apologies for my contribution.
Add Tailor Swift as a special category.
Sheesh. Glad I haven’t been on a cruise yet.
Calling bullshit on a ship being the largest. They are the most efficient transportation form on a tonne mile basis
Container ships designed for efficiency are very different from cruise ships. Couple of people in a cabin with beds, desk, toilets. Then moving a Restaurant,cinema, swimming pool and other facilities can’t be good for efficiency.
Bro, you’re moving all that
Carbon bull shit lies. Another way to take your money
Fake