Here's a green vacation idea that I think Treehugger will appreciate -

this summer, instead of flying somewhere, like we usually do, my family will probably be taking a biking trip through the Appalacians. Not only does this lessen our CO2 impact, but the mountain range is within a few hours' drive of our home, so we won't be travelling that far of a distance, either.

The only way flying coach will reduce your carbon profile is if you're hoping, by making such a choice, to send a message to airlines to market fewer business class seats, thereby flying more densely packed planes. After all, whichever class you choose, the other seat is going to be an empty seat.

That seems a little far-fetched. While a more densely packed plane will be more efficient, it is the weight of the plane that is the principal input on energy consumption, not the wider cross section/ greater drag profile of a roomier plane.

Likewise, flying a non-stop may reduce your gross miles in the air, but the connection-flight plane is flying the route anyway, and the consequent repositioning of that plane is necessary for the most efficient utilization of the fleet the next day. It would fly even if it were empty. The only other alternative that would reduce emissions if the flight were totally cancelled.

Airlines are already extremely concerned about fuel savings, which is a massive cost for them, and they run extremely sophisticated computer programs to cut consumption to the bone. They also buy the most efficient equpment they can afford.

I think it would be better to write a letter to the marketing department of your frequent flyer airline and tell them you're going to be more conscious of environmental concerns in your future travel plans. Also research which airlines offer carbon offset payment options (I believe Virgin does) and which airlines have more efficient fleets (which of course means younger planes, which, however, are more carbon intensive than older planes used for a longer time!)

Or just voluntarily forgo a flight every once and a while and take the bus.

Wow...complex.

I think you (and Terrapass) mean "non-stop" instead of "direct." Just because something is a direct flight doesn't mean you don't have any layovers, only that you stay on the same flight plane.

As for flying business class, that's another one of those systemic arguments. The actual CO2 used to transport is the amount of CO2 the plane puts out from the extra fuel used to transport the extra weight of you and your baggage. This weight doesn't change if you sit in one seat instead of another.

The last thing is that intercity bus travel is far and away the least carbon-intensive mode of long-distance transportation in the US, yet I find it ironic that this option is never mentioned as being the most green. I gather it has everything to do with the fact that bus travel is like rolling prison, for the most part, in this country.

The train option is totally unrealistic for most trips of any decent length, or any outside of the DC-Boston corridor. The massive delays which are a regular feature of Amtrak travel make it a form of nostalgia indulgence, not something which one should rely upon for timeliness.

does anyone have any idea of a timely way to cross the atlantic without a plane? i have relatives in England. . . .

--------
Author's comment:
I wish I did. I'm from the UK and my wife is from the States. We live here in NC, so I would LOVE for a low carbon alternative to get back to Blightey. However, it's not even just a question of timeliness - taking one of the few cruise ships will apparently emmit even more CO2 than flying.

There are some freight boats that take passengers, which would at least be greener thant the cruise liner, but they are neither timely nor cheap (check out http://www.seat61.com). I did also have a friend who trained up as a yachtsman and offered himself to crews crossing the atlantic. Super green, but not so useful for those of us with jobs...

I think, to be honest, it'll be a case of flying for some time to come. I try to limit myself to not going back too often, but staying longer when I do. Eventually they may get the whole airship concept working again, or some of the fancier promises of Branson et al. may work out to bring us cheaper aviation. In the meantime, you can take consolation at least in the fact that the longer the journey, the more efficient aviaition is per passenger mile, as the take off and landing are the worst parts. Of course, the longer you travel, the more you emit overall, I'm just saying that aviation is not as rediculous an option in this context as, say, a return flight from London to Manchester.

And then we have to ask ourselves why the US lacks in bullet train technology. The energy comsumption via a bullet train capable of traveling 200+ miles is very minimal compared to a speeding jet.

I recently booked a trip from NY to Boston on Greyhound, over the internet with a week's notice, and it was 25 BUCKS ROUND TRIP. That's almost TOO cheap. I wound up not taking it, but definitely will do more bus in the future. I also recently took Amtrack from Montreal to NY, for less than $100. The price hasn't moved in a decade at least. However, there were terrible delays due to track work, and people waited 1/2 an hour to buy pretzels at the snack bar owing to an attendant with a highly evolved sense of personal drama.

I bought a small DVD player with a 7-inch screen for 79 bucks at Radio Shack, and it's perfect for bus and train trips, when you don't want to just stare out the window.

Ships like Titanic and Olympic took thousands of passengers with only a 50,000 horsepower turbine, the crossing took 5 days. Sea travel is seriously carbon-friendly! Of course, if you have the non-stop buffets, theatres, and other amenities, it's not nearly so much.

-----
Author's comment:
True - I think a big part of modern cruisers carbon impact is the sheer number of staff they carry with them, from what I have read they pretty much outnumber the paying passengers...

I wish the bus were cheap. In Canada, riding the dog costs about double the gas cost of driving a car, and takes about 10-20% longer.

Here's another tip I heard, but I haven't done the actual research myself: flushing the toilet on the airplane uses the same amount of fuel as driving a car for 6 miles. Pee at the airport :)

Also, fuel costs have increased proportionally with the waistlines of Americans. The fatter we all get, the more fuel is needed to carry our ever increasing [selves] from city to city. I know it seems discriminatory, but if you are over a certain size you should have to buy 2 or more seats to accomodate yourself. I don't think I shouldn't be able to bring my work boots or other heavy necessities to compensate for my neighbor who eats candy for breakfast.

I disagree with the comments above saying that choosing to fly economy class makes no difference. Quite apart from the seat area issue, business and first class passengers cross-subsidise economy class passengers so you're directly contributing towards the extremely low ticket prices which are driving this dangerous growth in commercial aviation.

As for low carbon alternatives, it is so important that the development of wing in ground effect craft or WIGs (for passengers) and airships (for freight and slow passengers) is ramped up very quickly.

What we need is a proper price on carbon which will show the real costs of flying and will make low carbon alternatives competitive.

@brennan
I wish the bus were cheap. In Canada, riding the dog costs about double the gas cost of driving a car, and takes about 10-20% longer.

A bus from Vancouver to Montreal (4,871 km) costs CA$135. The current average gasoline price is CA$1.0289 per liter. For gas to be cheaper than the bus, your vehicle would need to get 2.7 l/100km (87 mpg). By comparison, a Prius gets 45 mpg on the highway and would cost CA$261.96 in gasoline to cover that distance - enough for two bus tickets.

The quickest trip on the bus takes 3 days and 50 minutes. At 100 km/h average, one needs to drive for 49 hours. To just keep pace with the bus, one would need to drive at an average of 100 km/h (including stops) for a little over 16 hours per day.

@Scatter
Quite apart from the seat area issue, business and first class passengers cross-subsidise economy class passengers so you're directly contributing towards the extremely low ticket prices which are driving this dangerous growth in commercial aviation.

"Dangerous" growth in aviation? Aviation contributes 2-3% of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and is being outpaced by several sectors. And "extremely low" ticket prices? Right now the airlines are increasing their fares because they can't keep pace with higher fuel prices.

As for low carbon alternatives, it is so important that the development of wing in ground effect craft or WIGs (for passengers) and airships (for freight and slow passengers) is ramped up very quickly.

Dangerous and unrealistic.

Yes Mr Anonymous, aviation growth is dangerous. At a time when all sectors need to reduce emissions, aviation is growing at a rate of 5% globally and 8%-10% in Asia (which is quite a large market in case you hadn't noticed). Just because other sectors are increasing doesn't mean that aviation is exempt (it's always so easy to use others' inaction as an excuse for your own inaction). All growth in GHG emissions is dangerous.

Ticket prices are kept artificially low by the massive subsidies the industry receives. In Europe you can fly to another country for less than a meal in a cheap restaurant. I don't doubt you can do something similar in North America.

And in what way are WIGs or airships dangerous? A WIG would have a far greater chance of successfully landing on the sea than an aircraft given they're designed to do just that and airships are one of the safest forms of transport around.

I'm sorry to say this but it's blinkered attitudes like yours that are holding things back.

Yes Mr Anonymous, aviation growth is dangerous. At a time when all sectors need to reduce emissions, aviation is growing at a rate of 5% globally and 8%-10% in Asia (which is quite a large market in case you hadn't noticed). Just because other sectors are increasing doesn't mean that aviation is exempt (it's always so easy to use others' inaction as an excuse for your own inaction). All growth in GHG emissions is dangerous.

Yet, oddly, you saved all your scorn for aviation in the last post and ignored that aviation's growth rate is lagging transportation as a whole, as well as electricity generation. So its relative share is actually decreasing, not increasing.

Ticket prices are kept artificially low by the massive subsidies the industry receives. In Europe you can fly to another country for less than a meal in a cheap restaurant.

You can fly from London to Paris for the price of a Big Mac? Or would that be a Royale with Cheese? Naturally, only aviation receives subsidies, right? Bus, rail, transit, automobiles, electricity - those all stand on their own feet, right? Oh wait - none of those do, and most receive much greater subsidies. Yet, oddly, you save your greatest scorn for aviation. Couldn't be a class issue, could it? So, even though prices keep going up with fuel prices, your contention is that it's cheaper than a trip to a burger joint. Good firm grasp of the facts you have there.

I don't doubt you can do something similar in North America.

Fly in blimps and planes that are 10 feet above the water? Install a massive passenger rail infrastructure from scratch? Move all our urban centers closer together? No problem!

And in what way are WIGs or airships dangerous? A WIG would have a far greater chance of successfully landing on the sea than an aircraft given they're designed to do just that and airships are one of the safest forms of transport around.

Good luck selling those wave clippers to Americans.

I'm sorry to say this but it's blinkered attitudes like yours that are holding things back.

I'm sorry to say that it's vitriolic, misinformed opinions like yours that are holding things back.

Hey! They invented the plane...
Therefore
We have to use it!!????

Hey! They invented the plane... Therefore We have to use it!!????

Hey! They invented the toilet... Therefore We have to use it!!????

Good point
Relieving yourself, and flying 1000s of miles in a day...
both are BASIC human needs

Good point
Relieving yourself, and flying 1000s of miles in a day...
both are BASIC human needs

Ah, so we should all live a subsistence lifestyle. Great idea! Good luck selling that!

And relieving oneself is a basic human need. The technology called a "toilet" and the system called "indoor plumbing" are not basic human needs. So, by your logic, we should do away with them.

You have such a positive vision for the future!

"Ah, so we should all live a subsistence lifestyle. Great idea! Good luck selling that!"

Sigh....yes, I want everyone to live in caves....and eat dirt....please say you have a LITTLE more imagination than that.

But if you are really trying to say that flying in a plane is an equivalent NEED to clean sanitation, then perhaps you really do have no imagination!