Posted on 06/07/2009 6:05:01 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Captain’s log, Star date......”
(Insert theme music)
Hey greenies:
WALK!
One to beam up
Wherever you are, just stay there.
They just keep repeating this sort of nonsense hoping that we will eventually just accept their junk science as fact. What they want is the argument to focus on what we are going to do to "save the planet" and not focus on the fact that their basic premise, i.e. that human generated carbon dioxide is affecting the earth's temperature, is just an idea that the UN made up a few decades back.
I don’t worry at all about the environment, and I do jack squat to limit my carbon footprint.
Well Duh! It takes energy to run the trains, and that energy is petroleum or carbon based, who knew?
Not to mention the energy it takes to build these trains and their support lines. Cities spend billions on trains and light rail and they attract crime and homeless and are generally a money drain. Billions lost and billions more to maintain just for some weirdo utopian dream.
The govt. could buy everyone in the serviced area a compact SUV for less than these boondoggles and come out ahead and probably have less of a “carbon footprint”, whatever that means.
No bloody kidding? You mean that folks hide the real costs of public transportation? Insert Claude Raines Casa Blanca still here ->
Our buses have grayed out windows so taxpayers can’t see only one or two people are riding a bus designed for 60. It’s the liberal “feelings about being green” trumping the reality of waste - once again.
Yeah, I’ve suggested using Volkswagen Diesels instead of buses. They get around 50 mpg, take up a lot less space on the highway, and hold four passengers, which is more than the buses usually carry anyway.
Where does the other 51% come from in SF?
No clue here.
True - but would liberals still be able to "feel" that they're sooooooo wonderful without "public transportation"?
One problem is that mass transport was designed for a very different lifestyle than we have today. It worked fine when families lived in a city or close in suburb, and the man went to work in the urban center from 9 to 5, and the wife stayed home and did all of the family errands and child care within a few blocks of home.
Not a whole lot of people work 9 to 5 and commute without any need to make a stop on the way to or fro. Gov’t workers come closer than anyone else -
Apart from the quite generous 9 to 5 estimate on how long a government worker can sustain rational thought...where do they differ from anyone else in distance traveled or errands en route?
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?
People might ride in them - and being more flexible - they could have more and closer "stops". Then again, some will have a hard time getting over the thrill of seeing a vehicle getting 3 mpg hauling around one old person and a kid with a bike.
If everyone that currently rides public transport into major cities like Chicago and Boston drove instead, the additional vehicles would a) lock up traffic so that emissions would skyrocket as people spent far too much time either driving very slowly or simply sat still and b) have nowhere to park.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Where does the other 51% come from in SF?
Gay Discotheques.
That’s the spirit!
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.
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.
Hydro-electric - Primarily from Hetch-Hetchy.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.