A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 01:20 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
ocelot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

At Eurostar being green is important so we've commissioned some
detailed research on the subject. Our findings show that passengers
who fly between London, Paris and Brussels generate ten times more
emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than travellers
who go by rail.

The research was carried out by a consortium of Paul Watkiss
Associates and AEA Technology Environment. It uses detailed data on
electricity supplies, power station emissions and transmission losses;
Eurostar and airline load factors; and the range of aircraft and
engine types and emissions.

The figures are the most detailed ever produced and are based on
actual passenger numbers, exact distances of rail and air routes,
actual aircraft types in use on different routes, and the mix of
electricity sources used by Eurostar trains.

  #2  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 01:58 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
ocelot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

On Apr 3, 2:29 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 05:20:08 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


Taking into account the CO2 generated during manufacture of the rails, boring
the tunnels and other mundane things that are for some reason are excluded?

The amount of CO2 generated flying the same route is insignificant.
--

Martin


but since the tunnel is now built......

  #3  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 02:31 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Iceman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 877
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

On Apr 3, 7:29 am, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 05:20:08 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


Taking into account the CO2 generated during manufacture of the rails, boring
the tunnels and other mundane things that are for some reason are excluded?

The amount of CO2 generated flying the same route is insignificant.



Manufacturing the rails and boring the tunnels is done once. The CO2
from flying versus rail is repeated thousands of times. Rail still
comes out as far less polluting.

  #6  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 02:52 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
ocelot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

On Apr 3, 3:47 pm, Bert Hyman wrote:
(Martin) wrote :



On 03 Apr 2007 13:36:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:


(Martin) wrote in
m:


On 3 Apr 2007 05:20:08 -0700, "ocelot"
wrote:


Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


Is "ten times less" the same as "one tenth"?


Taking into account the CO2 generated during manufacture of the
rails, boring the tunnels and other mundane things that are for
some reason are excluded?


Presumably then, you've made the same accounting for the
manufacture of the aircraft, the construction and maintenance of
the airports and the extraction, distillation and transport of the
fuel "and other mundane things that are for some reason [are]
excluded"?


er I'm not the one making silly claims for Eurostar.


No, but you were the one asking whether certain external factors
were taken into account in the determination of railway CO2
emissions; I was simply asking whether you want to make similar
adjustments when talking about air travel.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |


Martin is just being argumentative......again

  #7  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 03:01 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Bert Hyman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

(ocelot) wrote in
oups.com:


Martin is just being argumentative......again


Well, so am I.

Isn't that why we're here?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

  #8  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 03:02 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


"Iceman" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 3, 7:29 am, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 05:20:08 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


Taking into account the CO2 generated during manufacture of the rails,
boring
the tunnels and other mundane things that are for some reason are
excluded?

The amount of CO2 generated flying the same route is insignificant.



Manufacturing the rails and boring the tunnels is done once. The CO2
from flying versus rail is repeated thousands of times. Rail still
comes out as far less polluting.
I'm all in favour of travelling by train, or even bus.


However I have to travel from the North of England to India once or twice a
year.

Security at air-ports are so bad these days and so I've considered all the
other possible options:

Travelling by bus, except you can't travel to India by bus any more because
the USA has turned a reasonable proportion of the intervening terrain into a
war zone.

Rail, there isn't one... The rail head in India stops somewhere around
Jammu, Pakistan and Afghanistan aren't safe, Iran is no longer safe and
you can't get a visa for the smaller 'Stans'...

Plus India doesn't allow Europeans in Jammu and Kashmir so even if you could
find a way round you can't get into the country

Travelling by ship, except it's a 28 day journey and the shipping agencies
charge about £50 ($100) a day.

Heathrow is a hell hole run by morons with a security fixation, KLM loses
your luggage so cutting Heathrow out and going via Holland from a UK
provincial air-port is a non starter as well.

Suggestions anyone?

Because right now a seat on a Virgin Atlantic jet is about the best option
there is for the environment...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.




  #9  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 03:58 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,483
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:41:08 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 06:31:50 -0700, "Iceman" wrote:

On Apr 3, 7:29 am, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 05:20:08 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Taking into account the CO2 generated during manufacture of the rails, boring
the tunnels and other mundane things that are for some reason are excluded?

The amount of CO2 generated flying the same route is insignificant.



Manufacturing the rails and boring the tunnels is done once.


Not quite, rails are replaced from time to time.

The CO2
from flying versus rail is repeated thousands of times. Rail still
comes out as far less polluting.


Cars come out as highly polluting, but nobody seems to compare travelling to
Paris by car with flying there.


Perhaps it should be done.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
  #10  
Old April 3rd, 2007, 03:59 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Markku Grönroos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,095
Default Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes


"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:41:08 +0200, Martin
wrote:

The CO2
from flying versus rail is repeated thousands of times. Rail still
comes out as far less polluting.


Cars come out as highly polluting, but nobody seems to compare travelling
to
Paris by car with flying there.


Perhaps it should be done.

What should be done?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Times: Another danger of flying lies not in air but food sufaud Air travel 3 March 11th, 2005 11:12 PM
LAT: Mexico City's new wave of chefs generates heat Biwah Latin America 0 February 23rd, 2005 06:44 PM
Accessing Sunset Times &Times ghptravel.com Europe 8 October 23rd, 2004 05:04 PM
No more Eurostar ? Nick Fisher Europe 18 April 30th, 2004 02:49 PM
FS: Eurostar tickets / VDS: Billets Eurostar Nick Fisher Europe 2 February 28th, 2004 08:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.