Asymmetrical Information

I assume you mean traveling by airliner, for the cross-country as well as the overseas trips. If the trips are 3000 miles each way, that would be 24000 miles total--which implies that the *per passenger* fuel consumption of a jetliner is equal to the *total* fuel consumption of a large SUV, on a per-passenger basis. Which doesn't sound right. Do you have a link?

Correction: would imply that the per-passenger jetliner fuel consumption is half the total SUV fuel consumption, since the total mileage is twice as much. Still sounds dubious--this study quotes widebody airliner fuel efficiency at 56-60 mpg, for a 1000-mile stage:
http://www.unb.ca/web/transpo/mynet/mtu32.htm

The figures I see is a crusing 747 gets 52 passenger miles per gallon on an average flight (they are not always full). You need to add someing for takeoffs so short flights would be more. Any way you look it if cutting carbon emissions is important to you, you should stay home.

"If you take just two cross country and two overseas trips a year . . . not a big number for today's more mobile young adults

I'm a young adult and that seems like an awfully larger number. I've taken two overseas trips in the last four years, and that's more than most of my peers.

Here's a useful link:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/
national_transportation_statistics/html/
table_04_20.html

As I read it, the energy consumption per passenger mile is about the same for passenger cars and airliners, at about 35 passenger-miles per gallon*.

This is quite an accomplishment by the aircraft manufacturers. Energy per mile required to overcome air resistance increases roughly with the square of speed. And yet airliners transport people at about ten times the speed of passenger cars with no significant increase in fuel consumption. The key contributors to this accomplishment are probably (1) much thinner air and (2) optimally aerodynamic vehicles.

Ken

*It gets a little sticky as gasoline and jet fuel have different energy content per gallon, but this doesn't change the headline.

And yet airliners transport people at about ten times the speed of passenger cars with no significant increase in fuel consumption. The key contributors to this accomplishment are probably (1) much thinner air and (2) optimally aerodynamic vehicles.

...and very large passenger capacities typically, and no friction of vehicle against road, and trips mainly limited to longer hauls over fixed routes, and the widespread use of jet propulsion, and...

On the other hand, if a majority of citizens had a light commuter aircraft available for personal or small-group use -- i.e., Ariana Huffington style, but without the self-unaware reactionary schtick -- aircraft per-mile contributions to net carbon emissions would far outstrip even the largest vehicles.

I should point out that if you need to get from one side of the country to the other, one doesn't have much in the way of practical alternatives to flying.

However, there are plenty of practical alternatives to gas-guzzling SUVs.

Frankenstein writes: "I should point out that if you need to get from one side of the country to the other, one doesn't have much in the way of practical alternatives to flying."

I know at least four people that have driven across country and back (East Coast to California). There are four separate train routes that go cross country. And there's always the "other half's airline", Greyhound.

As someone who has actually taken the train cross-country I can say that I am sure when I did it it didn't take as much feul as driving cross-country in an SUV, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I think that the point is that having to get accross the country is wasteful consumption, and in today's world of long distance telephones, email, and video phones, completely unnecessary. Flying accross the country, or to other countries, is just rich people's way of showing off their wealth to get status; it's not useful and no one needs to do it.

yet airliners transport people at about ten times the speed of passenger cars with no significant increase in fuel consumption. The key contributors to this accomplishment are probably (1) much thinner air and (2) optimally aerodynamic vehicles.

Its because the nose of a 747 is breaking wind for about 600 people.

Yet, note the passenger miles per gallon is 35. Thats if your airliner is filled to capacity. If a Ford Excursion is filled to capacity it caries 9 giving it a highway per passenger miles to the gallon of around 126.

" ... the passenger miles per gallon is 35. That's if your airliner is filled to capacity. "

Oh? I believe that the link I named gives average fuel consumption per passenger mile for various modes of transportation, which takes into account capacity utilization among other real-life (in)efficiencies.

Reasonable people can disagree about the impact of aircraft on carbon emisions. What's undeniable is that light rail is absolutely necessary. Without light rail, college-educated progressive white people might have to ride the bus.

"Any way you look it if cutting carbon emissions is important to you, you should stay home."

Or, more importantly, aviation should not get a free pass from carbon taxes or tradable permits. Unfortunately, for legal reasons pertaining to federal vs state jurisdiction, aviation will be exempted from California's global warming legislation, unlike automobiles, utilities, and industry. But it is the fastest growing major source of carbon emissions. Aviation has a history of slipping out of any sort of environmental regulations (not to mention soaking up huge hidden local subsidies), but hopefully this time around they will be treated just like everyone else.

For at least 98% of the country, light rail is most certainly NOT the answer. We are simply too spread out.

I have heard that WTC 1 & 2 had a day time working population of about 85,000 each. I live in the Cincinnati area. I would be extremely surprised to find out that the entire downtown area had that many people working in it on the average day.

Our housing is just as spread out. I live in a bigger community on the north side of town and work near the airport in Kentucky. There has never been a proposal for light rail that wouldn't be at least 10-15 minutes away from my house and 15-20 minutes away from my work. It is only a 35 minute drive in my car to begin with. So, I would still need a car, I would still have to drive every day, then I'd have to find a way to get to work once the light rail dropped me off. It would probably take me twice as long to get there. Why wouldn't I drive?

Cincinnati is not unique. This is the norm for this country, not the exception. In order for light rail to work, you have to have European type population densities. You could probably count on one hand the number of cities like that in the US.

You just have to love the Enlightened Elites. There is nothing so wonderful as voyeuristic virtue, by which you denounce others for failing to live up to the performance standards of a secular Jesus. But the true miracle of the sacrament of Voyeuristic Denunciation is what it does for the participant. By denouncing others you are absolved from ever having to live up to the very same standards you have reviled others for failing to meet. Just look at people like Ted Kennedy. He just hates rich people. Tax them to no end, but hey, you shouldn't start taking hunks out of trust funds, that wouldn't be right.

Who says there are no miracles?

Driving accross country (LA to NY) takes quite a while, though. You can theoretically do it in 48 hours, but it really takes at least 72. That's not practical for a one-day business trip or a short personal trip (wedding, baptism, graduation.)

A plane takes just 5 hours. It's much easier.

Amtrak? Greyhound? At least 48 hours -- of HELL! I'd sooner crawl.

Aren't buses supposed to be the best way to avoid carbon emissions and still do long-distance travel?

I used to take the bus between home and college; it wasn't very pleasant. I cannot imagine what it would be like cross-country.

Perhaps if more people took buses, they would get nicer. I suppose that would begin to cancel the point of buses -- perhaps trains are the answer.

Reasonable people can disagree about the impact of aircraft on carbon emisions. What's undeniable is that light rail is absolutely necessary. Without light rail, college-educated progressive white people might have to ride the bus.

Cute but a serious question is why choice riders don't ride the bus. We can say elitism but there is certainly no bougie-only pass to get on the subway.

I think the better answers is that buses as currently implimented are slow as hell. A Rapid Transit Bus system that used its own right of way might be as fast and I suspect as appealling as rail.

tcobb
Actually, Kennedy does believe in taxing income from trust funds. It's the Republicans that don't. There are reasons on both sides. I have my own opinions on the matter which I shan't burden you with.

tcobb
Actually, Kennedy does believe in taxing income from trust funds. It's the Republicans that don't.

Yes. Does it include putting a premium tax on the kind of income that (however structured it is) the great and noble Kennedy family lives off of? I may be wrong, but I tend to doubt it. There is a mechanism for actually donating money to the Federal government. Limousine liberals don't seem to be aware of this. They could be living the life of Americans who exist at the median income level, but somehow they keep forgetting to send the donation check in to the IRS. It's just ignorance I suppose, but ignorance is about the best you can expect from the likes of Ted Kennedy or Michael Moore.

Considering that perhaps 25% of Americans even have passports, two overseas trips per year probably is a lot. Sources: http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php

My wife is from China, we're upper middle class and we've been overseas to visit family once in five years. This is consistent with most of our Chinese friends, who have the money and the familial desire to travel overseas more than the average American. Further, a trip to China is cheaper for us because we can stay with family, so we're economically more likely to do this than other "mobile young adults," whatever the hell that means.

Lets see. Whenever we drive our monster SUV there are at least five people on board and sometimes all 8 members of my family. 12,000 miles on the odometer translates to roughly 72,000 people miles.

2 transcontinental rond trips = 12,000 people miles (at 3000 miles nyc to la). 2 trips to London from NY is another 12,000 people miles.

So 24,000 people miles on public transit is just as poluting as 72,000 people miles in my SUV. Seems right to be. Those buses do cause lung and skin cancer and the contrails left by air craft can't be healthy.

I agree - ban public transportation. Besides terrorism gaurantees people are going to be blown into itty bitty bits.

SUVs forever!!!

I'd be curious to know what the carbon output of a horse would be if it were to cross the united states with a rider and a pack or two on its back. This would need to be measured against a horse at rest for the same period of time. Of course there would also be the higher methane emissions inherent with the increase in feed consumption...

"I'd be curious to know what the carbon output of a horse would be if it were to cross the united states with a rider and a pack or two on its back. This would need to be measured against a horse at rest for the same period of time. "

Not really. If we were all using horses, there'd be a hell of a lot more horses, in motion and at rest, than there are in our present horseless-carriage-rich society. And carbon wouldn't be the only pollutant... I'll take smog over piles of horseshit everywhere any day.

My kids think horses are cool. I pray that they and their kids always think that horses are a quaint novelty, unlike my ancestors who actually had to ride them everywhere they went.

I'll take smog over piles of horseshit everywhere any day

Yes, its important to remember that the automobile was hailed as a pollution prevention device when it first came out. Can you imagine the air quality if there were 15 million horses pooping all over Los Angeles?

tcobb
It may surprise you, but there are no special tax exemptions for trust fund Democrats like Kennedy vs trust fund Republicans. They pay the same rate (9% for income from capital, averaged) as Republicans.
Why does this bother you?

Yes, but I drive the Al Gore edition Ford Excursion. It's exactly the same as the Eddie Bauer version, but it's entirely guilt free due to use of that advanced fuel additive known as hypocrisy.

Let me join the list of commenters bewildered by the assertion that "two cross country and two overseas trips a year" is "not a big number for today's more mobile young adults."

For my circle of (20-30 year old) friends actually driving across the entire country for fun is much more of a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Driving a signficant distance because of a new job feels more like a once in a decade experience.

But heh, don't let that stand in the way of defending huge gas-guzzling SUV's. Those mobile young hypocrites!

Tom

the obvious point the original factoid makes is that we can afford neither, as a planet.

Some good news, though:

- people travelled the world in 1900, it just took a bit longer.

- sailing ships now (with auxiliary engines) would be carbon free, and faster and more efficient than they were then.

- in 1900 you could get NYC to San Francisco in less than 3 days, by comfortable train. We could again.

- I have travelled across Turkey (nearly 2000 miles by road) in a bus. It is comfortable, convenient (buses leave on the hour), people walk up and down the cabin giving you free water and spraying perfume on the passengers. It's a great way to travel and far better than the (state controlled) railroads.

- in London, using the congestion charge, the Mayor has triggered an 'inter modal shift' of 4% from cars to buses. This is middle class white people shifting back onto buses. The Tube (subway) is at 100% capacity so the shift has been onto buses. It is the first shift back onto buses ever recorded apparently, anywhere. The cost was charging £10 ($18) to drive into the core 7-6.30 M-F, plus a significant expansion of bus frequency and network.

- an SUV with a diesel hybrid engine should be able to get 40mpg, if not 50mpg

So the solutions are in our hands. What we need is a system of CO2 emission permits (tradeable)/ CO2 emission taxes that makes us choose those solutions, over the ones we choose now.

Jane's comments both underline the political difficulties in what needs to be done, and the technological and economic practicalities of same.

Of course, the comparison is from use of an SUV to plane trips. It looks like from these figures an SUV is more efficient for a long distance trip if there are two or more passengers. That's fair and reasonable.

I'm not sure that those posting here claiming an average of three passengers are typical users of SUVs, though. I'm also not sure that they are not. I would expect that most SUVs average in the high ones to low twos, since you take your kids to school, then drive back alone, etc. Of course, those 10-25% used as car pools are often completely full of kids, so that figures into the mix as well.

It would be interesting to do a quick study of the SUVs arriving at school and see how many passengers they arrive and leave with. My impression from morning drop off is that they seem to arrive with about three people (and a high s.d.) and leave with about 1.3 (mostly younger siblings).

I would expect that school dropoff/pickup and sports practice are the two high-occupancy uses, and the rest of the day they would tend to have one driver plus any younglings in their care. Of course, this is also the time of day that cargo uses (shopping) are likely to occur.

Since we're indulging ourselves in an anecdote fest, here's mine. I reside in Germany. My sister was married in NJ in May; my girlfriend and I are planning our rotational Christmas visit to the States in December. That takes care of my two self-indulgent overseas trips for the year. (I'll discount my 3-week trip to Canada since that was business-related and impossible to recreate via phone, fax or email. I also assume value generation trumps environmental considerations, which should please the burly libertarians here but actually leaves me at odds with the left-wing commisariat.)

I gather that the point of the post is, for lefties who (aside from being clueless on most topics and culpable for most problems) hold an unreasonable grudge against SUVs, SUV travel turns out to be more eco-friendly than airplane trips particularly for mobile young adults (which I assume is some kind of new right-wing code word characterizing lefties who are a financial level or two down from limousine liberals).

Therefore, being one of those clueless, Maoist types (by virtue of voting against W), I'd appreciate any insight the rightie brain trust can offer on what SUVs offer the best trans-Atlantic features. My girlfriend and I are willing to ride-share (contributing to the already impressive occupancy rates for SUVs), but since she's European and I do what I can to placate her, we'll unfortunately need to find partners who don't subscribe to torture as one of America's growth niches.

Cheers,

The link in the second comment doesn't specify what type of aircraft theiy're talking about, but it's probably a 747, given the passenger figures. A widebody twin like a 767ER or A-330 is considerably more efficient, in the 90-125 seat miles/gallon range depending on configuration. And load factors these days tend to be exceptionally high by historical standards, so they're getting very close to those figures.

The other problem is defining "SUV". RX-330s or Highlanders, for example, are almost universally referred to as SUVs, but in reality are basically Camry station wagons. Likewise, an MDX or Pilot is an Odyssey minivan with an SUV body (and 4WD). When I use the term SUV, I'm referring to a truck based vehicle such as a Suburban or Explorer, which attains 60-75% of the fuel efficiency of a car based "SUV". For daily use, some of the car based SUVs are just as efficient as most cars, and considerably more so in some cases. And some cars that seem to be highly prized by my environmentally concious friends are just as bad as any SUV - The Volvo XC90's EPA numbers are the same as those for a...Chevy Tahoe. And only 1 MPG better than a Suburban.

Nevertheless, even though SUVs, buses, or trains can theoretically attain the passenger mileage of an airliner, there are other "quality of experience" issues not being addressed. As aggravating as air travel can be, it's still pretty fast (if you're going more than 300 miles), and the experience will be over before the travel experience itself does too much damage. Some friends of ours a few years back decided they were going to take a trip from Dallas to Banff with another couple (in an SUV!), which prompted me to bet that they would be at each others' throats before they got north of Colorado. It didn't happen that quickly, but those couples no longer speak to each other.

J, I'm afraid you've misread me. I'm one of those mobile young adults . . . in fact, THE mobile young adult . . . I'm talking about. I live in a 400 square foot apartment; I don't drive; I recycle; and I care about carbon emissions. And because I fly a fair amount, for work and pleasure, it turns out I'm emitting more carbon than someone who drives an SUV. I was shocked by this information, that's all.

Obviously, the implication is that I should look for ways to fly less. And obviously, like you, I don't want to. No criticism implied.

J, I generated "SUV" from the mileage information I was given. IF you make that many air trips a year, you are generating as much carbon as driving a car that gets 15 mpg (less than either my mother's Jeep or my Dad's minivan) 12K miles a year.

Jane,

Any comparison of mpg for the different modes of transport must explicitly account for the numbers of passengers in the vehicles. While this is assumed for the airliners, does one account for the fact that an SUV may not have only one passenger? If not, then SUV could easily be the more fuel efficient.

Sigh... I guess I should have read the comments before making one myself.

Short essay on why people don't take mass transit -
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM

I'm 45 years old, never been overseas. Jane, I think you are treating the generally lower cost air fares from the east coast to Europe as if they are available to everyone. Since I live in the middle of the country, I have to buy an expensive ticket to, say, New York, before even getting close to going overseas. And this is on my lower income common to living in lower cost areas. None of my friends travel overseas, unless work sends them there. We go to Colorado for mountains, and New Mexico for desert.(Umm, mexican food, margaritas)

My father-in-law did travel some in the pacific -on the troop ship to Eniwetak, Kwajalein, and Truk in WW2.

C02 is the least of our worries. Get over it! Oh, crap, I just exhaled, more C02 "pollution" ahhhh....the quality of life in my house is really deteriorating, my wife can barely breathe with all the c02 around here.

Sorry Jane - I didn't mean that as a personal critique. I was just concerned with the lack of definitions, and thanks for clarifying.

I still don't think you are creating more carbon output though. 12K miles at 15 miles per gallon would use 800 gallons of gas. For your trip parameters, I assumed 6000 miles RT for the domastic stuff and 26,000 miles RT for the international (for physical reasons that's about the max it could be) for a total of 64000 miles. Divided by 800 gallons, thats 80 MPG. That's certainly within the range given in comment #2's site, but I stand by my contention that those fuel economy numbers are low and also suspect those international trips are generally much shorter than I allowed for.

What was the source for this? I know there are other factors, like energy used in refining and such. Did they include that?

While I'm all for conservation, I also consider economic output and believe it's benefits need to be balanced against those of conservation efforts.

Jane, do you know of any cost-benefit estimates of the effect of global warming on various economies? I recall hearing that the USA would actually be better off. I suspect the same would be true of Canada and Russia. What about the rest of the world?

Discussion about carbon use shouldn't be restricted to transportaton. How about houses? They use natural gas and coal (the latter via the medium of electricity) for heating in winter and cooling in summer. This doesn't have the geopolitical implications of oil, but it is carbon-based energy.

How many people are there smugging around about their Piouses which living in very large houses?

I think that the point is that having to get accross the country is wasteful consumption, and in today's world of long distance telephones, email, and video phones, completely unnecessary. Flying accross the country, or to other countries, is just rich people's way of showing off their wealth to get status; it's not useful and no one needs to do it.

it would be a depressing life where we only did things that were necessary.

And one can hardly see the Grand Canyon or the Louvre or sit in a cafe by the Siene or join a Tongan feast or attend the Bangkok water festival by email and video phone.

It may be completely unnecessary, but travel is not just done for status and not a waste of time. Unless you think learning things and seeing how other cultures live is not useful. In which case I wonder what you think is useful?

AT

There are studies of the costs of global warming. Bjorn Lomberg offers them as a criticism of Kyoto- -costs more than it saves-- he makes ridiculously precise estimates of how much that will be.

*however* they all fall down on a number of key points:

- as The Economist points out in its special on GW, the extreme end forecasts are so disastrous that there is no point costing them. What is the cost of Western Civilisation? What is the cost of wiping out habitable life (the Permian extinction - methane release led to H2S release led to 90% extinction of animal life)?

What is the cost to the world of New York, London under water?

The scientific consensus is moving rapidly towards the 'more extreme' views of what is happening. The big change in the last 5 years is how the alarmist scientists have increasingly become the mainstream, as new geological and climatic data has emerged.

In particular, the revelation that the earth's climate makes sudden, and very drastic changes in state - 10 degrees centigrade is not impossible. There was a climate conference in 1999 I think, when those results were first published, and apparently you could see the shock on the scientific faces.

I know more than a few scientists who decided then that there was no point worrying about GW as we are past the point of no return.

We are conducting a vast, uncontrolled, one way experiment on climatic change.

How do you put a price on the worst possible outcomes? When you don't even know their probabilities?

- how do you value Bangladesh, say? Is Bangladesh worth more or less than New Orleans or Houston, given the latter 2 have more GDP, but Bangladesh has 120 million people?

The short answer is some forms of agriculture will do better in North America, but some in the southern parts will do worse

*and*

if the continent dries up as much as it might (Sydney is in a 7 year drought, Australia is actually abandoning agricultural land in some places) then the benefits of a longer growing season to northern Albert may just not materialise at the same time as you lose farming in the US southwest.

(the boreal forest of Northern Canada is actually something of a cold desert. It doesn't precipitate much up there).

Tracy

People did those things in the days before mass flying. Flying used to be expensive, and hazardous.

The point is one of *time*. We could still build sailing ships and sail efficiently to all these places, take trains and buses. But we don't *want* to.

We are going to face some very hard choices about what we do and do not allow in the 21st century. We are conducting a huge gamble with climate stability, and the evidence is mounting that the costs will be very large.

I'm all for carbon taxes and tradable carbon permits now, to spur innovation and behaviour change to tackle these problems.

Human nature being human nature, and politics being politics, I suspect instead we will wait until it is too late, and then do quite drastic things.

Vt

PS Scientific American in August has a special issue on 'beyond carbon'.

The short summary: there are solutions, but none will be easy, and all will take time to implement on a big enough scale. There is no 'one bullet' solution: not ethanol (something of a con), not nuclear power (can't scale it infinitely), not anything:

http://www.sciam.com/issue.cfm?issuedate=Sep-06

- as The Economist points out in its special on GW, the extreme end forecasts are so disastrous that there is no point costing them. What is the cost of Western Civilisation? What is the cost of wiping out habitable life (the Permian extinction - methane release led to H2S release led to 90% extinction of animal life)?

To make a pedantic point, you mean the disappearance of 90% of extant animal genera from the fossil record. No way to know what actually happened on the ground. Anyway, I'd be more worried if CO2 levels were anywhere near where they were in the late Permian (something around 3,000+ ppm?), or we had a supercontinent, or a large asteroid impact. If you're going to worry about another PT event, why not worry about supernovae, gamma ray bursts, or even comets? Or, with only twice the solar flux and no magnetic field, a Venusian runaway greenhouse effect? Sorry, but I don't lose sleep over the catastrophic extreme scenarios, and I don't take people who do seriously.

What is the cost to the world of New York, London under water?

Probably about 1000x more than the dikes and levees we'd build if necessary.

Drive your SUV. The U.S. appears on net to be a carbon sink, so we aren't adding to any problem.

Vt,

People did those things in the days before mass flying. Flying used to be expensive, and hazardous.

The point is one of *time*. We could still build sailing ships and sail efficiently to all these places, take trains and buses. But we don't *want* to.

Actually, not many people did those things before the advent of mass flying. In NZ, a lot of the guys who volunteered to fight in WWI or WWII did so because they figured it was the only way they'd get overseas. The NZ OverSeas Experience habit only took off in the 1960s when air travel became more widely available.

And if we're going to cut carbon emissions, how does taking trains and buses help? And are sailing ships really that efficient? It could take anywhere between 10 weeks and six months to get from the UK to NZ.

It was 4 days to a week to sail to Australia - bye-bye to my father-in-law being able to rush to his sisters' death bed. Sometimes we don't have the time to take.

It may be a sacrifice we have to make, but it's a serious sacrifice and people who think that travel is just for trivial things like status that can be given up without any significant cost.

Comments are Closed.