Planes, Trains & Automobiles

Are family vacations a thing of the past? With gas prices at or near $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, you certainly might think twice before planning a classic road trip. But would flying your family to Wally World really be better for the planet than piling into the family car? How much do you really know about the greenest way to get away?

Take our "How Green Is My Getaway?" quiz -- you might be surprised.

Comments

[Charles G]

We discussed carbon offsets recently, and decided that the best solution was to pay the carbon offsets to yourself. That is, set up a new savings acct and pay carbon offsets into that. Then use the savings to reduce your carbon footprint. For example you could use the savings to pay for insulation, to install a solar water heater, or buy a bike.

This approach assures that you know where your money is going, and that it will act directly to lower your carbon footprint.

[Joe Braun]

The quiz is enlightening and educational. I will sign up for the newsletter but I'm thinking every day might be too much. While I think the more of this that gets out to other folks is very important, perhaps having it arrive every day might put people off and not take it seriously. I'm not sure about the reasoning regarding cruise ships. It has to be more efficient that having 3000 people fly or drive.

[Robert Bevilacqua]

The final question about cruise lines is very misleading. Is cruising environmentally friendly? Compared to what? If compared to 3000 plus people driving 15mph SUV's, I would bet that it is a better way to travel.

[Dawn Suiter]

This would make a good MySpace or Facebook quiz...could you create a html code so it can be embedded in a page?

[Paula]

Excellant quiz...rather illuminating! Keep these types of activities coming to us & look into ways of getting this sort of info out into the public arena. If everyone got a $.05 per quiz in their monthly utility bill would we see more proactive results for cleaning up our environment??? Sort of like a rewards program for 'green ecology' enthuisiasts.

[Renee]

Loved it! (Maybe because I scored 95%?) Either way, I learned a lot and am happy that trains are the way to go. I've had good experiences with Amtrack and great experiences with trains in Asia. Wish we had more!

[Renee]

Loved it! (Maybe because I scored 95%?) Either way, I learned a lot and am happy that trains are the way to go. I've had good experiences with Amtrack and great experiences with trains in Asia. Wish we had more!

[P DeWolfe]

I liked the concept but the explanations were very muddy. I got partial credit for something but I really don't know what the correct answer was, after reading the explanation.

[Marian A. Shirin]

loved it, thanks

[Marty Mathieson]

The quiz was fine. I'm watching Nat GEO and the Sept. 11, 2001 show and Bush was in
Saudi Arabia begging those to pump more oil for us. We drive a Hybrid and when the wind doesn't blow I ride my Trek 620 to my job.

[RavenFall]

While I got a lot of the answers right, there was still a great deal of important information covered in your answer page. Thanks for doing this. Now, how do we go about getting other drivers to slow down?
I always try to go the speed limit or under if it is 60+ but I hardly feel safe! Even in the right lane! Cars and trucks roar up behind me as though I'm standing still. And then hang on my bumper to try to intimidate me into speeding up. I'm sick of that stupid, selfish behavior.

[philip Wagner]

most of these questions are invalid . you didn't provide the best choices which are a) stay home b) walk c) bicycle d) hitchhike.
in regards to carbon offset... there are no real standards and most of these programs are rip offs, and the carbon offset program is just a way for the rich and foolish to assuage their guilt and the environmental damage still occurs. Its sort of like a political bribe.

Best answer to all your questions is stay out of airplanes, sell your car and give the money to planned parenthood. If you can't walk to work, you shouldn't be living there!!!

[M]

The first questions could use a link to the math. We were uncertain if you mean per person or per vehicle. ... I am not sold on carbon offsets yet. My opinion is tax the creation of all pollution equal to the cost of the pollution and use that money to pay for projects. I would tax every non-recycled or non-recyclable container 50 cents... Thank you for giving us information. We want more of this. Especially about the home.

[Francis Sterba]

I got 7 out of 10 which is worse than I thought I would. This is interesting info for those who wish to stop the global warming.

[Frank A. Nederhand]

Good Quiz,

Flying is for convenience and saves time. Because corporate America has lulled everyone into thinking they don’t have a right to fare compensation which includes have enough vacation days to be able to use other options than having to fly because time is limited. Now this is a interesting idea; why doesn’t corporate America give its employees a bonus for being more environmentally minded! Including giveing them more vacation days becasue they took the train instead of the plane!!!!

FAN

[Mike]

Once CO2 is released in the atmosphere, buying carbon-offsets does not reverse the effect. Buying carbon offsets is like buying tickets to a snipe hunt. Somebody saw a chance to make some easy money off of a gullible public.

[Glen Shue]

I do read a lot so I did manage to get the 90 but I do disagree on the buying carbon offsets. It is a lot like selling antiques, you have to have a buyer. So, I think the carbon offsets are of no use IF or until someone actually creates a smaller CO2 footprint. I have found over the years that my '95 Saturn gets over 40 mpg on trip milage IF I keep the speed below 65. On our last trip to TN from MD we averaged nearly 44 mpg. So, what is my CO2 footprint?

[Alice]

I'd like to know how buses stack up against cars and trains. I've taken Megabus recently and it was great. It was more reliable and cheaper than Amtrak in our area.

[roadrage]

The US is behind in efficient train lines.
While we're still waiting for the electric car, a friend has been driving his converted electric truck for years!
Remember that criminal Nixon? The one good thing from that administration was, "55 and stay alive." 55mph was the national top speed...more appropriate than ever.

I got a good grade, but much of the extra information is helpful. Yes, more quizzes please!

[Anne]

I flunked the test. I'm not going anywhere for the most part we stay home. The only travelling I like to do is to fly to my see my family in the UK, the country where one can take a train, bus, or walk. That's what horrified me when I first came over here to the States is that people would get in their cars and drive around the corner to the 7-11. When I see all the chaos at the airports of people flying within the USA I wish people would be more inclinded to take the train.

[Carole Smith]

The quiz was fun and my errors helpful. I think 3 wrong isn't bad for a novice. Your request to pledge to 'drive 55' is a motto my husband and I have long employed in our travels. Just like the "post" from Barry, below, we travel around our beautiful state of AZ most of the time. We've lived here more than 40 years and never tire of its beauties!! On one of those trips on Mothers Day, we took my Mother with us and traveled about 280 miles including driving at increasing altitude - Phx to Prescott via Wickenburg. We have a 2006 Dodge Grand Caravan and were able to achieve a cool 25 mpg!! I've always loved the underdog...and turtles. Slow and steady wins the race. Besides, the driver might actually be able to enjoy some of the scenery.

[Enid Gorman]

Interesting & informative quiz. I think & hope, we are seeing the benefits of bringing back train travel - for short & long trips.

[SLUG]

Why wasn't time an issue about traveling?
Plane v ground travel the time it takes to destination should be a factor. Are trips pleasure or business?

I prefer any mode that will get me to point B faster and have comfort in doing so.

[Christopher Wasiutynski]

Buses, as some people have commented, ARE very energy-efficient - a 40-seat bus with all seats full can yield better than 300 passenger-miles per gallon, several times better than the best airliner. Buses should have been mentioned in the Quiz. But if people are willing to accept the very tight seating of a bus, an equally densely-packed commuter train can do even better - I suspect that a seven-car New York Metro-North commuter train, with over 700 seats, IF FULL gives a fuel-efficiency of 500 to perhaps 700 passenger-miles per gallon. But most people prefer more space, which long-distance trains provide, for trips longer than about 2 hours.
Trains have another environmental feature: rail is the only transport mode which DOES NOT REQUIRE PETROLEUM, using current technology. Some 90 percent of European rail traffic moves on electrified rail lines; the Japanese 'Bullet Train' Shinkansen high-speed trains are entirely electrified; all European high-speed rail lines, and most European main rail lines, are electrified. (By contrast, all present aircraft emit CO2 by burning fuel; electric automobiles exist, but require heavy batteries, and currently their range is limited to about 50 to 100 miles. Air and highway transport in the US today is totally petroleum-fuelled). Although our present electricity generating systems cause CO2 emissions, to the extent that our electric generating plants can be made carbon-neutral, rail transport can be made equally carbon-neutral, fuelled by wind, solar, etc..
Perhaps the next time the Bush Administration proposes drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge because petroleum is 'essential' for transport, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations might respond by proposing a Federal financing vehicle for US railroad electrification (the last US electrifications were in the 1930's) - it should cost taxpayers little or nothing (the economics are excellent), and it would one-up the present lip-service and empty rhetoric on 'energy independence.'

[Christopher Wasiutynski]

As former Chair of the Sierra Club Transportation Committee, I would like to comment that the figure giving an 18 percent advantage to passenger rail (which is taken from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory report) accurately describes the energy-efficiency of Amtrak's current operations - the Bush Administration's hostility to Amtrak has left Amtrak trains under-utilized, which cuts efficiency - but may be FAR TOO CONSERVATIVE regarding the efficiency of passenger trains abroad, particularly in Europe and Japan, where passenger rail is far better utilized. Accurately energy-efficiency figures are surprisingly difficult to find, but one French website (on French high-speed rail) cites an energy-efficiency figure calculated by the UIC (Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, an international organization of railways) which would indicate that highly-utilized European passenger trains are roughly TWICE as energy-efficient as current Amtrak service.
(I am trying to research this data).
If this is so, then it is not a criticism of Amtrak, which is doing its best in the face of Bush Administration hostility. Instead, it indicates that if Amtrak trains were better utilized (and sized appropriately) the energy-efficiency of Amtrak trains is potentially much higher.

[Peter T.]

This was a good idea. Now how about something similar to get people thinking about these enormous drivers of Global Warming: our POPULATION and the INCREASING ENERGY USE of all these people!

[Laura B]

The train vs. car/airplane comparison doesn't account for the fact that train stations are centrally located with (at least in cities) good public transportation. Train travellers are more likely to use public transportation for local travel at their destination. People who travel by car are less likely to use public transportation at their destination since they have a car available. People who fly in are more likely to rent a car at their destination than train travellers are because airports are usually far from downtown.

The comparison needs to look at the environmental impact of the entire vacation, not just at the impact of the journey from home to destination and back.

I also think you were too pessimistic in your evaluation of the usefulness of trains. It's true that passenger train routes are spotty in much of the west, but in California most of the state is covered by a combination of long distance, regional, and commuter trains plus dedicated connecting buses.

[irene matthews]

Two points, one already mentioned ... (1)stay home, USE THE BUS, walk, bike, live closer to work ... but even with all possible economies, domestic energy reduction won't make a huge difference in gw (I do have a car but haven't put gas in it yet this year);
(2) Took a cruise last year, with Holland America, who spent two half-days informing passengers on their recycling/waste reduction efforts, including issues such as not releasing water ballast in non-originary oceans (e.g. ballast taken on in North Atlantic would not be released in, say, the Caribbean, in case residual aquatic life within the discharge might affect native species). Along with this, we (those of us who were interested) visited all the ship's innards to see the process in action. Still not carbon-neutral, but worth checking on cruise lines' ecoagendas if deciding to travel by sea.

[Otmar Ebenhoech]

As stated above, the quiz was oversimplified.

People like to have answers, but giving them irrelevant answers is damaging even if it does make them feel good and pious.

The explanation for the BTU per mile of planes, trains and automobiles proves just that, there is a small difference between them (less than a factor of 2) and what sort of car (or plane) and how full it is makes all the difference in the world. It's a bit like the old open the windows or run the AC question which was propagated in the media a year or two ago.
The answer often is "it depends" and oversimplified inaccurate information helps no one while causing division in those trying to do well.
A good option might be to show case studies and the results of each. The variables are many with type of vehicle, number of people and route (stops in a plane). With such details consumers may learn to develop a feel for the effects, and more importantly when it makes little difference which one is chosen.

Also, this "forum" of people who see this page once and never come back (since the quiz makers are not involved in the discussion) is a bit insulting as well. We speak into the vapor of the internet and that is not empowering.
-Otmar

[Mary Lyn Villaume]

I agree with many of the comments above that this quiz was simplistic and misleading, esp in mixing up the scores for the vehicle consumption vs the per passenger consumption and not clarifying the difference between full vehicles and those with only one passenger.
What I want now is a clear response from the producer and editor of the quiz. And I thank both the Sierra Club and all the commentators for their contributions. involvement is essential.

[gregantonioli]

Re: question #5 "...easier on the environment if you take non-stop flights"

Was it considered that non-stop flights are more likely to have empty seats?

[magnus]

nice, fun and illuminating, thanx!
There would be many more questions, but 10 is for most of us enough to still enjoy!

[Nyle]

People need to just STOP moving around so much! It is a new thing within the last hundred years or so. All this running around. Can't stay still. Good way to keep you in control. Can't stop to think. If you don't like where you are, move someplace better. If your relatives are far away, move nearer them. What? Do you want to go to the moon too on the first commercial flight? Good! Stay there too!

[Mary Rexford]

I liked it - a creative way to raise awareness. We need to engage with these issues and this information, so why not have a little fun in the process? Great idea, Sierra Club! I suggest a follow up clarification on the items some found confusing.

[Donald Young]

To travel GREEN by auto, air, train or ship use LEXINE ML-521, the supreme in fuel additives for all gasoline and diesel engines. LEXINE will reduce fuel usage by an average of 25% and reduce fuel emissions to comply with or exceed environmental standards. LEXINE ML-521 is the best kept secret in America, that is because it was developed from rocket science were the fuel burns very slow and complete. The GREENING OF AMERICA, LEXINE IS THE KEY.

[Dianne]

Good quiz ..stirring people to think and consider, (based on the comments), and after all, being aware is the tap root beneath it all. The more aware people become, the more they will quite naturally begin to feel uncomfortable twinges when they are choosing actions that impact the health and well being of others and of this very alive earth ... and, that awareness will eventually stimulate proper action. A tiny seed, watered and nourished, can sprout into a tall oak. Everyone would do well to ask themselves every morning... what kind of seeds do I want to plant and nourish today?

[Nancy Smith]

Your answer to question #4 seems to contradict your answer to #1. Right?

[chitownclark]

The Sierra Club should do a lot more to educate us on energy waste. And provide more guidance on legislation that would reduce needless travel.

What about national and local Gas Taxes? Why aren't they linked to the price of gas as a percentage, as sales taxes are?

What would be the estimated effect this summer of eliminating the national gas tax? How much more driving, CO2, and national debt would its elimination produce?

How do we get the US gas taxes up to the level that most Europeans pay? Other than the Sierra Club, which organization is taking the lead, lobbying specifically for higher gas taxes?

[ken Malcolm]

Loved it - probably 'cause I scored 100%!

[something]

One message seems to be that while parties of four are better served by car, parties of two (and presumably one) are better served by plane. In that case, I'll see you at the gate...

[Josue Martinez]

The Sierra Club is doing wonderfully in educating us. Too bad our present US Government is doing next to nothing (and by the way, it is one of its most critical responsibilities). We have to neutralize this tragedy while we are still able to do so, and pronto. Solid, correct, and valuable information, such as from Sierra, will motivate even those with limited brain function, and is an absolutely needed key in this goal. Thank you, thank you.

[Tom M]

The yield of products from a barrel of crude has NOTHING - NOTHING AT ALL to do with how much crude it takes to generate a gallon of product. The mix of products is a function of the composition of the crude oil and the amount of processing needed to make the product. Typically about 10% of a barrel of crude is consumed in the refining process. The more processing needed for a product, the higher its cost to produce. Gasoline needs the most processing so it takes the most crude to produce, say 1.14 gallons of crude per gallon of gas. Diesel and fuel oil typically need less processing so their cost may be on the order of 1.08 gallons of crude per gallon of product.

[http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/885695/28613384]

Seven good questions than three losers!
8. I know of no carbon offset program that have a long-term guarantee. What good is it plant a forest that will be consumed in a forest fire 50 years from now? Do they refund your $$? The only use for carbon credits is to make one feel good.

9. AMTRAK gets 45 passenger miles/gallon (PM/g); a 747-400 gets 67 PM/g; a 757-300 gets 78 PM/g; it is claimed that the 787 will get 100 PM/g - better than two folks in a Prius!

10. Why not change the subject in mid-stream.

3. A better answer on question three is that the fuel consumed on a flight is a function of the number of passengers (weight). An empty plane uses less fuel for a particular trip than a full one. Of course the best fuel efficiency is when a plane has a full load of passengers.

4. You seem to have much more certitude about aerosols and radiative forcing than the IPCC does. More green myths.

[Sandy B]

Found this interesting and informative, a good way to give important knowledge! Thanks.

[Velimir Randic]

you state in the first question that an SUV and a plane going from LA to Seattle generate about the same amount of CO2. It does not state whether this is per passanger or total. I suspect that if you take into account that the pane is carrying 200 people and generating a ton of carbon, then it's much more efficient than the SUV making the same trip. If that is the case, then most of your survey is misleading.

[Linda]

Just this week, the question of the efficiency of driving vs. flying came up. So, yes, this was extremely helpful.

I had the same question as one of the other responders - if everyone on a flight decides to drive rather than fly, then what?

What I would like to see the Sierra Club set up (or maybe this is already out there and I just haven't looked): a system by which one could plug in one's variables - such as distance of trip, vehicle's mpg, # of passengers - to determine the greenest way to travel.

[Robert Aston]

Some of the questions are a bit misleading as the btu/passenger miles change based on the number of passengers. There is a big difference between a family of four taking a road trip and a trip for the driver only. These days, trains and planes are generally full but not cars.

[Mark Adler]

For those asking how the heck you can get 20 pounds of CO2 out of a gallon of gas, which weighs about 6 pounds, yes, you can. The C comes from the fuel, the O2 comes from the air.

So let's do the arithmetic. Gas (as well as diesel and jet fuel) are all composed of, to first order, CH2. The C has atomic mass 12, each H has atomic mass 1. So 6/7 of the mass of the fuel is C. That combines with two oxygen atoms from the air with an atomic mass of 16 each. CO2 then has a mass of 44 as compared to the C which is 12. (You can see where this is going.) The CO2 is 11/3 times the mass of the carbon, almost four times.

So if we start with one gallon, about six pounds of gasoline, we have therein 5.14 pounds of carbon. Times 11/3 is about 19 pounds. The density of gasoline actual varies between 6 and 6.5 pounds per gallon, so the CO2 produced varies between 19 and 20.5 pounds of CO2. Hence the rounded value of 20 pounds.

What about the water? Those H's have to go somewhere. In the gallon of gas, there is about 0.9 pounds of hydrogen. Those two H's pull one O out of the air to make H2O. H2 has atomic mass 2, and H2O is 18. So the water is nine times the mass of the hydrogen used to make it. That 0.9 pounds of hydrogen becomes eight pounds of water.

In the end, that six pounds of gasoline turned into 20 pounds of CO2 and 8 pounds of water. This is not all that miraculous, since we consumed 22 pounds of oxygen in combusting the gasoline.

[elizabeth hestevold]

VERY INFORMATIVE.I WAS IGNORANT ON SEA TRAVEL,THAT WAS A HEALTHY EYE OPENER.

[Mariel Q Davis]

As a long-time rail passenger with about 30,000 lifetime miles to my credit, I was happy to see rail service acknowledged as the low-carbon champ that it is. (And mile for mile it's also the most economical.) But you gave Amtrak a black eye by slighting its service in the West. Trains stop in every major city, and near every major national park, or connect to comfortable bus service that gets you there. You can make connections to Canada and its excellent rail service as well. When you consider the added value of non-stop gorgeous scenery that does not include six lanes of highway, it's a bargain not to be missed!