23 January, 2009
Anti- anti-hype
In his Guardian column examining companies' 'environmentalist' marketing claims, Fred Pearce questions whether rail transport really is more sustainable than air travel.
Ultimately, he says it is, but in a way which needlessly over-emphasises the contrary arguments and utilises bizarre fallacies (okay; maybe non-sequiturs rather than outright fallacies). The overall effect is of a sensationalist attempt to generate false controversy.
- He explicitly compares the 'per passenger' efficiency of half-full trains against full planes, a strange assumption which doesn't reflect my own experience.
I don't know which section of the West Coast main line Pearce frequents, but across North West England I've had to stand more often than I've had plenty of room: a (perceived) average occupancy of nearer 110% than 50%. In contrast, I think I've only seen the 'commuter' Manchester-Brussels flight completely full once, and my mother & sister's favoured means of travelling from Manchester to Plymouth (a three-stage flight via Bristol & Newquay) is apparently under-used.
- He criticises Eurostar for being powered by electricity from French nuclear power stations. I'd regard that as the ideal power source and not remotely reason for corporate embarrassment.
- It's a bit disingenuous to simply compare carbon emissions on a like-for-like 'grammes of carbon dioxide per passenger per km' basis, as the nature and locations of the emissions are so different.
Those criticisms aside, I do agree with Pearce's call to increase electrification of the UK rail network from the current mere ~33%, thereby reducing use of diesel locomotives and >25% of emissions. Of course, that'd only be meaningful with electricity from nuclear sources, supplemented by 'regenerative braking'.
Disclaimer: I am not now, never have been and do not wish to be 'Green', and have no intention of avoiding air transport – when rail is impractical.
Posted by Ministry at 11:15
| 292 words
