Green Myth, Airline Travel Worse
Green Myth: Airline Travel Worse!!!
Is airline travel bad?
If one listens to the green rhetoric, one would think so. I like to know for myself, so I did a bit of rough calculating.
I'll soon be flying from Grand Rapid, Michigan (GRR) to Raleigh Durham, North Carolina (RDU). The green myth tells me that I should drive instead, because airline travel is the bad, evil, unethical, wrong.
Drive?
Let's take a look at the numbers for driving...
* Car miles from GRR to RDU: 836 miles (and a very tiring drive)
* My car's fuel economy: 25 mi/gal
* Fuel burned, one way: 33.5 gallons
And the numbers for flying...
* Airplane miles from GRR to RDU: 639 miles
* Airplane (737-800) fuel economy: 3,383 miles range / 6,875 gallons = 0.49 mi/gal
* Fuel burned, one way: 639 mi divided by 0.49 mi/gal = 1,304 gallons!!!
Whoa!!! I guess that green "fact" is right on!!! I should drive!!!
Wait a minute, I must be missing something...
Fly?
Yes, of course, I have to figure in all passengers, in each vehicles! The plane can carry 189 passengers. Based on recent flights, where I've been stuck in the cheap seats in the back, I know that a full flight is a fairly common thing.
Let's now look at the per passenger fuel use for each...
* Car: 33.5 gal divided by one occupant = 33.5 gallons per occupant
* Plane: 314.5 gallons divided by 189 passengers = 6.9 gallons per passenger
Whoa!!! I guess that green "fact" is way wrong!!! I should fly!!! Good for me!!!
But wait one more minute...
Small Family?
It isn't just me going to RDU. My spouse and infant child are traveling as well...
* Car: 33.5 gal (more or less) no matter how many people = 33.5 gal for my family
* Plane: 6.9 gal/passenger x 2 seats (baby on a lap) = 13.8 gal for my family
My small family will consume less fuel by flying than by driving.
Big Family?
One more question, let's look at a different scenario...
An airplane getting only 0.4 miles/gallon, 4 adults traveling, and an 80% full plane.
* By car: still 33.5 gallons
* By air: 1,600 gallons / 151 passengers (80%) = 10.6 gal/passenger
... then ... 10.6 gal/passenger x 4 passengers = 42.4 gallons for the trip
Looks like by car is best for the family of four. [As long as they can get 20 MPG or better in their car.]
Green Myth?
Yes, it is a green myth.
For my small family, traveling by air uses less fuel than traveling by car. In fact, for a there and back trip, the difference is 67 gallons of car fuel vs. 28 gallons of airplane fuel. Saving almost 40 gallons by flying is probably the "green" way to go.
The moral of this story? Don't take any "this is good for the environment" statements at face value. Think about it, run the numbers, and find out: is it truth, or is it a green myth.
###
Bonus Truth
Want to learn more? I invite you to keep reading...
Go Deeper
There are other factors, of course, such as how putting CO2 into the high atmosphere might compare with at ground level; the actual amount of fuel burned on a short(ish) jet flight; the difference between gasoline and the jet fuel as far as carbon content, etc. One example, for CO2 pollution, jet fuel releases 21.1 pounds of CO2 per gal burned compared to 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gal of gasoline burned.
Go REALLY Deep
In the real world, it is the money spent on the journey that matters. We should really do the math on the total cost of the trip from leaving the front door, to getting back, on the airplane vs. automobile. If the automobile costs less, it is less bad for the environment. If the plane (with the parking, and car rental there) costs less, then it is the lesser of the two bads. Of course, if one saved $200 on driving, and then spend that $200 on something else after getting back, then the overall spending would be the same, and the overall effect would be that both choices were equally bad. The moral here? Nothing is as simple as it seems.
And DEEPER
Of course there is a difference. The way money is spent impacts individual behavior. While spending $1,000 one way vs. another does have the same immediate bad impact on the world, there are some uses which have better long term outcomes. For example, buying $1,000 in food from a local organic grower, rather than from imported foods from other states and countries, means that you are helping to improve the local economy and develop food security for your community.
SPENDING MONEY
The thing to keep in mind is that spending money ALWAYS leads to the burning of fossil fuels, whether you are filling the tank, or whether you are buying your next door neighbors organic apples. Money is such that the impact is not just in the immediate transation that you initiated and witnessed, but in the entire series of transactions that this money will now go through as it moves from hand, to hand, to hand, to hand... far into the future. This is the true nature of money, and this is the concept that we must understand if we have any serious interest in saving Earth.
Is airline travel bad?
If one listens to the green rhetoric, one would think so. I like to know for myself, so I did a bit of rough calculating.
I'll soon be flying from Grand Rapid, Michigan (GRR) to Raleigh Durham, North Carolina (RDU). The green myth tells me that I should drive instead, because airline travel is the bad, evil, unethical, wrong.
Drive?
Let's take a look at the numbers for driving...
* Car miles from GRR to RDU: 836 miles (and a very tiring drive)
* My car's fuel economy: 25 mi/gal
* Fuel burned, one way: 33.5 gallons
And the numbers for flying...
* Airplane miles from GRR to RDU: 639 miles
* Airplane (737-800) fuel economy: 3,383 miles range / 6,875 gallons = 0.49 mi/gal
* Fuel burned, one way: 639 mi divided by 0.49 mi/gal = 1,304 gallons!!!
Whoa!!! I guess that green "fact" is right on!!! I should drive!!!
Wait a minute, I must be missing something...
Fly?
Yes, of course, I have to figure in all passengers, in each vehicles! The plane can carry 189 passengers. Based on recent flights, where I've been stuck in the cheap seats in the back, I know that a full flight is a fairly common thing.
Let's now look at the per passenger fuel use for each...
* Car: 33.5 gal divided by one occupant = 33.5 gallons per occupant
* Plane: 314.5 gallons divided by 189 passengers = 6.9 gallons per passenger
Whoa!!! I guess that green "fact" is way wrong!!! I should fly!!! Good for me!!!
But wait one more minute...
Small Family?
It isn't just me going to RDU. My spouse and infant child are traveling as well...
* Car: 33.5 gal (more or less) no matter how many people = 33.5 gal for my family
* Plane: 6.9 gal/passenger x 2 seats (baby on a lap) = 13.8 gal for my family
My small family will consume less fuel by flying than by driving.
Big Family?
One more question, let's look at a different scenario...
An airplane getting only 0.4 miles/gallon, 4 adults traveling, and an 80% full plane.
* By car: still 33.5 gallons
* By air: 1,600 gallons / 151 passengers (80%) = 10.6 gal/passenger
... then ... 10.6 gal/passenger x 4 passengers = 42.4 gallons for the trip
Looks like by car is best for the family of four. [As long as they can get 20 MPG or better in their car.]
Green Myth?
Yes, it is a green myth.
For my small family, traveling by air uses less fuel than traveling by car. In fact, for a there and back trip, the difference is 67 gallons of car fuel vs. 28 gallons of airplane fuel. Saving almost 40 gallons by flying is probably the "green" way to go.
The moral of this story? Don't take any "this is good for the environment" statements at face value. Think about it, run the numbers, and find out: is it truth, or is it a green myth.
###
Bonus Truth
Want to learn more? I invite you to keep reading...
Go Deeper
There are other factors, of course, such as how putting CO2 into the high atmosphere might compare with at ground level; the actual amount of fuel burned on a short(ish) jet flight; the difference between gasoline and the jet fuel as far as carbon content, etc. One example, for CO2 pollution, jet fuel releases 21.1 pounds of CO2 per gal burned compared to 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gal of gasoline burned.
Go REALLY Deep
In the real world, it is the money spent on the journey that matters. We should really do the math on the total cost of the trip from leaving the front door, to getting back, on the airplane vs. automobile. If the automobile costs less, it is less bad for the environment. If the plane (with the parking, and car rental there) costs less, then it is the lesser of the two bads. Of course, if one saved $200 on driving, and then spend that $200 on something else after getting back, then the overall spending would be the same, and the overall effect would be that both choices were equally bad. The moral here? Nothing is as simple as it seems.
And DEEPER
Of course there is a difference. The way money is spent impacts individual behavior. While spending $1,000 one way vs. another does have the same immediate bad impact on the world, there are some uses which have better long term outcomes. For example, buying $1,000 in food from a local organic grower, rather than from imported foods from other states and countries, means that you are helping to improve the local economy and develop food security for your community.
SPENDING MONEY
The thing to keep in mind is that spending money ALWAYS leads to the burning of fossil fuels, whether you are filling the tank, or whether you are buying your next door neighbors organic apples. Money is such that the impact is not just in the immediate transation that you initiated and witnessed, but in the entire series of transactions that this money will now go through as it moves from hand, to hand, to hand, to hand... far into the future. This is the true nature of money, and this is the concept that we must understand if we have any serious interest in saving Earth.