Myths about transport and climate change

[Dave2002]

The FlyBe "rescue" has prompted discussion about effective and efficient forms of travel. Effectiveness and efficiency are not the same thing.

One thing which keeps cropping up is how much better for the environment rail travel is than air travel. This is correct if only the direct fuel costs for most journeys are considered, and rail travel can deliver lower CO2 emissions. However, that assumes high occupancy of transport modes. Many flights are now full, so the per passenger CO2 emissions are perhaps acceptable. If trains are running at high occupancy then they might be expected to emit maybe 30-50% of an equivalent journey by air.

There are a few other considerations though. One thing which is very much ignored in the general media is the infrastructure costs of both modes (rail, air) of transport. Rail transport has a very large construction cost, in terms of concrete, use of metals etc., and also a large infrastructure in terms of staffing. Air transport has different development costs. The infrastructure requirements are for end points - airports, plus also operational infrastructure - computing, staffing etc. The use of concrete is definitely not CO2 friendly. For low volume routes it is perfectly possible that taking all things into consideration, that air travel would in fact emit less CO2.

The one thing which would make a difference is actually to reduce travel of any sort. I'm not actually a great fan of air travel, but sometimes it is far more effective than surface travel.

In the UK it is still probably the case that energy for industry and home heating are more significant than transport. I don't have all the answers, and indeed different ways of living are going to have impacts.

There are real issues about climate change, and the so-called climate change emergency. These are really serious and should be discussed and tackled appropriately. However, politicians and journalists who jump on band wagons which are not relevant to some situations are promulgating myths because often the cases which they compare are not strictly comparable in terms of magnitude or quality.

[Serial_Apologist]

The numbers of people using rail will always be far greater than those using air for travel though, surely?

[kernelbogey]

Is not 'myth' an overly emotive word, suggesting conspiracy, when what is to be considered snd judged is competing arguments in a very complex new field of enquiry?

[StephenMcK]

It's a long time ago (17yrs), so this is by no means a recent phenomenon, but I was mortified once when required to join three other colleagues for a client meeting in Manchester and heard that we were flying there.

Our office was just a mile and half from Euston and yet there we were tubing out to Heathrow ... yah he yah, yak de yak.

The problem was and is the privatisation of the rail companies and the silly money they started to charge.

Ultimately though, we're no longer in either-or territory. We need to reduce travel in all regards. We need to seriously entertain the likes of monthly car free days.

I live by the glorious space that is Blackheath that has some lovely, scenic ponds on it. You won't find me there though as the traffic all around is non-stop.

Indeed, a few years back I developed asthma. Never had a history of it in my early years or in the family. However, living hard my the Rochester relief road (aka. a motorway) and Shooters Hill Road, such is the density of traffic on my doorstep, is it any wonder?

Something really will have to give.

[Sir Velo]

Climate change is not a "myth". however, there are some significant issues with how the whole subject is being reported.

For example, the media made a big deal of how Greta Thunberg's refusal to fly to accept her Nobel prize saved how many million tons of Co2 when in fact, one person's refusal to fly has precisely nil impact on the amount of carbon being emitted.

Likewise, the much touted support for rail travel always takes the electrified Eurostar as the benchmark. A 40 year old diesel chugging 300 miles from Paddington to Penzance is unlikely to have the same low carbon footprint as a state of the art eurostar. Let's remember that globally diesels far outweigh electric locomotives in terms of passenger miles.

[MrGongGong]

Interesting to hear politicians from both main parties on R4 telling us how "vital" it was that there should be flights to London from "the regions".

And how it was somehow fine to fly a long way for a holiday but not for work.....

[Dave2002]

Interesting to hear politicians from both main parties on R4 telling us how "vital" it was that there should be flights to London from "the regions".

And how it was somehow fine to fly a long way for a holiday but not for work.....

... and why is "work" so important anyway?

Obviously some people have to work, to keep bits of our society going. I suspect that not everybody has to work all the time, or every day, and society would still function. Recently there was mention of the three day week, which I lived through. There were some problems, but as I recall the world (or at least the UK's part of it) did not cave in, and I and my friends used to go to the pub, where we drank beer by candelelight when the power went off. I believe the "output" of the UK did not go down by a factor of 2/5 or 2/6, representing the "loss" of two days of "work", but only went down slightly

Re flights to London "from the regions" - depends where one lives. Access to London from most parts of the UK - or at least England, can be achieved in 2-3 hours by rail. Flying is not always the quickest way to go anyway, if door to door journeys are considered. I recall one day when mrs d "had" to go to Edinburgh for a meeting. Some people went by train, some by air. Most arrived at the destination at about the same time.

To address Sir V's point above about the carbon footprint of Eurostar vs an old diesel - that's not so simple either. Those high speed trains use "massive" amounts of energy (note - I'm turning into a journalist here ...) - enough to power a modest village. If the electricity is generated by so-called "green" methods, then Eurostar would be moderately OK, otherwise there might not be such a difference. Note also that possibly a lot of the energy might be generated in France by nuclear power stations. However, the per passenger carbon footprint might differ significantly. Eurostar trains are quite likely to be full I think, whereas some clapped out diesel units chugging around some parts of the UK may have hardly any passengers. In either case the hidden carbon costs due to construction and maintenance may still be considerable. In the case of travel along GWR lines, the trains probably were quite full, at least for some stretches of the journey.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Let's remember that globally diesels far outweigh electric locomotives in terms of passenger miles.

This is true. But with the government-led cancellation of many electrification projects, the matter hasn't improved. Evidently yet another hugely expensive electrified line under central London is MUCH more important than the electrification of an existing line that serves Leicester, Derby, Nottingham & Sheffield (the whole of which would cost much less than Crossrail) and the incredibly busy Manchester-Leeds TransPennine route.

But, oh wait! It's okay to electrify the line to Walton-on-the-Naze. It's much more important than Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Swansea.