Panorama: Go green or else!



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
 
in message <[email protected]>, Adam Lea
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message
>> <1husxbn.p3ix0l113fwq7N%[email protected]>, Ekul
>> Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 2007-03-06 15:19:22 skrev David Damerell
>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> > Both. "Fewer people" and "less consumption per person" both provide
>>>> > possible solutions to the problem.
>>>
>>>> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille
>>>> at 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car
>>>> takes 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three
>>>> people in a car, and much faster, item 14:
>>>> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html
>>>
>>> I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to
>>> say that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
>>> travelled on it as if I took the car instead?

>>
>> By that argument, if you take a car rather than taking a train, all the
>> energy used by your car is pure waste. Only if the train uses
>> substantially less energy if you don't take it can there be any
>> justification for taking the car.

>
> In other words the train is "going there anyway" so it will be using
> energy whether you are on it or not so using the car would just add to
> the overall energy consumption.
>
> 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"?


I said 'by that argument'; I didn't say that I agreed with it, merely
pointed out what its consequences were. Neither the train nor the plane
are 'going there anyway' - both exist at least to some extent in a
commercial world, and if their operators don't sell enough tickets they
will go bankrupt.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.
 
> Neither the train nor the plane
> are 'going there anyway' - both exist at least to some extent in a
> commercial world, and if their operators don't sell enough tickets they
> will go bankrupt.


It's that "but everyone else will do it anyway" excuse. I've no truck with
it, as it leads to people voting labour or conservative. When the
revolution comes, the voters will be first against the wall.
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message
> <1husxbn.p3ix0l113fwq7N%[email protected]>, Ekul
> Namsob ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Erik Sandblom <[email protected]> wrote:


> >> It depends on what you consume. Taking the TGV from Paris to Marseille
> >> at 320 km/h takes 9,6 kilo-equivalents of petrol per passenger. A car
> >> takes 28,8 and 32,2 for airplane. So the train is as green as three
> >> people in a car, and much faster, item 14:
> >> http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

> >
> > I know I'm coming late to the party here but would it not be true to say
> > that the train would use pretty much the same amount of energy if I
> > travelled on it as if I took the car instead?

>
> By that argument, if you take a car rather than taking a train, all the
> energy used by your car is pure waste. Only if the train uses
> substantially less energy if you don't take it can there be any
> justification for taking the car.


Yes, that's pretty much my argument.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush