If you read beyond the dubious headlines today, “Think Twice About ‘Green’ Transport, Say Scientists” and “Train Can Be Worse for Climate than Plane,” you’ll find an interesting study that suggests policy makers go beyond tailpipe emissions when calculating the carbon impacts of planes, trains, buses, and cars. University of California-Berkeley researchers attempted to also account for greenhouse gases released when building the vehicles, generating fuel to run them and for building and maintaining the infrastructure they use.
Among the findings: including these additional sources of pollution in a life-cycle assessment (which is no simple task) more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel, with its stations, miles of track, lit parking lots and escalators. Proportionally, they add less to the carbon footprint of cars and planes.
The study also found electric cars and trains have hidden emissions if the electricity they run on is generated by burning coal and other fossil fuels. And when it comes to mass transit, how many passengers are on board matters.
It isn’t a shocker that the researchers found that Boston’s rail system produces more greenhouse gas emissions because of the coal-based electricity it uses. By comparison San Francisco’s system produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions because the electricity is cleaner, mostly from non-coal-burning sources.
The researchers are recommending that those sources be factored in so that eventually they can be changed. While cutting tailpipe pollution and increasing fuel efficiency is important, a more holistic approach to reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions would make rail stations and airports more energy efficient and look to grow renewable energy sources.
The study also points out that the number of passengers on board is important. A nearly empty diesel-burning bus, for instance, may be less energy efficient than a full SUV. But 60 people on a bus produce far fewer emissions than 60 people driving 60 SUVs. It’s right in the abstract: “occupancy can easily change the relative performance of modes.”
So when deciding what mode of transportation to take and how much CO2 it emits, the general rule of thumb is to walk, bike, or catch a ride on something already going in your direction, including buses and trains.
Photo courtesy of flickr user Curtis Gregory Perry via the Creative Commons license.
Check out the rest of the Northwest’s top 10 sustainability headlines at Sightline Daily, or get the news delivered via email each morning by clicking here. All of today’s news can be found here.
In other words, for your own transportation decisions, look at the emissions you personally would add (negligible) by taking public transport.
Another lesson of this study—or any such study—is that informed personal choice alone cannot be the solution to systemic challenges like climate change and oil addiction. It can’t. Can’t, can’t, can’t. Not ever. Never.On the other hand, comprehensive, upstream, auctioned cap and trade with limited offsets and built-in protection for working families—because it will put the climate consequences into the price system—can be. Systemic solutions such as making prices tell the truth go a long way toward making the cheapest choice, the greenest choice. And obviating a huge amount of personal angst for consciencious consumers.
Agreed. Yet, maybe when prices finally tell the WHOLE truth, then we will ALL be informed consumers, simply by OSMOSIS. THEN perhaps it could be said that our informed personal choices ALONE can be, will be, always and forever shall be, the SOLUTION to systemic challenges. Because, then we will CONSCIENTIOUSLY vote with our dollars, and will financially support ONLY the best policies as shown upfront by the green price tags.One can dream, yes? Can, can, can. Always.