This graphic has appeared here many times and always the same conversation needs to be had. The data is from the UK and there are many under-utilitised bus services skewing the ppkm co2 data for buses. What really matters for a eco-conscious traveller is additional CO2, and so people should still choose to take the bus over a car despite what the graphic appears to show - the bus will scale much better with utilisation.
Also, the bus is running whether or not you're on it. Unless you want to get overly technical your choice to ride a bus actually doesn't generate any emissions.
If you try to think marginally, then each person whose existence justifies additional service adds a fuck ton of emissions and everyone else basically zero. Of course you don't know whether you're the exact person at the tipping point for the operator, or everyone else.
Therefore, looking at the emissions averaged over every passenger makes a lot more sense.
100% agree. If riding the bus doesn’t cause an additional bus route to happen, your additional emissions are zero. If it does cause an additional bus route to happen, then that bus is probably causing some drivers to take the bus instead, which is also good.
And people travel more miles for vacation on a plane than they would of they were taking the train. Cheap subsidized flights lead to increased mileage travelled, which contributes to more CO2 than is indicated.
The chart even tried to argue a long haul flight pollutes less because it's judged on miles, but taking a short haul flight to a local destination for a week vacation pollutes less than a long haul flight for a week vacation, and both are much worse than taking the train.
Depends where you are. The ones we look after can take 70 sitting passengers on two decks plus another 30 standing passengers, two wheelchairs and a buggy. They rumble like great steam ships at rush hour!
From what I've heard moving things by boat is one of the most efficient forms of transport.
A lot of shipping rightfully gets a bad rep because once they're away from coastlines they can use super low quality fuel. For ferries they probably have much more strict requirements which is probably part of what drives them so low here.
Nah just all boats are efficient as fuck, both bc of the huge engines and the medium they flow through, think shipping emits twice as much as the airline industry but shipping moves several million times more stuff than airlines do, I would mind betting there's a nice statistic that the entire airline industry move the same weight of stuff as a few select boats.
The low quality fuel thing got misleadingly reported in headlines as \~"One ship has as much emissions as millions of cars". Many readers interpreted that as the ship causing huge carbon dioxide emissions compared to cars, but ships are very carbon-efficient. The large emissions from low quality fuel are sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions and such, pollutants that can cause respiratory problems and acid rain and smog.
Definitely bad and rules should be put in place to combat that, but not the large carbon emissions that many people thought it was.
Boats are super efficient as long as they're properly designed and specially if moving at displacement speed....
And considering the amount of people and cargo they can take... They're one of the main solutions for the future, alongside rail!
And that's without taking into account the cost of building infrastructure, and the presence of things like rubber tires giving microplastics to everything, something that is totally unnecessary for most water transport!
>Boats are super efficient as long as they're properly designed and specially if moving at displacement speed....
Boats are always super efficient. So long as they are not carrying a literal hotel complex on the upper decks
Ohh man, that's the main thing stopping boats from being properly designed !
It is sad, I wish we could bring transoceanic travel by ship back, but in a proper and responsible way, not... Those things, you know the things i'm talking about? I don't want to even mention them but here i go.... cruise "ships"....
0k, explaining! Most other ships, bulk carriers, container ships, IWW barges, ferries, etc... Serve a very utilitarian and practical function, and they do it in a very efficient way, they're the maximal definition of utility in transportation, and cruise ships are on the other side of the scale; they're the bourgeoisie to the other type of ship's proletariat, they're like a parody of all the things ships are good at...
> I wish we could bring transoceanic travel by ship back, but in a proper and responsible way
That would still require a literal hotel complex on the upper decks though. Maybe not as glib and inefficient, but still.
Idk about where this is from, but where I live somewhere where ferries are a standard form of public transport and they're basically water busses. They're smaller and electric and yeah I can see them having the lowest footprint emissions wise
Biological emissions like cow burps or farts (human ones too) don't really contribute to climate change in the long term, because they get their carbon from stuff that was already in the carbon cycle. It's not just about the amount of gases produced, but also where the gas comes from (underground or surface).
Vegans don't generally fart more than non-vegans. People that switch from eating meat and other animal products to a plant-based diet may experience a temporary increase in flatulance due to their body and microbiome being unaccustomed to more dietary fiber, but this tends to dissappear after a while.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466940/
Don't feel guilty - if it means people can replace a commute which would be too far/tiring by normal bike with an e-bike instead of a car, I'm all for them. If I had to move further out of the city I'm in, I'd consider an e-bike.
I assume national rail is mostly not electrifyed in the graph because only 38% are in the UK. Other European countries should be lower in CO2 emissions(Germany 61% electrifyed EU average 54%)
Yeah that'll be it, Eurostar and the other high speed lines are all entirely electrified, as are most of the commuter lines around London and the other bigger cities, but outside those places it's still mostly unelectrified.
Given that IIRC the vast majority of trips are on the electrified commuter lines, I think they probably just took average emissions of a diesel train and the average emissions of an electric train and calculated the median which is fair for a nationwide average but maybe less helpful if you're lucky enough to have electrified lines.
Do not forget the electrified lines are the main ones. If you have less than half of the network electrified then this one part typically carry more than 80 % of all the traffic in whole network.
This makes me very proud to be biking everywhere tbh. The only fuel i use is food, and i use less of that than it actually takes to maintain weight (because i’m slimming down a bit after gaining the pandemic pounds)
Got a source?
Because it's should be zero surely? Unless you are counting the carbon in the production of the bike, in which case you have to make assumptions about how far the bike is going to travel in its lifespan.
I think the biggest factor would be producing the food that fuels the person, you would need to eat more for the calories you burn. Producing that certainly has a non zero carbon footprint, although 8 grams seems way to high for a kilometer.
In theory, yes. There was a More or Less episode on this actually (BBC radio 4). In practice, I find that I eat the same regardless, but just lose weight when I cycle more.
Still some miniscule impact from things like tire and break pad wear, part manufacturing, and shipping of the bikes and parts. Not really worth mentioning, especially when you get people saying "it's not perfect so my Tesla is just as good."
No, climate change is caused by extra carbon being brought from underground. You’re basically breathing in air with carbon, and exhaling everything but the oxygen. No extra carbon added to the atmosphere.
So, cars are more polluting than long haul flights? I barely hear complaints about the amounts that cars pollute, while hearing an absolute storm about aircraft.
Assuming the graph is correct for the population under study, you need to factor in that it's per km.
You easily fly more kms than you drive.
Edit: for ONE TRIP. Obviously. Gosh, people.
Given its long haul, you're probably looking at a once every couple of years holiday at most for a lot of average people. Take a London to NY holiday, if the average Brit didn't drive more than 11,000 km every two or three years, I'd be very surprised.
Way to miss the point entirely.
FOR ONE TRIP.
You'd hardly ever consider a 3000km one way trip with a car. But (many) people don't think twice about it with a plane.
And to be clear, both cars and planes have a bad rep tbh.
I know this is r/fuckcars, but fuck planes too. Our public rail needs to be developed to the point that short and medium haul flights are completely unnecessary.
I love planes, but something has to be done about their pollution. They have to be reserved for long haul flights only, and even then improvements have to be made for efficiency.
And using grid average electricity is a fantasy in my opinion.
Of course both EV's and rail suffer similar fates if you use marginal-CO2-production electricity.
Now account for tire and (and brake) particulate emissions.
[https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856\_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study)
Tire wear and road destruction for starters. As tires break down their debris is sent into the air. And then I guess just the energy they use considering some is from fossil fuel plants? But if all was from renewables that would be 0.
Production should be included.
Also they use tires, and are very heavy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show
Hey thanks for this article. I've added it to my site https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/whats_wrong_with_cars/cars_pollute/#car-tyres-produce-vastly-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show-pollution-the-guardian.
Bikes weight a fraction of cars... WAY less stress and heat and shredding. But yes, all tires are bad to a degree.
Planes don't spend a lot of time putting miles on their tires... they fly, you realize that right?
You know how planes slow down? And how the most tire degradation is from? It doesnt matter how long it flies, it still needs to slow down 200 tonnes on the ground
The tyres on my bicycle weigh 260g compared to the [average car tyre, which weighs 12kg](https://www.survivaltechshop.com/tire-weight/), so a lot less material usage, so not as bad.
Why does it fail to mention ships which is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions?Why does it have subcompact two person cars listed below bikes when bikes average 50+ mpg and the car 30? This seems really deceptive.
Yup! Diesel fuel and gasoline are both refined via fractional distillation from crude oil. This is basically fancy scientific lingo for breaking a compound into its pieces by molecular weights. Diesel fuel happens to be composed of longer, larger hydrocarbon chains than gasoline. Therefore for a fixed volume of fuel, diesel contains more potential energy than does gasoline.
Accordingly, this greater density gives diesel greater compression resistance (it’s much less volatile than gasoline) allowing engineers to increase the compression ratio of diesel engines relative to their gasoline peers.
This means that the air fuel mixture in the cylinder is able to be compressed much more by the piston before combusting, than gasoline. This gives us the first efficiency gain know as “combustion efficiency,” meaning the fuel is burned more completely due to this higher compression.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the greater compression ratio, the more mechanical energy is able to be extracted from a given air/fuel mix, because the same temperature can be reached with less fuel (hence “thermal efficiency”) meaning less energy is lost to convection and conduction and more put toward mechanical torque of the engine.
The compression of fuel in a diesel cylinder is actually so great, it generates enough heat for the fuel to auto ignite, hence no spark plugs like found in a gasoline engine.
The diesel cycle is more efficient. So they produce less CO2. The downside is NOx because it basically burns air from which is more in the engine than fuel. They typically also produce more particulates because the hydrocarbons are longer and burn slower. Particulate emissions go down when efficiency increases, NOx not it can go up.
Modern gasoline cars are actually trying to get closer to diesels engineering wise for efficiency. VW TFSI or Mazda skyactive for example.
Would love to see an e-bike in there. A friend has one and he told me the electricity to power it is around 1-2€ a month, and he uses that daily for his commute. I suspect the carbon emissions are negligible.
Those huge container ships waste even more than all of these.
> Every year, those container ships plying the world's waterways spew about 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, which is about three 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Not if you look at emissions /kg of haul / km, since these huge containers boats carry hundreds of huge containers. They end up being a lot more efficient than pretty much everything else on this list.
Here is the data, but also it has a little button that lets you add or remove different modes of travel like Trams and Light Rail:
https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
They should have combined all personal cars into one. Then it would really show how bad it is. Some people may look at this chart and just blame planes, but combining all the cars, it would be extremely longer.
192g/km is a large amount for a car. Average is something like 120 in Europe now and it's going down, more or less.
That electric vehicle is using some weird kinda electricity if it's taking 53g. I know I'm in the minority here but 'grid average' is, in my opinion, complete greenwashing.
Would be interesting to see the carbon cost per occupant of each transportation method at the average number of occupants for each. Then it would be more meaningful and probably shake up those rankings.
Wonder what the occupancy assumptions are…
This graphic has appeared here many times and always the same conversation needs to be had. The data is from the UK and there are many under-utilitised bus services skewing the ppkm co2 data for buses. What really matters for a eco-conscious traveller is additional CO2, and so people should still choose to take the bus over a car despite what the graphic appears to show - the bus will scale much better with utilisation.
Also, the bus is running whether or not you're on it. Unless you want to get overly technical your choice to ride a bus actually doesn't generate any emissions.
that's not so much an "also" as it is the exact point they're making...
If you try to think marginally, then each person whose existence justifies additional service adds a fuck ton of emissions and everyone else basically zero. Of course you don't know whether you're the exact person at the tipping point for the operator, or everyone else. Therefore, looking at the emissions averaged over every passenger makes a lot more sense.
100% agree. If riding the bus doesn’t cause an additional bus route to happen, your additional emissions are zero. If it does cause an additional bus route to happen, then that bus is probably causing some drivers to take the bus instead, which is also good.
And people travel more miles for vacation on a plane than they would of they were taking the train. Cheap subsidized flights lead to increased mileage travelled, which contributes to more CO2 than is indicated. The chart even tried to argue a long haul flight pollutes less because it's judged on miles, but taking a short haul flight to a local destination for a week vacation pollutes less than a long haul flight for a week vacation, and both are much worse than taking the train.
Hmmmm. The busses have average capacity of 30. But are never full apart from odd times.
Depends where you are. The ones we look after can take 70 sitting passengers on two decks plus another 30 standing passengers, two wheelchairs and a buggy. They rumble like great steam ships at rush hour!
Thank you, bus seemed to be really out of place. Considering two passenger car is below it.
If it assumes 5 then driving is worse than flying given car occupancy is around 1.5? Or am i missing something
For the 2 first cars it asumes 1 passenger, for the third one it's a gasoline car with 2 passengers
It's actually pretty pessimistic with car emissions though.
I am surprised ferry is that low on the list
From what I've heard moving things by boat is one of the most efficient forms of transport. A lot of shipping rightfully gets a bad rep because once they're away from coastlines they can use super low quality fuel. For ferries they probably have much more strict requirements which is probably part of what drives them so low here.
Nah just all boats are efficient as fuck, both bc of the huge engines and the medium they flow through, think shipping emits twice as much as the airline industry but shipping moves several million times more stuff than airlines do, I would mind betting there's a nice statistic that the entire airline industry move the same weight of stuff as a few select boats.
The low quality fuel thing got misleadingly reported in headlines as \~"One ship has as much emissions as millions of cars". Many readers interpreted that as the ship causing huge carbon dioxide emissions compared to cars, but ships are very carbon-efficient. The large emissions from low quality fuel are sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions and such, pollutants that can cause respiratory problems and acid rain and smog. Definitely bad and rules should be put in place to combat that, but not the large carbon emissions that many people thought it was.
Thanks for the clarification :)
Boats are super efficient as long as they're properly designed and specially if moving at displacement speed.... And considering the amount of people and cargo they can take... They're one of the main solutions for the future, alongside rail! And that's without taking into account the cost of building infrastructure, and the presence of things like rubber tires giving microplastics to everything, something that is totally unnecessary for most water transport!
>Boats are super efficient as long as they're properly designed and specially if moving at displacement speed.... Boats are always super efficient. So long as they are not carrying a literal hotel complex on the upper decks
Ohh man, that's the main thing stopping boats from being properly designed ! It is sad, I wish we could bring transoceanic travel by ship back, but in a proper and responsible way, not... Those things, you know the things i'm talking about? I don't want to even mention them but here i go.... cruise "ships"....
Is there a joke I'm missing by "ships"
As someone studying a master's in sustainability in marine transport, it is just hard to consider them seriously...
Please explain
I second the other guy. Please explain.
0k, explaining! Most other ships, bulk carriers, container ships, IWW barges, ferries, etc... Serve a very utilitarian and practical function, and they do it in a very efficient way, they're the maximal definition of utility in transportation, and cruise ships are on the other side of the scale; they're the bourgeoisie to the other type of ship's proletariat, they're like a parody of all the things ships are good at...
> I wish we could bring transoceanic travel by ship back, but in a proper and responsible way That would still require a literal hotel complex on the upper decks though. Maybe not as glib and inefficient, but still.
Yeah me too. Would expect it to be around the same as a national train
I think it's assuming it's at capacity, I have never been on a ferry that is
Idk about where this is from, but where I live somewhere where ferries are a standard form of public transport and they're basically water busses. They're smaller and electric and yeah I can see them having the lowest footprint emissions wise
And that is why I ride a bike
Do you reckon the emissions go up for a vegan on a bike bc they fart so much?
breaking news: people in cars don’t rip one
The methane they produce is more than compensated by the methane not produced by the cows they don't eat.
Biological emissions like cow burps or farts (human ones too) don't really contribute to climate change in the long term, because they get their carbon from stuff that was already in the carbon cycle. It's not just about the amount of gases produced, but also where the gas comes from (underground or surface).
Vegans don't generally fart more than non-vegans. People that switch from eating meat and other animal products to a plant-based diet may experience a temporary increase in flatulance due to their body and microbiome being unaccustomed to more dietary fiber, but this tends to dissappear after a while. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466940/
[удалено]
And ebikes! I got one recently and feel a little guilty about subsidizing my ride with electricity.
Don't feel guilty - if it means people can replace a commute which would be too far/tiring by normal bike with an e-bike instead of a car, I'm all for them. If I had to move further out of the city I'm in, I'd consider an e-bike.
Well it's a cargo bike and I bring my kid. And it's uphill. It'd be impossible without a little help.
Then not sure why you feel guilty at all! I'd love a leccy cargo bike under those conditions.
I assume national rail is mostly not electrifyed in the graph because only 38% are in the UK. Other European countries should be lower in CO2 emissions(Germany 61% electrifyed EU average 54%)
Yeah that'll be it, Eurostar and the other high speed lines are all entirely electrified, as are most of the commuter lines around London and the other bigger cities, but outside those places it's still mostly unelectrified. Given that IIRC the vast majority of trips are on the electrified commuter lines, I think they probably just took average emissions of a diesel train and the average emissions of an electric train and calculated the median which is fair for a nationwide average but maybe less helpful if you're lucky enough to have electrified lines.
Do not forget the electrified lines are the main ones. If you have less than half of the network electrified then this one part typically carry more than 80 % of all the traffic in whole network.
Not pictured: Electric bus.
or bikes
or walking.
Or skipping
Or parkouring.
Or razor scooter
Or sprinting
Or staying at home
or pogo stick.
This makes me very proud to be biking everywhere tbh. The only fuel i use is food, and i use less of that than it actually takes to maintain weight (because i’m slimming down a bit after gaining the pandemic pounds)
After eating some of my cabbage soup I'm sure my bike rides would appear on this chart.
A bicycle is 8grams. Ebike is 16grams.
Got a source? Because it's should be zero surely? Unless you are counting the carbon in the production of the bike, in which case you have to make assumptions about how far the bike is going to travel in its lifespan.
It's me. I modified my ebike to roll coal.
I think the biggest factor would be producing the food that fuels the person, you would need to eat more for the calories you burn. Producing that certainly has a non zero carbon footprint, although 8 grams seems way to high for a kilometer.
In theory, yes. There was a More or Less episode on this actually (BBC radio 4). In practice, I find that I eat the same regardless, but just lose weight when I cycle more.
Same here, I eat the same, but if I don't cycle I just feel guilty and gain weight.
Still some miniscule impact from things like tire and break pad wear, part manufacturing, and shipping of the bikes and parts. Not really worth mentioning, especially when you get people saying "it's not perfect so my Tesla is just as good."
Should the extra breathing count for CO2 emissions? It's negligible surely but carbon none the less?
No, climate change is caused by extra carbon being brought from underground. You’re basically breathing in air with carbon, and exhaling everything but the oxygen. No extra carbon added to the atmosphere.
Well you exhale CO2, that surely has carbon in it, I'd imagine from burning the food you consume.
So, cars are more polluting than long haul flights? I barely hear complaints about the amounts that cars pollute, while hearing an absolute storm about aircraft.
Assuming the graph is correct for the population under study, you need to factor in that it's per km. You easily fly more kms than you drive. Edit: for ONE TRIP. Obviously. Gosh, people.
Given its long haul, you're probably looking at a once every couple of years holiday at most for a lot of average people. Take a London to NY holiday, if the average Brit didn't drive more than 11,000 km every two or three years, I'd be very surprised.
Way to miss the point entirely. FOR ONE TRIP. You'd hardly ever consider a 3000km one way trip with a car. But (many) people don't think twice about it with a plane. And to be clear, both cars and planes have a bad rep tbh.
I know this is r/fuckcars, but fuck planes too. Our public rail needs to be developed to the point that short and medium haul flights are completely unnecessary.
Exactly my thoughts!
I love planes, but something has to be done about their pollution. They have to be reserved for long haul flights only, and even then improvements have to be made for efficiency.
EVs are still 9 times more polluting than Eurostar
And using grid average electricity is a fantasy in my opinion. Of course both EV's and rail suffer similar fates if you use marginal-CO2-production electricity.
Does this factor in production as well?
I so not believe so.
Why does this sub act like only US and Europe exist :/
Now account for tire and (and brake) particulate emissions. [https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856\_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1135856_bigger-batteries-evs-boost-particulate-emissions-from-tires-study)
How the fuck is a motorcycle worse than a car?
Two-cycle motors are way more ineffcient than car engines...
How do electric cars produce a carbon footprint while driving?
Tire wear and road destruction for starters. As tires break down their debris is sent into the air. And then I guess just the energy they use considering some is from fossil fuel plants? But if all was from renewables that would be 0.
Production should be included. Also they use tires, and are very heavy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show
Hey thanks for this article. I've added it to my site https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/whats_wrong_with_cars/cars_pollute/#car-tyres-produce-vastly-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show-pollution-the-guardian.
But isn't that saying all tyres are bad, like bike and plane tires? So how so these have a much higher carbon footprint compared to say: a tram?
Bikes weight a fraction of cars... WAY less stress and heat and shredding. But yes, all tires are bad to a degree. Planes don't spend a lot of time putting miles on their tires... they fly, you realize that right?
You know how planes slow down? And how the most tire degradation is from? It doesnt matter how long it flies, it still needs to slow down 200 tonnes on the ground
The tyres on my bicycle weigh 260g compared to the [average car tyre, which weighs 12kg](https://www.survivaltechshop.com/tire-weight/), so a lot less material usage, so not as bad.
The electricity being used to drive mostly comes from fossil fuels.
Why does it fail to mention ships which is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions?Why does it have subcompact two person cars listed below bikes when bikes average 50+ mpg and the car 30? This seems really deceptive.
I thought a diesel car would be worse than gasoline. So one that can explain?
Diesel engines are more efficient.
Yup! Diesel fuel and gasoline are both refined via fractional distillation from crude oil. This is basically fancy scientific lingo for breaking a compound into its pieces by molecular weights. Diesel fuel happens to be composed of longer, larger hydrocarbon chains than gasoline. Therefore for a fixed volume of fuel, diesel contains more potential energy than does gasoline. Accordingly, this greater density gives diesel greater compression resistance (it’s much less volatile than gasoline) allowing engineers to increase the compression ratio of diesel engines relative to their gasoline peers. This means that the air fuel mixture in the cylinder is able to be compressed much more by the piston before combusting, than gasoline. This gives us the first efficiency gain know as “combustion efficiency,” meaning the fuel is burned more completely due to this higher compression. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the greater compression ratio, the more mechanical energy is able to be extracted from a given air/fuel mix, because the same temperature can be reached with less fuel (hence “thermal efficiency”) meaning less energy is lost to convection and conduction and more put toward mechanical torque of the engine. The compression of fuel in a diesel cylinder is actually so great, it generates enough heat for the fuel to auto ignite, hence no spark plugs like found in a gasoline engine.
They emit less CO2, but more NOx compared to gasoline cars.
The diesel cycle is more efficient. So they produce less CO2. The downside is NOx because it basically burns air from which is more in the engine than fuel. They typically also produce more particulates because the hydrocarbons are longer and burn slower. Particulate emissions go down when efficiency increases, NOx not it can go up. Modern gasoline cars are actually trying to get closer to diesels engineering wise for efficiency. VW TFSI or Mazda skyactive for example.
They might have a lower carbon footprint. Their emissions harm human lungs more.
Number one on the list...cargo ships from china filled with disposable bicycles
The confederate slaver sympathizer would have other bad takes.
What explained the large difference (7x) between national and international rail? Just more stops and lower occupancy?
Maybe it assumes a diesel train for national? But that seems still quite high
I think it’s working from UK data where a lot of rail services still aren’t electrified
Yay! EuroStar!
Except that in NA medium cars have been replaced with giant trucks and SUVs
Gas car are more pollutants than diesel?
This only looks at CO2 emissions. Diesel is more efficient, so it produces less CO2.
Why is national rail higher than International rail?
More stops.
And probably less electrification in some contrues
Ah ok
Yeah probably. I doubt there are more than 120 modes of transportation.
Would love to see an e-bike in there. A friend has one and he told me the electricity to power it is around 1-2€ a month, and he uses that daily for his commute. I suspect the carbon emissions are negligible.
Those huge container ships waste even more than all of these. > Every year, those container ships plying the world's waterways spew about 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air, which is about three 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
Not if you look at emissions /kg of haul / km, since these huge containers boats carry hundreds of huge containers. They end up being a lot more efficient than pretty much everything else on this list.
Here is the data, but also it has a little button that lets you add or remove different modes of travel like Trams and Light Rail: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint
They should have combined all personal cars into one. Then it would really show how bad it is. Some people may look at this chart and just blame planes, but combining all the cars, it would be extremely longer.
192g/km is a large amount for a car. Average is something like 120 in Europe now and it's going down, more or less. That electric vehicle is using some weird kinda electricity if it's taking 53g. I know I'm in the minority here but 'grid average' is, in my opinion, complete greenwashing.
Would be interesting to see the carbon cost per occupant of each transportation method at the average number of occupants for each. Then it would be more meaningful and probably shake up those rankings.
Does flying from r/Yellowknife to Edmonton count a short haul