Urban Ecoist

Lately, a lot of environmentally minded folks are touting the train as the best way to travel. As airplanes and automobiles spew out nasty carbon emissions, the train seems like our next best hope to combat climate change, right?

I’ve decided to test out this premise that you and I could save the world by taking the train instead of flying. And truthfully, the numbers are not adding up to create a significant benefit for taking the train. According to Carbonfund.org, the carbon dioxide produced by an individual over 100,000 air miles is approximately 42,000 pounds of CO2, Geez, that seems like a lot, about 0.42 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per mile traveled.

Now, let’s look at the same 100,000 miles by train. Again, getting our numbers from Carbonfund, 100,000 miles by train will produce a touch more than 44,000 lbs CO2. Wait. That’s more than the damn plane. We’ll put that down for 0.44 lbs CO2/mile.

But wait, that figure for plane travel does not take into account radiative forcing, which is the increased effect of carbon in the higher altitudes. Most people estimate radiative forcing as increasing the efficacy (or warming effect) of carbon emissions by 2.7 — the numbers vary a bit lower and higher depending on who you talk to, but since I’m using Carbonfund’s numbers, I’m also going to use their radiative forcing number of 2.7.

Once you factor in the increase in global warming power that carbon gets when it’s high enough, the 100,000 miles on an airplane now produces 113,400 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 1.13 lbs CO2 per mile traveled. Ouch.

So let’s look at a specific trip, say across the US, from Seattle to Miami round-trip. Going by train is actually going to be a longer trip in terms of mileage (and yes, of course, time) coming in at 7381 miles. That would produce 1.41 tons of CO2 (2820 lbs). Dividing the carbon over the distance gives us 0.38 lbs of CO2 per mile. That same trip on an airplane (5474 miles) produces just shy of 1 ton if you don’t factor in that pesky radiative forcing. But the reality of carbon in the upper atmosphere means that the trip from SeaTac to Miami is really producing what amounts to 2.66 tons of carbon dioxide, which gives us a whopping 0.97 lbs of CO2 per mile.

However, the so-called environmentally-friendly train comes with a cost, both monetarily and time-wise. Let’s say we do take that trip from Seattle to Miami — it would take 3 and a half days, going through Chicago, then Washington DC on the way to Miami. It would cost $672 round-trip according to Amtrak, and that is only for a coach reserved seat. Add in a sleeping car and the new total is over $2,000 and that is only for a “roomette” and only on the longer spans of the trip. $2000 — are you kidding me? Not to mention that money you will spend on food and beverages during the seven days you will spend on the train.

I think I will continue to fly and use the savings to offset my travels. And trust me, I’m as granola as you can get, but come on, spending seven days and over $2000 on a train trip when I could instead fly there in about 13 hours non-stop for under $300 is simply not feasible.

By the way, if you took an automobile with an fuel efficiency rating of 25 mpg that approximately 6,000 mile trip would create about 2 tons of carbon or about 0.67 lbs CO2 per mile. A hybrid with a mpg of 46 would produce just over one ton of CO2, or around 0.38 lbs CO2 per mile.

Huh, maybe instead of the train, we should drive a hybrid. Unfortunately, it would take you seven days (70 mph, 12 hours a day) just to get to Miami. But for shorter distances, I’m thinking that is the highly efficient car may be the way to go. That and you can listen to the radio really loudly and not bother your neighbor.

trains, planes, travel, carbon dioxide, carbon emissions, miles traveled, Amtrak, Carbonfund, hybrid, MPG, carbon emissions, CO2

That’s right. I’m calling you out, Energy and Commerce Democrats. This Cash for Clunkers program may seem like a sunshine-y way to get Americans into fuel-efficient vehicles, but once again, reading the fine print, I notice that the program may be leaving a wide open door for Americans to buy more SUVs that still don’t get anywhere near even the old CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG.

Cash for Clunkers, if it passes Congress, will give up to one million American automobile buyers a voucher to use towards the purchase of a new, more fuel efficient vehicle. The vouchers come in two amounts — $3500 or $4500. So let’s multiply the average of those two amounts ($3000) by the number of vouchers, 1 million. The total “cost” for this program will be $4,000,000,000. That billion with a B. And that is not even factoring in administrative costs and what not.

1990 Dodge Monaco...classy.

The real problem lies in who is getting these magical vouchers. It’s not passenger car people. The vouchers will only go to people who can trade in a passenger vehicle that gets less than 18 MPG, which would be a 1990 Dodge Monaco or a 1985 Cadillac El Dorado convertible. Seriously, there are so few relatively modern “passenger vehicles” — that is not a light-duty truck, SUV, or large light-duty truck — that get less than 18 MPG that I’m guessing that very few Cash for Clunkers vouchers will be going to passenger car buyers.

So who will be getting these vouchers? Considering the vast majority of non-hybrid trucks and SUVs are lucky if they get a combined MPG of 18, then I am going to go out on a limb and say that only those who have a gas-guzzling truck or SUV will be able to qualify for the cash for clunker voucher. And the real winners are…American SUV makers.

In order to get the voucher for trading in a light-duty truck, you must be turning in a truck that gets under the 18 MPG threshold (check) and you need only to find a new truck or SUV that gets 2 mpg better than your trade-in. 2 mpg? Really? So we are going to reward those who turn in an SUV that gets, let’s say 18 MPG, for a new SUV that gets 21 MPG.

And when it comes to the large light-duty truck category, the trade-in truck only has to get one MPG better than the lower 15 MPG threshold to qualify for the $3500 voucher. If you upgrade to a large light-duty that gets 2 MPG better than your last truck, then you get the full $4500 voucher for that new 17 MPG truck.

Ok, so who couldn’t use $3500 or $4500 to buy a new car. I’m sure many a car buyer would be super stoked to get a voucher to buy a car that gets better gas mileage, but nope, sorry, the voucher is not for you, unless you are still driving a 1993 Lincoln Continental. But if you are driving a 2006 GMC Yukon, well, then you get a voucher for a new SUV that only gets 18 MPG.

Yay! The world is safe at last.

Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? I’m all for people making better decisions when it comes to buying cars, but come on, who stands to benefit from these vouchers? The same people who got a tax credit for buying those gas-luvin’ SUV’s five years ago.

When this bill goes before Congress, contact your representative and your senators to bitch about this, unless of course, you are in the market for a new SUV.

cash for clunkers, MPG, fuel efficiency, mileage, Congress, democrats, energy, commerce, cars, SUVs, trucks