Trains vs. Planes: Eurostar Joins the Debate
by Treehugger Interns 
on 10.28.06
Everytime we discuss aviation it generates some pretty passionate discussion. Now Eurostar, the company operating trains between London and Paris, and London and Brussels, has waded into the debate. The company has put out a press release claiming that an independent report commissioned by them shows that their trains emit 10 times less carbon dioxide than an equivalent journey by plane. They also claim that these findings may be conservative, as they don’t take into account the extra harm done by polluting at altitude, or planes being held in holding patterns.
The press release also refers to a YouGov poll that 39% of people in the UK have changed their travel habits because of climate change. Apparently this includes 3% of people who have stopped flying and 6% who have reduced the amount they fly. 54% say they are more concerned about the environmental impact of flying than they were five years ago.
Knowing that our readers are a discerning bunch, we contacted Eurostar to see if the research was accessible by the general public. They told us, unfortunately, that it was not as it contained “commercially sensitive information.” They did tell us that the report was conducted by a consortium of Paul Watkiss Associates and AEA Technology Environment.
If the reports claims are true, they could well influence consumer behavior, at least regarding short-haul flights. However, it would have been nice to look at the figures involved. The Guardian ran an interesting piece on this here followed, surprisingly enough, by some passionate debate. As one Guardian reader points out, part of the low CO2 figures for Eurostar must presumably be due to a significant proportion of French electricity being supplied nuclear power. Presumably they won’t be promoting this part of the report to Greenpeace…
Either way, the more information we can get on the relative harm done by various means of travel, the more informed decisions we can make. Does anyone know of any other, publicly available research on Eurostar vs. the airplane?
[Written by: Sami Grover]
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Electric trains vs. kerosene powered Jets?
I don't think there is really a debate in there anywhere.
Especially for shorter trips where the jet doesn't run at their more efficient cruising altitude for very long after the relatively ineffecient takeoff.
Am I missing something here?
The argument for train travel is strengthened when consider the effects of contrails in global warming.
I also want to compliment the Treehugger interns on a high quality piece of internet journalism...some of the Treehugger writers with bylines could take a page from your book.
Well, regardless of the fact that much (IIRC 70%) of French electricity is nuclear sourced, it doesn't require a huge leap of faith to see that an electric train must produce less CO2 by several times over aircraft.
However, as a practical matter it is less clear to me what this means in terms of policy, because a huge amount of energy and material was required to build the Channel Tunnel ("chunnel"), while air corridors require no investment whatever.
As a civil engineer who has worked in roadbuilding, I must mention that few people understand just how staggeringly high fuel consumption is for building roads, not to mention tunnels made out of concrete. What, I ask, is the CO2 payback period of the chunnel?
My point is not to discourage people from opting for chunnel crossing trains. Quite the opposite: the thing is built now so we might as well use it.
My point is that analysis of similar projects elsewhere should look at the lifecycle, not merely the operating, CO2 burden they produce. I suspect that this study is only looking at operations.