E
Erik Sandblom
Guest
Den 2007-03-11 21:28:19 skrev Adam Lea <[email protected]>:
>
> Why does this theory not apply to aircraft in that it is said to be more
> polluting to fly from London to Scotland than it is to drive, despite the
> fact that the aircraft is "going there anyway"?
Why are you dancing around the simple fact that per person, the train
takes less energy than cars or planes? Why make a simple matter
complicated?
Let's say you and three friends are going somewhere. One flies, and one
drives. Great, now who should you go with? Neither, the train is still the
greenest choice. As I mentioned earlier, even if you are three in the car,
the train is still just as green, and in the Paris-Marseille example,
takes four hours less.
The answer to your question (if I understand it correctly) might be that
the train and plane will both likely sell your seat to someone else. They
want to fill their seats.
Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies
>
> Why does this theory not apply to aircraft in that it is said to be more
> polluting to fly from London to Scotland than it is to drive, despite the
> fact that the aircraft is "going there anyway"?
Why are you dancing around the simple fact that per person, the train
takes less energy than cars or planes? Why make a simple matter
complicated?
Let's say you and three friends are going somewhere. One flies, and one
drives. Great, now who should you go with? Neither, the train is still the
greenest choice. As I mentioned earlier, even if you are three in the car,
the train is still just as green, and in the Paris-Marseille example,
takes four hours less.
The answer to your question (if I understand it correctly) might be that
the train and plane will both likely sell your seat to someone else. They
want to fill their seats.
Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies