This is a great article! I am planning to travel to Europe from the UK by rail this summer as it is much safer for the environment and it will also enhance my experience.

Just wanted to give a quick tip! I have been using http://www.raileurope.co.uk as I have found it offers the most extensive range of train tickets throughout Europe.

Thanks peeps

However, I find it hard to believe that there are no freighters that go regularly from India to Europe or the Americas, through/to places that don’t require visas of folks from the states. On the freight travel site I found off your blog, I managed to find one company/route that goes between India and Singapore, but seemingly only once a year each way. There was another that had listed India as a ‘potential’ stop. Any other advice?

Cheers, Z

Telling people to fly less is like telling people to stop eating _______. It’s just not going to ring true with the middle- and aspiring middle-classes. Frankly, it also reeks of asceticism, which is going to be not-so-popular with pretty much the entire world. Even the oh-so-green Japanese and Europeans love their airplanes.

Frankly, I love traveling, and I happen to live on the other side of the country from most of my family. I like to go home and see them once or twice a year, in addition to seeing as much of the world as I can.

The container ships are a cute idea, but I can’t take the time off to travel so slowly, and frankly I don’t like ships anyway. Furthermore, trains don’t get me to Europe or Asia. High speed trains are great, but even a high speed train would take 3 or so days to cross the US. That means no Thanksgiving or Christmas with the family!

Until we perfect giant slingshots with big air-filled bags at the landing point, flying is going to be the only option many of us have.

You mention that walking to the grocery store, biking to work, or even being vegetarian are effective, and indeed, though we do all three, part of our frustration comes from seeing that blown away by a plane trip to India every year. It’s like exercising for a year, and then topping it off with a 100,000 calorie dessert.

We’ve spent the past year interviewing folks about climate, transportation, and tourism issues. Given that flying is basically something only the global elite do (only about 5% of people fly), and that it has disproportionate environmental impacts on non-flyers in the global south, I’d say it’s a good idea to fly less, make it mean more when you do, and support and embrace substitutes.

India has a wonderful domestic train system, and it’s even better now that it has easy online ticketing (www.cleartrip.com, http://www.seat61.com/India.htm). We used to take planes in India before, but have switched back to trains, and we’re happier for it. You get smaller footprints, zero security theater, amazing views, regional foods, and a better social experience (good conversations, sharing home-cooked food, etc.) — a worthwhile use of a couple more hours.

@premiumshlock, check out http://www.seat61.com/India-overland.htm for current information, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1864502142/ for older itineraries, and http://www.lonelyplanet.com/searchResult?q=India+overland for feedback and advice from travelers. In short: there do exist paths for people with sufficient time and planning skills (I have a friend doing UK -> India overland right now), but as it stands, the options probably aren’t a good fit for 99% of people.

What are the available options for traveling from India (either to Europe or the Americas) without planes, if any? That train route sounds awesome but probably isn’t the most viable at the moment for a variety of reasons.

Word, Z

Frankly, your own data shows that airlines are pretty efficient—you should be flying instead of driving or taking a cab.

as

Frankly, your own data shows that airlines are pretty efficient—one should be flying instead of driving or taking a cab.

since you don’t do the driving part . Not having a car, I admire. Substituting flying for other modes of transport, not convinced.

I would have admired you if you eschewed travel altogether. But in my late night mode, you just seem to be normalizing emissions in a weird way so as to torture yourself. Frankly, your own data shows that airlines are pretty efficient—you should be flying instead of driving or taking a cab.

Round trip to India from SFO is about 20,000 miles, and corresponds to 7 metric tons of emissions—this takes into account CO2 and all related emissions. Just CO2 emissions are about a third, about 2.5 metric tons. Car travel for just about 13000 miles—CO2 emissions alone—corresponds to emissions of roughly 7 metric tons.

Airlines are worse than trains for sure, but not by an order of magnitude. Definitely not much worse, if you consider that often, trains in India and other countries are coal or old diesel powered locomotives. And, of course, the utility they provide is not the same—planes are much faster, at least in India.

All said and done, airlines surely appear better than cars or cabs–it is hard to beat mass public transport, even if the mode of transport is by air.

Perhaps walking to the grocery store, biking to work, or even being vegetarian is less glamorous, but more effective than foregoing air travel.Perhaps the best way is to bring on high speed trains all over.

Air travel being particularly harmful is an obfuscation, though a plausible one. On the other hand, don’t even get me started on those locavores!

@Nandalal, you’re absolutely right. Our project(www.YearOfNoFlying.com) was about pulling apart the web of aviation-oriented development, while documenting climate action movements working on broader system change. Individual boycotts (either of cake or CO2) don’t get stuff done.

@Rahul — ferry schmerry, I’m holding out for the Bering strait bridge/tunnel.

@Alina, that’s awesome! Thanks for sharing. You might also enjoy this article: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

@Lindsey, you’re right, there are all kinds of environmental issues with ships, including dirty fuel, waste disposal, and transfer of invasive non-native species in ballast water. We’re certainly not pushing them uncritically as an optimal alternative. Thank you for bringing this up.

@Pravin, it sure would be nice if we could tackle the global crisis by changing lawnmower designs, but it may take a smidgen more effort from all of us. After all, India and Bangladesh are the top two countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts in the next 30 years (blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/10/bangladesh-india-at-risk-from-climate-change.html). You’re right to chide “ridiculous guilt feeling”; there’s no need to wallow in guilt, when there are simple solutions available like reduction. For example, many businesses are saving money and cutting down on greenhouse gases by reducing business travel and replacing it with increased use of online conferencing tools (wwf.org.uk/oneinfive).

@Paul, those are great questions about the carbon footprint of aviation. Here’s the background you wanted:

Civil aviation contributes (as of 2005) 4.9% of the total human impact on the climate, from CO2, other greenhouse gases, and cloud cover impacts. You can read a summary of the current relevant research at http://www.aef.org.uk/?p=479 (summary), or read the paper by David Lee et al at http://www.tiaca.org/images/tiaca/PDF/IndustryAffairs/2009%20IPCC%20authors%20update.pdf.

Here’s why we say “An economy flight from San Francisco to Mumbai and back has the impact of driving a car for an whole year.” We start off using the carbon.trx.com aviation carbon calculator. (Make sure to check the RFI button, so the calculator will take total climate impacts into account, not just CO2. TRX uses an RFI multiplier of 2.7, while the Lee paper seems to suggest a multiplier of 3, but it’s OK using TRX’s more conservative number.) Here are the numbers I get for one sample trip: SFO -> Hong Kong round trip w/RFI on Cathay Pacific economy = 5337 kg CO2-equivalent. Hong Kong -> Mumbai round trip w/RFI on Cathay Pacific economy = 1692 kg CO2-equivalent. That’s a total of 7.0 metric tons CO2-equivalent. For the car number, I’m assuming a 25 mpg vehicle being driven 13,476 miles a year (US average in 2003, per USDOT), which, per Berkeley’s CoolClimate calculator, emits ~6.8 metric tons CO2/year.

In short, 7 metric tons CO2e from an economy seat flying from SFO to BOM > 6.8 metric tons CO2 driving all year (and I’m guessing the air number would be ~8 metric tons if we use Lee’s higher multiplier). One can quibble about specific air routes or auto numbers, but I think it’s fair to say that international flights can have massive, often unexpected, climate impacts.

You mentioned that you “fail to see how an economy trip would be any better or worse than a 1st class. Pointless details like that also are stupid.” That detail’s actually pretty important. Standard passenger aviation carbon calculations figure that the more real estate a seat takes up, the greater share of CO2 should be allocated to it. In narrowbody jets, first class passengers takes up the room of 2.7 economy passengers. If you fly first class and hog the room of about three people, expect calculators to allocate you a footprint almost three time as high. This is an issue because global airlines are continuously rejiggering the mix of first/business-class vs. economy-class seating, some even running all-first/business class flights (i.e. “featuring triple CO2e allocations, at every seat!”)