Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

AFP via Breitbart ^ | June 7, 2009 | N/A

[Jet Jaguar]

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

SNIP

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

SNIP

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

[Balding_Eagle]

In Denever, if everyone who rodes the train bought a car and drove, and the space used to build the light rail was changed to traffic lanes, congestion would go down by 20%.

So would taxes.

[Gil4]

“But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity [in San Francisco] is derived from fossils.”

I don’t know for sure what the other 51% comes from, but the only thing I know that isn’t a fossil fuel and can contribute a significant amount of power is nuclear.

Nuclear, the ultimate greem energy source! That would just drive leftists crazy if they would ever acknowlege it.

[speekinout]

OK, that was an unfair dig at gov’t workers. But they are more likely to have regular hours and to work in large facilities than many of the rest of us.

[BobL]

“Hey greenies:

WALK!”

No. Actually walking uses more energy per mile (and thus creates more carbon) than driving - due to the added food one must eat.

So, drive.

[proud_yank]

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

I do, most noteably: I cut down my number of trips to the landfill by acquiring a burn barrel for my garbage.

On earth day, I bought myself a brand-new chainsaw to cut down trees to make firewood for heating my house.

I bought a 3/4 ton work truck for house chores, which requires making fewer trips than using my SUV.

[speekinout]

You're saying we have a public transportation system designed for a typical town in 1955?

We're keeping a dysfunctional antiquated system so liberal politicians can feel good about themselves? On our dime? Is that it?

Well, yes, that. But they do have a solution - we can spend zillions building "new towns" that will re-create the 1950's. Those suburban houses probably aren't green anyway, so abandoning them will improve the climate even more.

[RonF]

Converting the light rail lanes to traffic lanes would help people get downtown but wouldn’t do anything to help traffic on the city streets themselves once people got off of the expressway. And it wouldn’t address the issue of parking.

[UCANSEE2]

only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils

Where does the other 51% come from in SF?

Gay Discotheques.

[ClearCase_guy]

That’s the spirit!

[bmwcyle]

My wife and I planted flowers in the front that absorb CO2. I brought them home in my Envoy SUV with the 5.3 V8.

[Balding_Eagle]

but wouldn’t do anything to help traffic on the city streets themselves once people got off of the expressway. And it wouldn’t address the issue of parking.

Nonsense. The driver can always pick the light rail station nearest his destination, there's always lots of room, park there, and hike the rest of the way, just as though he arrived on the train.

[CA Conservative]

Where does the other 51% come from in SF?

Hydro-electric - Primarily from Hetch-Hetchy.

[Right Wing Assault]

Thanks. I never heard that name so I looked it up and see the the enviros want to remove the dam. And probably all hydro dams. That would mean SF would have to do with 1/2 the energy is uses now. I’m sure these guys would not want to use evil carbon-based energy.

[RonF]

The driver can always pick the light rail station nearest his destination, there's always lots of room, park there, and hike the rest of the way, just as though he arrived on the train.

Well, I don't know how it works in Denver, but in Chicago the light rail stations in Chicago don't HAVE parking. Why would you need it if you came into town on the rail? One look at the train schedules shows you that there are far fewer trains going counter-flow (out of the city in the morning and into the city at evening). The system is set up to get people into Chicago in the morning and out of it at night. The commuter train terminii in Chicago are downtown surrounded by office buildings and there's no where to park that isn't already taken up by people who drove into town.