Okay, so this Bash Airlines All You Want, But Flying Still Beats Driving is USA-centric, but it's an intriguing possibility that there are times when flying may be better on emissions: "This one's a little complicated, but stay with me. According to Terrapass, my Jetta will spew around 850 pounds of CO2 over 1,000 miles. Airliners.net says an Airbus A320 burns 2.569 gallons per mile, so my thousand mile flight (let's call it 1,500 miles with the connection) requires 3,853 gallons of fuel. The Energy Information Administration says a gallon of jet fuel produces around 21 pounds of carbon, which means my flight is releasing 80,913 pounds of C02. That's horrible, but it's not the whole story. Divide that number by 140 -- the number of passengers packed into that Airbus -- and you arrive at 578 pounds per person.
850 pounds of CO2 driving, 577 pounds flying. Advantage: plane"
I wonder what the figures might be in the UK ...? I suspect, given the nature of the figures they could be similar, though typical car fuel consumption figures could be different, perhaps.
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
1 comment:
Hello,
I've tagged you!
No obligation tho!
Cath
Post a Comment