I've been saying for years (to anyone who could bear to put up with me), that we're not getting the full picture about emissions and "Green" forms of transport. Now, finally, someone reputable (The University of California, Berkeley) has conducted a study, published yesterday, which includes all of the environmental costs of the transport sector.  The results make for very interesting, if scary reading.
Some of the open wounds often hidden or conveniently forgotten by some people on the "Green" Lobby bandwagon have been laid bare. It seems that the existing Emission studies that deal with Transport emissions, appear not to take into account all of the factors involved, particularly the emission cost of construction and maintenance of the "Enviro Friendly" units and the infrastructure.
It turns out that the tailpipe emissions currently cited in Green studies are by far the least of the problems when it comes to total Emissions. Air traffic in particular seems to become a lot more environmentally friendly especially when compared with trains and buses, even electric ones. Green cars are completely discredited.
The study gives a few reasons for this:
- Initial environmental cost of the plane construction versus the lifespan of the planes, the amount of passengers they can carry and the distance they travel over that lifespan.
- Cost of infrastructure for rail networks accounts for more than half the total environmental cost, especially when maintenance and construction costs are included.
- The high cost of electric energy production for trams and trains.
- The cost of construction of road networks.
- The cost of fuel production.
- Initial environmental costs of producing "Green" vehicles. This is an oxymoron in itself. Cars are the absolute worst when everything is taken into consideration.
The new study is the first major one to take into account all of the factors that affect transport, from the energy costs to produce the fuel needed to maintenance energy costs and infrastructure costs. It produces a nett environmental emissions cost, it finally makes correct comparison for future infrastructure construction to see where money should be spent in the most environmentally friendly way.
Surprisingly, the results indicate that air travel is the most environmentally friendly when all factors are taken into account..
The report makes interesting reading. Get a look at it if only to open your mind to the total environmental cost of so-called "Green" transport.
When studies eventually get around to having a harsh look at the environmental cost of production of the newer solar heating and electricity generation panels and of windfarm construction, my belief is that we are being led up the garden path by vested interests again, repeating the sins of Big Oil but with a green face. Current environmental legislation is leading us in ways that will not benefit the planet in the long run. I feel that producing your own energy with recycled engine parts and other components (a rapidly growing DIY network is currently doing this), even with the subsequent lower energy production provides a substantial energy gain over changing to new solar electricity and heating panels.
The study results are available as a downloadable PDF Here.
I've queried this unquestioning belief in Green before. We are rushing into many of them without realising the damage they could cause.
We had a case here last year where the roads built to service a windfarm on a boggy mountain tore that bog layer like a blanket causing landslides.
I'm not saying they're all wrong or dangerous, but we have to tread carefully.
Absolutely right. There's a danger of adopting a new religion.
"the results indicate that air travel is the most environmentally friendly when all factors are taken into account.."
Location, is one key factor here from my reading of this. Their point appears to be if the train system is using electricity generated by fossil fuels and is empty then it overtakes the air travel in damage if the aeroplane is full.
Full to capacity, sit in the corridor, Limerick to Dublin train still beats a single occupancy car journey up the N7 hands down, or indeed the many half empty ryanair flights leaving Shannon Airport.
Shane, the natural extension to your argument is that we stop running trains and Buses at non-peak times. That of course will render them useless to most people. There is no-one disputing with regard to Cars, I've stated that they come out the absolute worst.
I have also been on many, many trains over the last few years (Lets me got on with some work on the laptop plugged in and charging during the trip and is a cheaper than Driving on your own) and there are very, very few trains or Buses running at full capacity. The last four trains that I have been on started from Limerick or Dublin with about 15 people on board (6-8 carriages long) and ended up at the other end with at most 100 passengers alighting. Two return journeys in the last month during what would be normal "Rush Hours" for work arriving in Dublin at 8:00 am. On both occasions I had a free carriage to myself for 90% of the journey in each direction. Allowed me plenty of freedom to get up and have a walk every twenty minutes to rest the brain and back. (I would like wifi broadband on board but again that's for a later discussion). Even allowed me my own Personal En-suite bathroom :-)
The very efficient Polish Girl on board knew exactly what every one of her passengers wanted to eat and drink and on the return journey even asked me whether I was going to eat the same sandwich again. This was of course made easy with the small amount of passengers on board, but a good trick nonetheless. It also gave me my second confirmation that the trains are ridiculously underpopulated all of the time.
I'm just saying that at least now we are getting to the real picture with regard to Environmental costs and we're all going to have to have a re-think in regard to which ways to go in the future. If all costs are taken into consideration, it also goes some way to explaining why a cut-throat company like Ryanair can fly you to Italy cheaper than Humper can take you to Dublin? Having to extend and subsequently maintain the rail network would appear to invalidate any environmental cost gains over flying, particularly in this country where Feeling Foul's Andrews ripped up as much network as he possibly could.
I'm more concerned however over the way we are being pushed at the moment in regard to other Green Techs., ie. windfarms, solar panels etc. This is where the spotlight should be shone before we go making any leaps of faith. Please remember that the diesel engine was originally designed to use vegetable oils but got converted to use Fossil, now we are hearing all of the stories about other technologies being bought up and hidden by big oil to prevent their use or release to the open market. We don't need the same scams operating again under different faces.
I'm hoping to do a decent piece later about proper green tech's with recycled materials, Bock willing :-)
I'm interested in the DIY network you mention, any references?
The figures don't surprise me at all, but what is your drive here? Simply discrediting the green agenda or trying to push them in new directions to actually achieve something meaningful? I mean, I can see an immediate solution, wipe out a goodly chunk of the human population of the planet, but this seems an unpopular route to take and I won't be volunteering myself.
Oh, and producing solar cells requires seriously high temperatures and some unsavory chemicals, you are spot on with that. What's needed is a wealth of ideas and a sensible way of determining which are good and which are not, maybe kite based wind power might work? Perhaps polymer based photovoltaics are a good thing? Thorium fission reactors might be good? who knows, but keep the ideas coming and don't discount a whole section of them because of a prejudice (I'm thinking of another blogger on the prejudice front BTW, before you get offended).
No, I'm not discrediting the green agenda at all, I am a strong proponent of green technologies. I have more than covered both mine and my families carbon footprint for this lifetime in another way. I'm not a tree hugger, I was a tree planter :-)
What I am saying is that I feel that currently we are being driven by those with hidden agendas, as Bock says a new religious fervour. Inconvenient truths were and stil are being swept under the environmentally friendly carpet by companies with ulterior motives. Current Technologies are at the very early stage and we shouldn't rush to swamp down everything that has a "Green" flavour. As you asked above, I would definitely be of the Pushing variety, ie. think laterally, make it right, but what use is making it right in one way if the environmental cost of Production of new technologies is more damaging than not producing them in the first place?
This is the first study that appears to examine the overall environmental cost picture and not a Blinkered view of fuel consumption only. There are many that take this blinkered view, bring down fuel consumption at any cost in the view that this is better, but discounting the damage that production and maintenance of these newer technologies does along the way.
Basically my view is that we should be taking a more holistic approach to environmental protection. Recycle, but not if it costs more in energy or fuel terms to do so by requiring more trucks on the road for example. Use alternative energies, but only when the overall environmental damage is less when doing so. Everything must be taken into account before deciding which way to go.
We have a long road to travel to get this right, but we have to get this right. Our own, our kids and their kids futures are depending on this.
Thats why things like recycling old refrigerator backs into solar collectors is in my view a correct way to go. Maybe less efficient in generating hot water overall, but Energy costs are almost nil in producing them. This is the subject of another post that I'm working on at the moment where I'll outline some DIY stuff that anyone can do.
My kids cut up old cereal boxes and milk cartons to make face masks and flowers. This is true recycling. And no-one has to come in a truck to take them away. Eventually we shred stuff and it gets used as horse bedding elsewhere.
Does this make my thoughts clearer ?
@TheGeek: Ah, my question was more directed at Bock than yourself, I should have made that clear, sorry. I pretty much agree with you, my issue is that the "onwards and upwards" brigade (as I refer to them) typically latch onto the more blatant failures of any green movement in order to discredit it as a whole. Mistakes happen, that's a fact of life. Identify them, fix them, move on. I figure we have a similar opinion, I've just been irritated by recent blinkered and prejudiced posts on Turbulence Ahead
You'd be better off asking the Geek. He wrote the post.
Fair point, unobservant of me.