The Oil Drum

45 comments on Flying vs. driving

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Adam on October 2, 2005 - 1:24pm

Trains are even better, because they don't necessarilly use fossil fuels at all. The French TGV, for example, is largely nuclear-powered. (This may or may not be good for the environment, but it certainly helps reduce oil depletion and CO2 emissions.)

I think driving is worse than flying, even if they do use similar amounts of oil. Driving requires a continuous stretch of tarmac, whereas flying only needs a few hundred yards at each end. And most of the pollution from flights is released into the stratosphere, not into towns at the head height of children. Flying is also safer, both for people in the plane and for innocent bystanders.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

MikeCapone on October 2, 2005 - 3:03pm

Releasing pollutants directly into the stratosphere IS one of the major problems of flying. It is generally not considered an advantage.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Steve Bower on October 2, 2005 - 4:26pm

If the concern is global warming, driving is generally better than flying, particularly with 2 or more passengers. The roads are already there, and will continue to be maintained for decades to come. Flying is just one of the many luxuries we have to cut back on (or give up) to reduce global warming and to lead more sustainable lives.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sealth on October 2, 2005 - 5:21pm

More correctly, the TGV is electrically powered, and since most electricity in France is generated by nuclear energy, it is true that France's trains are contributing very little to CO2 emissions or to oil depletion.

Nobody operates actual nuclear powered trains, though they are technically (if maybe not economically) feasible. France's solution probably makes more sense in any case.