Driving does generates much less C0₂ than flying, apparently.  The NativeEnergy carbon calculator shows 0.05 tons for driving from DC to Morgantown, West Virginia, whereas flying would have been 0.42 tons.  For distances only three to five hours away, it would take the same time as flying, so as a result, driving is less costly overall.

However, people drive a lot more than they fly, and with the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rolling back fuel economy standards (again), things may be changing (Vox magazine, August 2018; update reference), says Juanita Constible, a senior advocate for federal policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. About 60 percent of carbon pollution from transportation comes from passenger vehicles, while airplanes account for only 9 percent, she said, adding that “if we can replace older, fossil-fuel cars with cars using renewably generated, zero-carbon electricity, we will address a significant part of the climate challenge.” (Wash Post, 2018)

And there are other things to consider.  First, think of all the carbon plus other toxins generated by building those lovely tar roads, and then think of all the greenhouse gases for building cars for every individual on the planet. The planet does not comes out ahead.  Certainly the animals don’t:  “In Ontario alone there are an estimated 14,000 wildlife-vehicle collisions a year – 5 to 10 per cent of all accidents.” (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/culture/article-the-human-and-financial-toll-of-wildlife-vehicle-collisions/.)

So, climate (and wildlife-saving) steps:

Your car

• First, do you need to own one one?  Can you do carpool or carshare instead (available in so many cities now?) Carpooling automatically cuts your carbon dioxide generation in half, if not by three-quarters if you share with more folks!
• Can you bike instead?  (See the bike section below, but also: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/jul/31/swapping-cars-for-bikes-not-diesel-for-electric-is-the-best-route-to-clean-air?CMP=share_btn_fb.)
• Think also of the greenhouse cost of building individual cars.  Imagine the future 10 billion of us each having a car. 

A car not driven often, apparently.  Photo Courtesy of Annette Olson, CC-BY.

Car Type

1. Don’t buy an SUV!  When oil prices decline, more people in the United States and Europe buy larger S.U.V.s, pushing up emissions further. Instead, use this tool if you have to buy a new car:  http://climatefriendlycars.climatecentral.org/results/?state=MD.
2. Hybrids Score!  Prices are going down for hybrids and electric vehicles (EV), (and currently gas prices are generally increasing), … This article presents some good things to consider when buying,  https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2017/03/5-things-know-going-hybrid-electric/, including that if you drive a lot, the extra cost of a hybrid will pay for itself in terms of gas savings (nevermind the CO2 savings).  Fyi, using a hybrid or EV are the #4 and #1 top ways , respectively, to ‘draw down’ greenhouse gases in terms of transport, as per https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/transport.
3. Electric vehicles (EV).  In eight years, supposedly fossil-fueled cars will be in the small minority. (Froelich, 2017; Ilsr.org podcast 2017), although adoption is slower in countries despite incentives (Mobility Lab, 2019). But right now fossil fuels still rule, with only 5% of vehicles sold in 2019 being electric (EV). But things are changing – with multiple brands delving into electrical models. VW, as a result of its stupid, selfish, and endangering behavior in cheating emissions tests, among its penalties, has to invest $2 billion in electric-car-charging infrastructure, as well as promote zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs; Holmes, 2018).
   But it isn’t a simple answer yet – and strongly depends on where you live:
   
   1. First, an EV is a more expensive car than a hybrid (but check out leasing), but prices are coming down (Ilsr.org podcast 2017), you can save money if you charge it during non-peak hours, the batteries are lasting longer, manufacturing it requires fewer emissions, and you need fewer tuneups, repairs, etc.  No mufflers are needed and no trips to the gas stations! Also, the range is extending, from 25 miles battery only – to 238 miles (Ilsr.org podcast 2017; Froelich, 2017; https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-numbers-are-in-and-evs-are-cleaner-than-ever; Holmes, 2018).
   2. A good summary of the infrastructure needed for EV charging is in the (Ilsr.org podcast 2017), regarding public/roadways, but chargers are also needed at the office.
   3. The type of charger can depend on the type of EV (e.g., high-voltage.)
   4. “the average EV in the US now produces emissions equivalent to a hypothetical gasoline car achieving 73 MPG.” (https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-numbers-are-in-and-evs-are-cleaner-than-ever.)

Since the above was written, the following car companies have made the commitments to EVs, as summarized below by John Bales, from Forbes magazine: (https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/automaker-ev-plans/?fbclid=IwAR1IRE8INcqBkbAmg_pqdLIMkfzlpmleAeimCfiLzgscnzPOP-7HgGDEX2E

Brands that have gone Completely EV

• Lucid already 100% EV

NIO already 100% EV

• Pininfarina already 100% EV
• Rivian already 100% EV
• Smart already 100% EV
• Tesla already 100% EV
• Xpeng already 100% EV

Committed Targets

• Audi all electric by 2026
• BAIC: no conventional ICE by 2025
• Bentley: at least PHEV by 2026, all electric by 2030
• BMW 50% electric by 2030
• Changan: 100% electric by 2025
• Daimler: 130 EVs / hybrid models by 2022
• Ferrari 100% EV by 2035
• Fiat: all electric 2025-30
• Ford all electric in Europe by 2026, 30% electric 2030, 100% by 2035
• Genesis 100% NEV by 2040
• GM all electric by 2035
• Honda: hybrid/EV by 2025, all electric by 2040
• Hyundai: 23 electric cars by 2025, 100% NEV by 2040
• Jaguar all electric by 2025
• Kia: 7 electric cars by 2025, 100% NEV by 2040
• Lamborghini at least all hybrid by 2024
• Land Rover: all electric in Europe 2030, globally 2036
• Lotus: 100% electric by 2028
• Mercedes: 100% electric by 2030
• Mini all electric by 2030
• Nissan: 8 EVs by 2023
• Opel: 100% electric in Europe by 2028
• Peugeot 100% EV by 2023
• Porsche 80% electric by 2030
• Toyota: at least hybrid by 2030, no petrol only by 2040
• Vauxhall 100% EV by 2025
• Volkswagen all electric by 2025
• Volvo Cars: minimum hybrid by 2021, 50% electric by 2025, all electric by 2030

For far more of a breakout in the costs and benefits of EVs, and trends, see our Page:  Electric Vehicles – a Running List of Talking Points For and even Against.

Recommended References

• https://mobilitylab.org/2018/11/27/federal-climate-change-report-shows-that-electric-vehicles-alone-cant-save-us/
• https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-numbers-are-in-and-evs-are-cleaner-than-ever

4. Do Cars have a Solar Future?  See:  https://futurism.com/fully-solar-powered-car-hitting-road-2019/.   The Toyota Prius 2010 does have an option to have solar panels on top, but it adds only 4 mpg to the range, according to the article above, which does help.  Similarly for the Nissan Leaf, the Chevy Volt, the Audi A8, and the Mazda 929; they run mostly auxiliary functions.  More info is available on solar cars in general at: https://evobsession.com/solar-cars-101-guide-basics-solar-powered-vehicles/.  And more vehicles are coming, one in late 2019 that uses solar panels, but also moss as an air filter…bizarre. https://www.facebook.com/NowThisFuture/videos/2270106716363829/.

5. Overall. For these eco-friendly cars, many federal governments in the world provides incentives, and many, many city and states do as well (including access to the carpool lane.)  https://www.wired.com/brandlab/2017/03/5-things-know-going-hybrid-electric/.

Other ways to minimize carbon with cars

• Permeable-Paver driveways! https://www.thisoldhouse.com/how-to/how-to-install-permeable-paver-driveway.
• Plant trees that will shade roads and parking lots.
• Your RV! Believe it or not, you can go solar – http://www.greenmatters.com/living/2017/08/31/ZHQvPu/solar-rv.  However, our Facebook group discussed and decided that this is still problematic:  Cars still need steel and glass, are vulnerable to road damage, and can be vandalized.  (Hugh, Tom and Roger.)
• Rental cars – Ask for green, fuel efficient cars every time verbally (not just in the form).  Car rental people will be shocked, and repeated requests may actually generate results. Specifically use the words green, hybrid, or EV.
• How to drive, now that’s a question.  Definitely speeding is not good for the environment, nor zipping in and out of traffic, but using a GPS system makes it easy to avoid fuel-burning traffic. Here’s a great summary on how to save gas by the way you drive:  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/86074.;  more tips are here:  https://www.momscleanairforce.org/clean-cars-guide/.
• Nifty gadgets are coming that will help.  There is, for instance, a gadget that captures soot from an exhaust now and turns it to ink.  http://www.graviky.com/kaalink.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nPL42zVc0o.
• “Seriously though, a friend uses her parked car in the warmer months as a food dehydrator. She claims the passive solar works a treat. ”  Jim Croft, CSteps FB group contributor.
• Finally, use your car as a message board. Besides bumper stickers, think about using your license plate to send a message. This will send a message not only to drivers, but to the people who process the paperwork for your plate, and the people who make the plates. Try it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The original idea behind Lyfts and Ubers, not so much taxis, was to have each car be a car share, and people would buy fewer cars, there’d be less traffic congestion (dial-a-rides/demand responsive transit.) 

Lyfts and Ubers may have started off this way, but now many times they are just taxi services, sitting and idling, or driving around – increasing traffic overall (2017), often while waiting for one individual customer, and not picking up as many as buses (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/bus-best-public-transit-cities/574399/).  

People also prefer to take them instead of public transportation (Bloomberg Magazine, 2017). There is benefit for specialized services, such as for disabled folks, but utilizing it too much can lead to less money for buses (J. Walker, The Atlantic, 2018). The best climate step is to avoid taxis/lyfts/ubers or only choose the share ride option.  Here’s another article on the same subject: 2016 – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/21/uber-lyft-helping-hurting-environment-climate-change.

Speaking of public transportation… how much impact does commuting via transit have in terms of carbon?   Mass transit is the #2 way to ‘draw down’ greenhouse gases in terms of transportation, as per https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/transport, via the Drawdown scenario model.

1. School buses. The first step for many cities is to electrify their large fleet of school buses (the numbers are two times that of other buses and rail combined), in large part to protect the kids from diesel fumes they are exposed to daily (a statement from Tamara Dzubay, a clean energy specialist in Chicago, in Holmes, 2018). They are expensive: $230,000 (including charging system) to $109,000 for diesel, but it will save health money in the long run, never mind climate change. Supporting your local city in this action is a great climate step.
   
2. Public Transport Buses  – LA is adding their first electric buses!  (https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/electric-double-decker-buses-los-angeles-foothill-transit/527464/), as is Columbus, OH: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/columbus-oh-electric-buses/526823/.  Jarrett Walker, writing for the Atlantic, notes that buses are still the best compared to ride-shares (see above) and mini-motorized machines (see below) in terms of picking up the most passengers, and costs (based on driver salary)
3. Chicago has been using some electric buses for two years. Two great quotes from this article: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/12/chicago-sees-benefits-of-electric-buses/:

“Over the life span of each bus, Chicago expects to save $300,000 on fuel.”

“Switching to an electric bus is like taking 23 cars off the road.”

So Chicago will be buying some more buses in the near future, as will Austin and Houston, TX, and others, who are and will be saving taxpayer money (Ilsr.org podcast 2017). And as Walker, 2018 says: “a city’s bus serive is as good as its leaders and voters want it to be.” So vote bus.

“Even at current prices, electric buses become cheaper than diesel 12 years into their 16-year life span.” Humes, 2018.

For a review of scooters, Segways, electric bikes, etc… please check out:  https://climatesteps.org/2018/08/31/mini-motorized-machines/.

Also now Shell just sent out this video of some new types of electric mini-vehicles, in addition to those shown: Check it out: https://dms.licdn.com/playback/C5105AQFzZkOvJPp5DQ/f8d40f9170c74a53877b3d2160287dd8/feedshare-mp4_3300/1488578169071-zmy00q?e=1557597600&v=beta&t=MOHJPivjpvXWSuO_9vUROLeQxYpQLzSgepSq5onwUkM.

And I just found this site which has scooters for the more fragile of us (I’m somewhat disabled) and especially for the elderly, who also want to go green, and frankly probably want to drive less too within their neighborhood. https://www.priestmangoode.com/project/scooter-for-life/.

Finally, check this out – shades of “WALL-E” (a movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WALL-E). https://www.dezeen.com/2020/01/15/segway-s-pod-armchair-vehicle/.

Believe or not, cruise ships can make less of an impact than flying. Try it out in the various carbon calculators.  Larger cruise ships actually have half of the footprint of a smaller tourist boat, however.  This isn’t always evident from the climate calculator. https://climateone.org/audio/mindful-travel-age-climate-change.

There’s another means though, that is the most adventurous way to travel, definitely:  finding a spot on a cargo ship. See this woman’s post about travel back to Europe from America. https://www.wired.com/story/the-ultimate-carbon-saving-tip-travel-by-cargo-ship?mbid=social_fb

“Cargo ships do emit a lot of greenhouse gases, but it works out to a lot less per ton [than flying].”  Adding a person hardly makes a dent in the equation of a massive boat crossing the seas.

After walking, which is admittedly for short-distances only, this is by far the winner in terms of

1. Fun – https://adventuresacrosstheyears.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/train-to-texas-a-timescape/)
2. Roominess – oh the leg room!  and plus you can get up and walk around to the lounge cars, viewing cars, dining cars – and hopefully one day soon in the U.S. – gym cars.
3. Tourist/People-watching views  There are big windows from which you watch the world go by in a comfy reclining chair (with footrest.)  And great sights: Train adventure.
4. Noise level. They are generally quite quiet (and kids running up and down the aisle get lectures.) Depending on the size of the recliners, one can sleep well on trains, and better yet, write well.  They can make for a good office.
5. No bag security check!
6. Often, there is free wi-fi, but not always.
7. Carbon tons from ‘train-ing’ halfway across the US: 0.02. Carbon tons flying back: 0.53. (NativeEnergy.com and …)  See Train-ing Ourselves for more info.  

FYI – solar trains are here!  There’s a partly solar train in India, but now there’s a fully solar train in Australia:  https://www.facebook.com/interestingengineeringvideos/videos/2123080081248377/

It is a loser, though, in a couple ways.

1. There is no bag check, so security is a little lower.
2. Travel Time:
   1. A flight to New Orleans from DC, is about 6 hours, including time in airport and on flight.  Not including delays, of course.
   2. A train to New Orleans from DC, is about 28 hours, including time in train station.

By the way, sleeper cars are very nice if one has the money, even though they increase the carbon emissions per person. If you do take a sleeper car, though – first share the cabin with someone!  Second, this money would help support Amtrak, where it is needed.  Here’s a brief summary with pictures of what a sleeper berth looks like:  https://adventuresacrosstheyears.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/sleeper-car-on-the-train/.

Finally, the length of time to take a train for long distances is changing rapidly.  Many European trains now take less time to get from point A to B than flying:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/high-speed-rail-now-rivals-flying-on-key-global-routes.

Well – of course this one is the least carbon-producing transport system of all (we as humans do still produce greenhouse gases, put we would be anyway if we were traveling on a plane.)

Human-powered transportation pretty much applies for commuting and recreation only.  Although, if you need to travel a short distance from one city to another, it may be useful.  Just leave plenty of time for the later.  The 6-hour flight or 28-hour train from DC to New Orleans becomes 102 hours biking according to Google maps, which is based on an algorithm that does not including stopping for hotels, meals, and muscle cramps.

But the shorter the distance, the better (best) these human-powered options become.  They are comparatively zero carbon, are far less expensive for the commuter, need less infrastructure, healthier for all, and yield the happiest commuters. Happiest? Besides being in the great urban outdoors, walking and biking commutes are the most predictable of commutes, thus lessening stress.  Walking to work in Arlington, VA, provides 91% commute satisfaction (biking 81%), while the train/driving provides 37-41% commute satisfaction https://mobilitylab.org/2018/01/24/arlington-residents-bike-walk-work-predictable-happy-healthy-journeys/.   If only the U.S. subway systems were a reliable as many European trains (it’s improving), there’d be more competition there.

Let’s get back to “healthier:”  From the same article above (referencing this study here.): “A recent study of commuters in the United Kingdom found that bicyclists were 41 percent less likely to die from major health events – such as heart disease or cancer – than those who took passive modes of transportation.”, and “those who walk to work had a 27[-36] percent lower risk.”  Plus then there are fewer fumes.  Even electric cars usually generate carbon dioxide at the original power source (ref needed.).

One of our staff members joined a bikeshare in DC, and these were the results from one year of off-and-on commuting via bike to work.  

Further, bikes can be very practical.  Bike shares are especially prominent in within university systems, which can span blocks and blocks:  think students on budgets trying to get to classes across campus – on time. 

Also, whether at a campus or in a city, there bikes that can carry cargo space, whether bought as a cargo bike, or by adding modifications.  Even modifications for having kids as that cargo.  These cargo bikes are easily maneuverable and take less parking than cars, of course, so fewer roads, parking spaces, etc are needed (and concrete and tar to build that infrastructure. From a UK source:

“While a 3.5 metre-wide single lane can transport 2,000 people an hour in cars, the same lane can be used to transport 14,000 people on bicycles – and this doesn’t even take into account the space saved on parking.”

That is just way, way cool.  Even if we include the mini-vehicles (see above), we’d save room.  But with biking/walking, we’d be a lot healthier.

Oh, wait, there’s more!  Besides the actual transportation vehicle – what else can we do while traveling to save on greenhouse gases?

The Hyperloop – DRAFT

There are dreams (and distractions) by some of a hyperloop. Hyperloop Alpha Document : Musk, Elon; SpaceX : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as some people think), for decades from now, it will still be a myth, as there are serious barriers to a comparatively useful transportation system from hyperloop design.  First, as imagined, many believe it will only be available for the super-rich, and not solve single-vehicle transportation problems at all (see Elon Musk’s Biggest Boondoggle) – which is quite possible, and investments will not yield the mass reduction of carbon emissions needed that public transit could supply. And there are massive functionality problems.

For instance, it could be extremely dangerous in two ways:

1. It is conceived now as single vehicle traveling through a partial vacuum in a tunnel (easier to achieve than a full vacuum), but what happens if that ground/lining develops a crack and the air leaks in?  The traveling pod part has to have strong enough walls to withstand a sudden change in pressure. 
2. If the pod develops a leak within the vacuum tube, then passengers would have to have extremely quick access to, well, masks first, but possibly other protection as well.  (Hyperloop – Wikipedia; Notes by Kirk Hall and Enrique Lescue – references coming)

Also, it is very tricky to build – how do you make a long tunnel flat enough for high speeds, especially as tunnels need to shift heights and placement due to soil/rock types, plus underground infrastructure like sewers, water wells, …?  A test tunnel in Las Vegas exposed the pillars for the Las Vegas monorail, which had to be shut down temporarily so concrete could be poured over the pillars for protection,  https://www.yahoo.com/tech/musks-boring-company-screwed-las-005308028.html.

As Karl Aldinger, transportation information enthusiast, put it in our FB group, however,  “The small scale parallel tunnels the Boring company delivered for the Las Vegas Convention Center loop were a transportation embarrassment. The Teslas must be driven by chauffeurs and are not autonomous. The tunnels aren’t wide enough to allow reasonable exist and escape from the vehicles should an accident or battery fire occur. The local fire dept. claims they have a let it burn policy as the concentration of toxic smoke would not allow for fire fighters to fight a fire in those tunnels. No active smoke evacuation system capable of safely venting toxic smoke was demanded by the city when they accepted this dangerous design. Despite being an extremely fixed route, The Boring Company failed to deliver autonomous train car transport that was contracted. So this system is extremely costly to run, because operators are the most expensive component to any transit system.” (additional ref needed)

Hyperloop technology is making slow progress in demonstrating economy and environmental feasiblilty, as shown by multiple companies, with Hyperloop One shutting down, and Elon Musk’s Boring Company in general using the wrong size boring equipment, boring tunnels without permits, switching from passenger to freight but still not functioning, and flagrantly mismanaging water use, contamination, and runoff. (https://www.disconnect.blog/p/the-hyperloop-was-always-a-scam).  Other companies appear still operational, and a worldwide, college-level hyperloop competition is scheduled to take place in India in February 2025 at the Discovery Campus of Thaiyur, IIT Madras. (Hyperloop – Wikipedia)

Say it was to work?  In terms of moving numbers of people, a train is still more efficient than pods of cars through long tunnel, being pushed by air/magnets, coasting, being pushed by air/magnets, coasting, and then dealing with air compression so cars can exit.  It is thought even that Elon Musk proposed it because he preferred cars over transit, being a car manufacturer. https://www.disconnect.blog/p/the-hyperloop-was-always-a-scam.

For further information, see: Hyperloop – Wikipedia

This is why we need science and some serious thinking before starting companies to apply technology quickly. (Think lead, asbestos).

Mag-levs

A number of people associated with transportation-related jobs that are in Climate Steps think that “an elevated, bi-directional maglev with self-aggregating autonomous pods is much simpler to build and could be integrated into the Interstate Hwy system”  (J.D. Howell, 2025).  We’re going to research and dive into more detail here – with references.

In the meantime, here is a Chinese scientific review:  A Study on Environmental Impact of High Speed Maglev Traffic Engineering. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5576917.  Also, see: Maglev – Wikipedia.