EasyJet have gone to the UK Advertising Standards Authority to complain about a recent Virgin Trains campaign. The adverts claimed that a train journey emits three-quarters less carbon dioxide than traveling by air. The low-cost airline claim that Virgin massaged their passenger figures to make themselves seem a little more efficient than they actually are. This seems very hypocritical coming from a company that was caught out earlier this year for having "inaccurately portrayed" the environmental benefits of its new aircraft.
A Virgin Train spokesman said, "this really smacks of desperation. If an airline really thinks it can challenge a train company on these figures it is barking up the wrong tree. We stand by these figures and we will continue to advertise them."
In the UK it's completely possible to take the train anywhere you need to go, there are very few journeys long enough to warrant an internal flight. The only problem is the cost, which is usually far higher for train journeys than similar plane trips. I regularly travel between London and Amsterdam, and always take the ferry/train option over flying. As well as the reduced emissions, there are other benefits like travelling directly into the centre of cities, rather than 20 miles out, and less of those annoying security checks. This week I am travelling to Switzerland by train, and I will board, sleep 8 hours and wake up in the morning exactly where I need to be. That beats flying in so many ways.:: The Guardian See also :: Take the train :: Environmentalist's travel guide