Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

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.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

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...

..."Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

CID1990 wrote:The only truly green solutions are going to involve hydrogen fuels supported by nuclear power. Everything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If your local area uses coal power and you take the electric train to work your carbon footprint is as big as the ******* driving the Hummer to work.

Appaholic wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The only truly green solutions are going to involve hydrogen fuels supported by nuclear power. Everything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If your local area uses coal power and you take the electric train to work your carbon footprint is as big as the ******* driving the Hummer to work.

Yep....another case of not seeing the forest for the trees....I realize we need to start moving towards alternatives, but doing something that is potentially just as or more harmful is not necessarily as good as doing nothing...but it makes white liberals feel better....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Yep....another case of not seeing the forest for the trees....I realize we need to start moving towards alternatives, but doing something that is potentially just as or more harmful is not necessarily as good as doing nothing...but it makes white liberals feel better....

That's been the mantra for the global warming crowd for about 20 years, Appa.

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
That's been the mantra for the global warming crowd for about 20 years, Appa.

I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
That's been the mantra for the global warming crowd for about 20 years, Appa.

I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

slycat wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

I dunno. Ralph posted a graph about a million times a few years back and I think that it proved global warming.

dbackjon wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

Which is why I have so much credibility...despite my benefitting from the Palo Verde consortium's employee benefits agreement with my employer.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Which is why I have so much credibility...despite my benefitting from the Palo Verde consortium's employee benefits agreement with my employer.

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
That's been the mantra for the global warming crowd for about 20 years, Appa.

I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

travelinman67 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

J...one only need to go back and look at the origination of what has become the "modern" conservation movement, eugenicist Julian Huxley's U.N. sponsored International Technical Conference on the Protection of Nature in 1949. That conference drew the roadmap for the "overpopulation" zealots who crafted Malthusian environmental tales for the purpose of imposing eugenics motivated social reforms. Is it any surprise that Rachel Carson's principal target was DDT...a pesticide responsible for saving millions of lives each year? Hardly.

This subject has been researched intensively, yet the benefactors of eugenics, global "old-riche" who fight to maintain undemocratic political control (for the purpose of preserving their wealth and power), also control the media outlets (...conspicuously revealed during late 70's, early 80's investigations into Trilateralist activities...), hence, you'll never find Reuters, AP, Agency Press France, etc...publishing investigative reports on the promoters of "green" agendas: Social engineering leading to eugenic policies. Modern "tree huggers" have been unwittingly suckered into becoming agents for a cultural hysteria that has less to do with preservation of nature than conditioning societies into accepting restricted liberties and eventually, restricted reproductive rights (U.N. Population Fund, UN Food & Agriculture tying aid to birth control).

CID1990 wrote:The only truly green solutions are going to involve hydrogen fuels supported by nuclear power. Everything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If your local area uses coal power and you take the electric train to work your carbon footprint is as big as the ******* driving the Hummer to work.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The only truly green solutions are going to involve hydrogen fuels supported by nuclear power. Everything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If your local area uses coal power and you take the electric train to work your carbon footprint is as big as the ******* driving the Hummer to work.

Wow...!!!
Spot on CID

Although I believe public transportation is fine - I have no issue there - it is clearly not the solution regarding energy efficiency and emissions control that one might be led to believe

D1B wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

Wow...!!!
Spot on CID

Although I believe public transportation is fine - I have no issue there - it is clearly not the solution regarding energy efficiency and emissions control that one might be led to believe

Cleets, you're smarter than that, I think. Ultimately, the only solution must involve changing the way we live and being better stewards of the planet. This involves primarily dealing with massive consumption/consumerism/rise of a world-wide middle class and over population.

Nuclear is not a long term solution.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

D1B wrote:

Cleets, you're smarter than that, I think. Ultimately, the only solution must involve changing the way we live and being better stewards of the planet. This involves primarily dealing with massive consumption/consumerism/rise of a world-wide middle class and over population.

Nuclear is not a long term solution.

I'm smarter than what..?
I just try to collect all the data and come to a reasonably informed non-emotional conclusions without political affiliation or association....

1) Yes we need to be "aware" of our energy consumption and reduce it where possible
2) Yes we are stewards of this planet - it is not here "for us" but more "with us"
3) I have no problem with Lovelock's GAIA theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Beyond that - it's all yet to be resolved as far as I'm concerned...

And no I do not have a perpetual HARD-ON for Al Gore like T-man does... Gore is simply a money grubbing politician liar like every other politician (or lawyer) with little to no self respect or personal dignity and absolutely no shame...

D1B wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
I'm smarter than what..?
I just try to collect all the data and come to a reasonably informed non-emotional conclusions without political affiliation or association....

1) Yes we need to be "aware" of our energy consumption and reduce it where possible
2) Yes we are stewards of this planet - it is not here "for us" but more "with us"
3) I have no problem with Lovelock's GAIA theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Beyond that - it's all yet to be resolved as far as I'm concerned...

And no I do not have a perpetual HARD-ON for Al Gore like T-man does... Gore is simply a money grubbing politician liar like every other politician (or lawyer) with little to no self respect or personal dignity and absolutely no shame...

Smarter than your glowing review of CID's post. Which is wrong.

Get off the fence, pussy.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Smarter than your glowing review of CID's post. Which is wrong.

Get off the fence, pussy.

You're brainwashed...

D1B wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
You're brainwashed...

Brainwashed by what, Cleets?

slycat wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I know....global warming crowd has no credibility as long as they continue e-mail or text their dissent against nuclear power....

I dunno. Ralph posted a graph about a million times a few years back and I think that it proved global warming.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Brainwashed by what, Cleets?

Are you familiar with T-man...
And how he comes across (85% of the time) as a complete nut-ball without so much as a passing notion of the levels of his own insanity..?

Well you two peas are in the same pod... He's just the conservative version - but you're both the same - you two deserve each other... Frick & frack

edit: add in
In no way does this mean that I don't like you and T-man - I find you both entertaining and engaging...

I'm a Liberal (obviously) but I don't buy everything I'm spoon fed from the party line...