But, since the blog exists, perhaps I could redirect it more widely to matters technological in general that happen to interest me. Maybe the reader is not interested, but I will just write what falls into my head, that is how the blog works. Mac stuff will still be there, but alongside whatever else I find interesting. But my approach will still be that of the fairly regular user, not the nerdy stuff I do not understand anyway. I am a normal professor of history from Bergen in western Norway, and this will be the world I see from my window.
Travelling green without going overboard
So, for the first instalment this year, I thought I would share some musings I have about choices we, both academics and others, will have to start making. As I write this, the world is locked down, borders are still closed and the air is cleaner that it has been for decades. But that, alas, will pass. Well, alas for the last part, the clean air. In a few years will look back at this time with the same nostalgia as the 1973 oil crisis, when the streets were also empty because driving cars were restricted or forbidden. We will be travelling again some day.
But the need to cut down unnecessary travel is something that has been discussed more seriously over the last years, and we have been asked by our institutions to reduce in particular air travel, for environmental reasons. I decided already a year or two back to refuse to go to Oslo just for a single meeting or one-hour examination, and demand videochats instead. Now, that is becoming even more practical since we all have had occasion to practice on Zoom and similar.
 |
| West Norwegian airplane |
But we cannot stop travelling altogether, of course. It is just that when we do, we must, in addition to airfare prices and time wasted, also consider means of travel and environmental impact. When can we use a train, and when can we justify taking to the air? There are choices to be made, and your "green-ness" may direct your answer. I am now reflecting about my own choices, as a "reasonably green" person who accept a certain level of pragmatics, to go fully Greta Thunberg with a sailboat to America is beyond me. Your choices may differ from mine, however, I thought it might be useful to get some figures on the table to see what exactly we are talking about. What are actually the emission cost of travelling by this way or that way? Is it better to drive a car than taking a plane? Do propeller (turboprop) planes as we use locally in western Norway spew out less CO2 than jet planes (yes, they do, and by a pretty hefty margin on short hops). And, how much extra time will it actually take me to travel green?
So in a free moment, I started lookng at figures for my comparison. There are quite a few sites around that count carbon costs, and although they do not all match, and are of course based on averages and presumptions - clearly, the more people you put into a plane, the less is the emission per passenger (and did you know that narrow single-aisle planes are better than two-aisle planes?). However, I was able to set up this list, which is more or less consensual among the calculators:
Grammes of CO2 emitted per person per km travelled:
- Jetplane, international: 195 g.
- Jetplan, domestic 270 g. [much higher, because more fuel is spent on takeoff and landing, than on cruising]
- Propeller plane: 95 g.
- Car (average, diesel engine [ICE], driver only): 171 g.
- Bus / long-haul coach: 27 g.
- Train: 14 g. (West European average. In Norway, almost all trains are hydro-electric, so 0 in this country)
- Ferry w/car: 128 g. [passenger only: 18 g.]
Travel strategies, from Bergen to the west country
So, I began setting up scenarios and I how I would answer them. The presumption is a business / work trip for one full day away, and one person only (not holidays). For such a actual work period, I would imagine that spending 2-4 hours extra to travel green is quite reasonable, while spending a full travel day (8-9 hours) extra each way for one day at work would be excessive. Here, I do not consider economics, just time vs. CO2 emsissions. How do the destinations stack up?
And here I must apologize for being very Norwegian. I write this in English, because the blog is in English, but probably those who know a bit about Norwegian geography will be at an advantage here. But hopefully, the basic thinking beneath this might be transferable to other situations.
Destinaton one: Bergen to Oslo.
Distance by car: 460 km. Options:
- Plane: 81 kg. CO2; time spent 4 hours town centre to town centre [For planes I normally add 2 hours ahead of departure, and 1 hour after arrival].
- Car [ICE]: 79 kg. / 7 hours [Google maps suggestion]
- Train 0 g / ca. 7 hours.
Sum: As Oslo can be reached by train, as the only destination discussed here, train will always win. The extra time expended is 3 hours, which is fully acceptable. There are even night trains, but depending on schedule, you may have to add a hotel night. But travel to Oslo will be by train.
Destination two: Bergen to Volda
[Volda, north of Bergen, has a college we often visit]
Distance by car: 352 km. Options:
- Coach bus: 10 kg / 8 hours
- Plane: 22 kg / 4 hours [Propeller plane]
- Car: 60 kg / 6-7 hours (depending on ferry)
However, we live in Norway! As everyone with any green awareness will know, Norway is a different planet, where everyone drives an EV (electric car)! Well, not quite. But electric is indeed an option for those who own one, and a clean one (0 emissions on our hydro-electric grid). The car can take a bit more direct route, so the time cost can be 2-3 hours only, and in particular gives you greater flexibility than the once-a-day bus. Still, you must factor in at least one night's extra stay over the plane, probably two with the bus. It becomes more of a toss-up between bus, plane or whether you feel up to driving for 13 hours over two days.
Destination three: Bergen to Førde
[a regional centre, on the way to Volda]
Distance by car: 175 km. Options:
- Bus: 5 kg / 3,5 hours
- Plane: 11 kg / ca. 4 hours
- Car: 30 kg / ca. 3,5 hours (depending on ferry)
Førde, being closer, has a much better coach connection, like the plane three times a day, and as we can see, actually beats the plane on time spent, so here there is no contest, bus wins. But for an EV it is also well within reasonable range, and with less emissions. So either EV, if you have one, or bus.
Destination four: Bergen to Stavanger,
our neighbouring university town to the south.
Distance by car: 210 km. Options:
- Bus: 6 kg / 5,5 hours
- Plane: 42+ kg / 4 hours
- Car: 35 kg / ca. 5 hours (with ferry)
Bergen-Stavanger is one of the busiest air routes in Norway, and the one it is most urgent to get rid of. The CO2 sum I calculate here is probably far too low, since the plane basically just takes off and then lands. They are even planning some humongous bridges and tunnels to make the road alternative competitive, but as we can see it already almost is, in spite of its 45-minutes ferry stretch. Buses are frequent, and provide the best alternative besides an EV. So here too, bus or EV. Here even the ICE car marginally beats the plane on emissions, but definitely, take the bus.
So, the conclusions for western Norway are not terribly surprising, except for Volda, where the argument for flying is actually quite realistic.
Now for a trickier one. The third largest city in Norway is Trondheim, in central Norway.
Distance by car: 629 km. Options:
- Bus: 17 kg / 15 hours [overnight bus?]
- Plane: 115 kg / ca. 4,5 hours
- Car: 107 kg / ca. 10 hours (at least one ferry)
- Train: 0 kg / best case about 15 hours.
It is actually possible to take the train from Bergen to Trondheim, by a detour through Oslo. The bus and car cut straight north-east across the mountain, by different routes evidently, the car is five hours quicker, but the ICE car emits almost as much CO2 as the jet plane. Anyway, the point is that for all practical purposes all three options give unacceptably long travel for a one-day meeting, it would take two full days (or a night and a day) each way, unless you are young and sporty enough to stomach an overnight bus journey both ways. Even a night-and-day train would only get you there in the afternoon of the following day. It is way above the 4-hour limit I set. So here you will see the fortitude of green conscience: A strong supporter will take the train and spend the extra days, a lesser one - and I fear I would be one - would, if I cannot get them to do a video meet, take the CO2 cost and fly.
Further north, even the staunchest green supporter will acknowledge that flying is inevitable. You can, by spending about yet another day, get a bit further north by train, to Bodø, but the rest is bus and ferry, and perhaps only local buses. The most idealistic young people will take the train from Bodø, or from Narvik (through Sweden), but a car, even an electric one, would only be for a holiday trip, not for a business meeting.
Travelling to Europe
Again, so far not so many surprises here: use a bus if you can, reduce flying to a minimum, but fly if you must.
However, the most pressing issue is travelling abroad. We can and should not completely stop going abroad, and it has been my contention that it is a practical impossibility to go from Bergen to the European continent without flying. So let us test that claim with an imagined visit: Let us choose Paris, which is pretty far north in Europe, and assume we are going for a guest lecture - a morning's work with a lunch or similar. How long does it take us to go from Bergen to Paris for that purpose without leaving the surface?
Option 1: Train
As far as I can see, there are three main options. One is by train from Bergen to Oslo, then down to Copenhagen, and from there through Germany to Paris. I did that many times in my youth (from Oslo, but still). But that was then. Now, the fragmentation of train services seems determined to deter us from travelling long distances. There are hardly any night trains left, and the train you must take leaves an hour before the one you are on arrives. So, trying to use various scheduling services, I came up with this travel plan:
- Day 1: Leave Bergen on the night train, arrive Oslo in morning, after the early train to Gothenburg has left.
- Day 2: Take the noon train to Gothenburg, change and continue to Copenhagen. No night trains going south, so hotel night.
- Day 3: from Copenhagen to Duisburg in Germany, arrival 8 PM. No night trains.
- Day 4: Duisburg to Paris, arrive noon. [Once a week, an early train will get you all the way from Cph to Paris in one day]
(There is another option: leaving Bergen at 8AM on day 1 will get you as far as Helsingborg at midnight; then wait there until 5AM and continue to Malmö and Copenhagen. That will save you a day, but is possibly not an attractive option).
Option 2: Driving through Sweden (in an electric car)
I will not even calculate the CO2 of an ICE (well, I did, it was 390 kg - a plane emits 260 kg). But you can drive EVs in Europe, of course, if you have one. There are two main options. One is to follow the train route, to Oslo, down Sweden and Copenhagen through Germany. That will take you effectively 26 hours travel, and depends how many hours you like to drive a day. If we set a limit of 10 hours / day, that will then include two overnight stays on the way. CO2 is not 0 now, as we must calculate in non-clean European electricity for that part of the journey, estimated at about 40-45 kg.
Option 3: Driving through Denmark
The third option is to take the ferry directly from Bergen to the northern tip of Jutland, and then drive down Denmark and Germany. The ferry costs 72 kg CO2, leaves in the afternoon and reaches Denmark the following morning. You then have fourteen hours of travel to Paris. So, a total of 35 hours (20 of them at sea), or realistically one night in addition to the night on the boat. Total CO2 cost, ca. 110 kg. (You can also take various local trains down Denmark to reach Hamburg, but good luck with making the connections. Possible CO2 cost: 72 + 14 = 86 kg)
So, in short, I am describing a holiday trip with your family when you want to take it leisurely and take in the sights etc. It is not an option for a shorter visit, no matter how green you are.
The realistic alternative: flying to Europe
Thus my contention that going abroad for non-holiday purposes requires air travel. But that is not the end of it. I also had in my mind that it mattered how you travelled by air. If it is so that an airplane emits more on take-off than on cruising, does it not matter how many stopovers you have? And, as mentioned, the carbon calculators confirm that this is an issue. So, let us go to Paris once again, in two typical alternatives:
- Bergen-Amsterdam-Paris: One "long-haul" to Amsterdam, one "short-haul" to Paris: 291 kg.
- Bergen-Paris direct: 260 kg.
However, the major difference is if you consider travelling the second half on the surface: Fly to Schipol, and then take the train to Paris. The train takes 3,5 hours, which means a time cost over connecting flights of perhaps only an hour or two, and the emissions - being mainly in France, which has pretty clean electricity - would be in the region of 3-4 kg. Now, this example may not be convincing compared to a direct flight when you already have "paid the price" of one take-off and landing. But it is fairly compelling for destinations that do not have direct flights from Bergen.
A pragmatic strategy for improving green-ness in European travel
So that would line up this strategy, when we go to the continent:
- Take a direct flight from Bergen to the closest possible airport, and then take the train the rest of the way, rather than messing with connecting flights. Thus, avoid going through Oslo or Copenhagen. Today, of course international and air travel is in flux, we do not know which airlines, flights or direct destinations will still exist when borders open and travel restrictions are lifted. London and Amsterdam are certain to be back, while Paris, Berlin or others may be less certain. But the general rule will probably still hold: If your final destination is within 5-6 hours train ride from the closest direct flight connection from Bergen (which will cover much of Northern Europe), then the green alternative is to avoid connecting flights, and use plane + train instead. If you have to use connecting flights, use as few and long hops as possible.
That will come with a time cost, of course: quite likely it may add an extra overnight stay or two. But that is probably the overall consequence we must draw from travelling green: It will be less common to go from your home, shoot straight in to the meeting, then jump into a taxi and fly out immediately after. We must factor in a bit slower pace if we add trains or buses rather than air travel. But, in most cases travelling to Europe takes a full day anyway, and the extra time cost will when we get used to it, not feel so onerous as we might think.
***
That was it. Is this all obvious - bus and train is better than plane, always? Partly yes. But my calculations here have highlighted that isn't just being "good" or "bad", white or black. There are actual quantifiable figures involved. And the facts that taking the plane to Volda is justifiable, was a bit of a surprise to me, and in particular that driving a petrol car is almost just as "dirty" as flying a jet plane the same distance, unless, of course, you pile more passengers into your car (then you divide the car figure by number of passengers, of course). But even for Volda, you would need at least four people in the car to match a full airplane. Also, for me at least, the "plane + train" option in Europe may well be something I will try to follow when and if we ever get to practice that again. But each of you will of course have your own priorities and choices, and for those who live on the continent, this is probably just an academic exercise: You are well served with trains and coaches everywhere. Consider it a view from the peripheral north.
No comments:
Post a Comment