The study, “Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport,” finds that, in the short run, planes cause more global warming because they create more short-lived warming processes at high altitudes.

However, when you take ‘everything’ — long- and short-lived gases, aerosols and cloud effects from transportation around the world — into account, an average car trip increases global temperatures more than an average flight the same distance.
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tnj)

nice to get some fun in these comments once in awhile

Thanks, Donald

Considering that the article has nothing to do with bicycles and that the claim is preposterous, I think Sven was just a Hummer-driving troll who hates the world.

But seriously, the only cars that have a chance at matching bicycles in efficiency right now are electric-driven clown cars (where the number of clowns exceeds 20). And even then I would be skeptical.

This European CICERO paper does makes some very interesting and possibly useful observations but its analyses of transport modes on an emissions per kilometre basis where direct substitution is not possible is frankly pointless.

This report shows us that global car emission volumes are greater than those from air transport; long term car greenhouse gas emissions will therefore have a greater impact on climate change than flying. Nobody disputes this. But it is easier to reduce vehicle emissions than those of kerosene-dependent aircraft – there are no hybrid planes, for instance. And aviation emissions are increasing at a faster pace so overtime, aviation emissions become a much higher percentage of total CO2.

The headline is actually derived from the study’s emissions per kilometre work – using a low occupancy car (1 person – the driver!) versus a high occupancy large modern aircraft to make per kilometre efficiency claims and comparisons regarding hypothetical long distance travel is unclear and unhelpful. I don’t know anyone who has actually driven across the Atlantic.

If the study is correct we’d fly coal around and travel on cargo-ships to the US. Where direct modal substitution is concerned, then it’s a useful tool. A ‘real’ example would be Eastern US short-sea shipping vs rail vs lorry vs cargo aircraft.

Knowing what their g CO2/km is down to an individual aircraft/car/ship type AND is entirely dependent on load factor. A full previous generation MD80 is a much better option under this analysis than a 3/4 full latest generation A320 or B737-800 but thankfully even airlines replace gas-guzzlers in real life.

The authors conclusion that demand for ALL forms of fossil fuel based travel; car, van, lorry, ships and planes – needs to be minimised urgently is the important take away message from this study. They are not saying flying is better for the environment than car travel!

Jeff Gazzard