Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:22 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Both Iran and Pakistan welcome visitors, but suspect the passage would
be hard and hazardous. Not one for the faint hearted.

At this moment, Brits might not be so welcome in Iran.

I believe the British will do just as fine as tourists from other countries.

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:52:56 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:22 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Both Iran and Pakistan welcome visitors, but suspect the passage would
be hard and hazardous. Not one for the faint hearted.

At this moment, Brits might not be so welcome in Iran.

I really don't think they'd have any particular problem if they are
just tourists. If the Iranian state starts nabbing tourists, then the
**** will really hit the fan.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:27:29 +0100,
"nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com has scripted:


"ocelot" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 3, 6:51 pm, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:
"ocelot" wrote in message

ups.com...

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Having used Eurostar once, I intend to fly in future.

Colin Bignell

and the reason is .....

I didn't like the train journey.

I can't imagine why. I found it very pleasant all the times I did it.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:37:02 +0200,
Martin has scripted:

On 3 Apr 2007 14:21:23 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

On Apr 3, 11:19 pm, Martin wrote:

Vested interests?

prove them wrong !!

Eurostar funded the study.

Really? If that's the case then it's definitely suspect, and probably
crap.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 3/04/07 15:41, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

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


Generally the order of energy efficiency per ton transported is that the
boat is better than the trains is better than the private automobile, with
air travel last. The problem with the latter is the energy cost getting the
plane to a certain altitude. That input of potential energy in taking a
weight to a high altitude is not recovered on the descent.

A single person flying from NY to Paris generates about 3.8 tons
of carbon dioxide for the trip. A Honda Insight will generate
about 1 tons if it could drive the same distance. More over
an auto can carry more than one person, increasing its efficiency.

Përhaps others can find competing figures.

The most energy efficient method of traveling is the bicycle.
Even more efficient than walking since the wear and tear on
shoe leather turns out to be expensive.

On 3/04/07 17:33, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

Total world aviation CO2 production accounts for less than 2% of the CO2 being
generated. Why the emphasis? What percentage do car internal combustion
engines produce?

"Mind your pennies, and your pounds will mind themselves."

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:05:05 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:52:56 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:22 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Both Iran and Pakistan welcome visitors, but suspect the passage would
be hard and hazardous. Not one for the faint hearted.

At this moment, Brits might not be so welcome in Iran.

I really don't think they'd have any particular problem if they are
just tourists. If the Iranian state starts nabbing tourists, then the
**** will really hit the fan.

It appears the Irnaian government has had the populace stirred up
about those evil Brits. I never meant a Brit tourist might be
detained by the governmant.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:55:05 +0200, Earl Evleth
wrote:

On 3/04/07 15:41, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

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


Generally the order of energy efficiency per ton transported is that the
boat is better than the trains is better than the private automobile, with
air travel last. The problem with the latter is the energy cost getting the
plane to a certain altitude. That input of potential energy in taking a
weight to a high altitude is not recovered on the descent.

It's not recovered in the sense that regenerative braking
recovers the energy an electric car uses to get up to speed, but
it is recovered in the sens that once the airplane begins its
descent much less fuel is required than even cruising.

A single person flying from NY to Paris generates about 3.8 tons
of carbon dioxide for the trip. A Honda Insight will generate
about 1 tons if it could drive the same distance. More over
an auto can carry more than one person, increasing its efficiency.

Përhaps others can find competing figures.

I'd like to see the source for your figures first.

The most energy efficient method of traveling is the bicycle.
Even more efficient than walking since the wear and tear on
shoe leather turns out to be expensive.

You've found a bicycle with tires that never wear out?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:05:05 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:52:56 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:22 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:

Both Iran and Pakistan welcome visitors, but suspect the passage would
be hard and hazardous. Not one for the faint hearted.

At this moment, Brits might not be so welcome in Iran.

I really don't think they'd have any particular problem if they are
just tourists. If the Iranian state starts nabbing tourists, then the
**** will really hit the fan.

It appears the Irnaian government has had the populace stirred up
about those evil Brits. I never meant a Brit tourist might be
detained by the governmant.

Looking at the small but highly disciplined demonstrations on the TV news I
get the distinct impression that the Iranian people don't actually care
about 'those evil Brits'...

A couple of hundred people with nice printed signs and a bit of shouting do
not a popular demonstration make...
--
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.

On 3/04/07 17:37, in article
, "Iceman"
wrote:

If aviation is as small a contributor to global CO2 as you indicate,
then the focus on aviation is indeed misplaced. While automobiles,
power generation and heating are the big three causes of CO2
emissions, I have heard figures more like 7% from aviation, and that
emissions several miles high have a much stronger greenhouse effect
than emissions at ground level. I am welcome to be persuaded
otherwise however. Do you have a good source?

Ryanair brags---

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/about...ec=environment

Ryanair proves that air transport can be environmentally friendly whilst
continuing to deliver huge economic benefits in terms of the lowest cost air
travel for consumers, increased tourism, regional and social cohesion, job
creation, inward investment, etc. As the table below illustrates, air
transport, which accounts for less than 2% of total EU CO2 emissions, is not
the real problem in terms of environmental impacts. Road transport accounts
for 9 times more and small consumer fuel combustion for 6 times more CO2
emissions than aviation within EU airspace.