Comparing Emissions In Ways We Travel

 

About the Benchmark: A passenger flight is 160 gCO2e per pkm. This means that flying is better than taking a car only if you’re the only person in the car (see benchmark in table above.)

See calculations below

The various “people in car” percentages in the above table are first extrapolated from the data below as they compare with “implied car occupancy rate: 1.6 [people in a car].” Then all percentages in the above table are extrapolated from the below data as they compare with the flight benchmark.

Figure 1: Average GHG emissions by motorised mode of passenger transport, EU-27, 2014-2018

Source: Fraunhofer ISI and CE Delft, 2020

*Notes: pkm = passenger kilometre; implied car occupancy rate: 1.6

Source – European Environment Agency. See link. See PDF named “Rail and waterborne — best for low-carbon motorised transport."

Cars: The number of people in the car affects the emissions per person:

Bar graph, Notes: pkm = passenger kilometre; implied car occupancy rate: 1.6 passenger(s).

As the car occupancy rate rises, the Carbon Emissions (gCO2e) per pkm drops. This is an inversely proportional calculation (not a directly proportional calculation). See “Math is Fun” explanation at this link. 

Quote from above Math web page:

This: y is inversely proportional to x

Is the same thing as: y is directly proportional to 1/x

Which can be written:  y = k/x

The example from Math Is Fun

It is an Inverse Proportion:

  • As the number of people goes up, the painting time goes down.
  • As the number of people goes down, the painting time goes up.

We can use: t = k/n

Where:

  • t = number of hours
  • k = constant of proportionality
  • n = number of people

The example from Our Car Passenger Table

It is an Inverse Proportion:

  • As the number of occupants of the car goes up, the emissions per person goes down.
  • As the number of occupants of the car down, the emissions per person goes up.

We can use:

grams of CO2 per person kilometer = 228.8 / number of occupants of the car (for calculation see table below)

Where:

  • t = grams of CO2 per person kilometer
  • k = 228.8  = constant of proportionality
  • n = number of occupants of the car
To help with the calculation, here is an online Inversely Proportional Calculator 

A passenger flight is 160 gCO2e per pkm. This means that flying is better than taking a car only if you’re the only person in the car (see Benchmark in table above.)

Side note: This is European data. Cars are smaller in Europe than in N. America. (Are trains also smaller?)

Also, a train trip across Europe is shorter than a train trip across Canada or the US. This likely implies less use of overnight sleeping quarters (private cabins, private bathrooms, etc.) which are a heavier apparatus to haul.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future: Two existential crises and the obvious alternative “Atomic Accomplice: How Canada deals in deadly deceit” a book written by Paul McKay in 2009 has a foreword by David Suzuki. One chapter is called, “Plutonim, the immortal outlaw.” (p 129) The word “immortal” refers to the fact that plutonium remains lethal for 250,000 years. McKay writes, “As a matter of physics, plutonium is created in every nuclear reactor of every make, model, size, purpose, or country of origin or operation…It takes a mere 8 kilograms to make a Nagasaki-scale bomb….” He continues, “Each year the odds grow worse that some of this accumulating, effectively immortal plutonium will be diverted by pariah states, or sold covertly for cash, or stolen for a bomb or nuclear blackmail. In 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency disclosed that its data base includes 1,646 reports of trafficking, theft or loss of nuclear materials
Read more

The Cost Of Living And The Cost Of Staying Alive: Climate Action Is All About Climate Justice

Image
  On August 16, 2023 Yellowknife faced the likelihood of evacuation from wildfires.   On the same day Pierre Poilievre was in PEI making a speech against the carbon tax which he has done for quite some time.   Yet only 11 months earlier 95% of PEI was without power from hurricane Fiona. As of Aug 9 Poilievre is gaining popularity in the polls (ahead of the governing Liberals by 10%).   His strategy is to appeal to people’s concern about the rising cost of living. But what about the cost of staying alive in the face of climate catastrophe?  Poilievre’s strategy is to make people think that they shouldn’t be the ones bearing “the burden” of doing climate action…despite the fact that the carbon tax offers rebates to most Canadians. (See 19:48 at this link )   Because of this situation, climate action is all about climate justice. If that is true then which party is most likely to deliver? Many times the Liberals have refused the federal NDP request for a wealth tax. But the federal NDP
Read more

Guilbeault Will Not Promise No Increase In Canada’s Oil And Gas Exports

On June 9, 2023 Guilbeault indicated that he will not promise to “limit Canada’s oil exports by requiring that they not exceed Canada's current percentage of total world exports.” This came in the form of his response to a petition presented to the House of Commons by Robert Oliphant (who is also a Liberal). See link.   Part of the petition states, “Increasing Canadian oil export would negate some or all the gains made from domestic reductions and contribute to an increase in climate change damage to many parts of the country.” This part of the petition implies and recognizes that further "downstream emissions" are created when the exported/sold product, oil, is used/burned. Yet, in response to that petition, Guilbeault appears to be ignoring the subject of downstream emissions when he states, Quote: “[Our] objective is to limit the emissions from the production of oil and natural gas as the cap becomes more stringent over time, irrespective of whether the production is f
Read more