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

Is COVID-19 more important than the climate emergency?

COVID-19 could possibly kill between 1% and 5% of those diagnosed if unstopped, but climate change will certainly kill 100% of humanity if unstopped. Why then did all federal parties pass an emergency motion on March 13 , which says, among other things, that C-4, the bill to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA), or NAFTA 2.0, was deemed to be passed at third reading -- when that agreement doesn’t even mention the climate crisis -- a crisis which literally threatens our continued existence? Sources: News of motion passed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliament-suspended-1.5496469 New NAFTA is Failing on the Climate Emergency: https://behindthenumbers.ca/2020/02/19/whats-next-for-the-new-nafta-and-what-if-anything-can-canadians-do-about-it-now/
Read more

The Cancer of Voter Inequality is part of a Fatal Mix

Image
        Fair Vote Canada links to research showing that countries with an electoral system based on proportional representation act faster on climate change, score higher on Yale’s Environmental Performance Index, and have made 117% greater use of renewable sources of energy. The climate crisis is now the most frightening symptom of the ongoing massive political crisis that gave rise to it and that underpins it at its root. One of the main sources of that “root rot” in Canada, both federally and provincially, is an electoral system based on false majorities and voter inequality. For many decades our deception-riddled electoral system has been undermining our attempts to hold elections that try to uphold even the most basic of democratic principles: the principle of “majority rules.”  For far too long we have mislead ourselves by using the phrase, “majority government” to refer to a government that has won a majority of seats instead of a majority of votes from actual people. Every
Read more