Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Tourists are Killing the Planet

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 10 May 2018, 14:08:16

Thanks for your thoughtful insights, Revi!

And for the record, KJ, may mother's mother was assassinated by communists, so, no, mom did not sing me to sleep in my cradle with Marxist lullabies! :lol:

Ibon, when I was fairly young I had ascetic aspirations, though these days it would just look like being homeless--everything I owned on my back, never getting in any motorized vehicles, eating mostly just enough to keep body and soul together, meditating under a Zen Roshi 5 hours a day (except during sesshins, when it was more like 15 hours a day)...

These days with a house full of books and other stuff and many other comforts, I would never consider myself ascetic by any means. I live very, very comfortably. I do work nearly everyday with 'homeless' whom I would now consider to be much closer to the ascetic ideal, though mostly that was not their intention.

Flying and eating a lot of meat are things that are odd and rare, by any current or historical measure. Not flying was, of course, what everyone 'did' before the Wright brothers a mere hundred years ago. And, most people currently and in the past being poor, few regularly had access to large amounts of meat to eat daily, so most people most of the time in most cultures were mostly vegan.

So really, vegan non-flyers are not some kind of weird ascetics or whatever special name one wants to come up with. It is regular flyers (only about 6% of the world's population are thought to fly regularly) and heavy meat eaters (more than an a few ounces a week) that are the outliers, and who truly deserve to have therefore 'marked' terms applied to them, perhaps flesh-glutton, jet-setter planet destroyers, perhaps?? :-D :-D

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-plane ... 180957719/
Last edited by dohboi on Thu 10 May 2018, 15:55:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17598
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 10 May 2018, 15:52:43

dohboi wrote:I ... work nearly everyday with 'homeless' whom I would now consider to be much closer to the ascetic ideal, though mostly that was not their intention.


?????????

The ascetic philosphy is all about intentionally choosing an ascetic lifestyle. Poor people in poverty are definitely NOT ascetics—-they’re just poor. Ascetism is about CHOOSING to live in dire poverty because you care so little about material things.

The whole idea is that one comes to realize that material things and indeed the material world is just one part of human existence, and certainly not the most important part. By focusing on intellectual or spiritual pursuits as opposed to mainly material pursuits, people can achieve a higher purpose and a greater contentment in their lives. A true ascetic acts on these beliefs by INTENTIONALLY giving up his home and possessions to live as a hermit, with very minimal personal possessions.

I think you are confusing the poverty and homelessness that comes with drug addiction, alcoholism, medical problems, psychological problems and poor career and life choices with asceticism——and they are not at all the same thing. Even very wealthy people can be somewhat ascetic in their livestyles if they CHOOSE to live an ascetic lifestyle. Look at Marcus Aurelius, for example. He is considered to be a stoic and not an ascetic, but since asceticism technically means giving away your home and all your possessions and living as a hermit, its not a terribly practical philosophy because virtually no one will intentionally choose to live that way—-except ascetics—-and they CHOOSE it, unlike the poor homeless in American today.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21509
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 10 May 2018, 16:59:35

Definitely. Sorry if I was unclear or poorly stated this. I just meant to point out that the level of material deprivation and physical suffering involved in both involuntary homelessness and voluntary asceticism is very far from the lifestyle I now lead. Sorry if I worded that badly.

But working with homeless regularly, I can tell you that there is a very wide range of reasons for their conditions. They don't all fit nicely into one or two classes or causes. But yes, I would not want to imply that most or even more than a fairly small portion of homelessness is fully voluntary. Ultimately, though, this complex discussion on the wide area of sources of homelessness, takes us pretty far afield from the main topic of this thread and should probably be taken up elsewhere if we want to pursue it.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17598
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 10 May 2018, 17:01:01

I got curious about the relative energy used to transport said tourists. The following table was taken from Wikipedia, the reference for the original data is the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 30, US Dept. of Energy, 2009.

Transport Mode/ Avg passengers per vehicle/ BTU per passenger-mile

AMTRAK Rail/ 20.9/ 2435
Jet Air/ 99.3/ 2826
Personal car/ 1.55/ 3538
Buses/ 9.2/ 4242
Taxi/ 1.55 / 15,645

Rail is indeed the most economical, but it's only modestly better than a jetliner. Cars are better than buses and almost anything beats a taxi, which spends a lot of time idling empty and must deadhead back from the paid destination.

Now, full disclosure: I'm in Wisconsin visiting the grandkids, we got here in a Boeing 737 which was full with 133 passengers and a crew of approximately 10 more. We rode a bus from O'Hare Airport in Chicago, and borrowed a Jeep Liberty SUV from my daughter to drive while we are here.

I believe that a strong case can be made that air travel is overall the most efficient. If the wife were not still working and therefore expending vacation hours to travel, we might have taken the train, we are fond of AMTRAK as long as we can book a bedroom. However, the length of the trip would have doubled due to round trip travel time, and we would have consumed about a dozen and a half more meals while traveling, it's hard to make a case for rail being any cheaper once the extra expenses are considered.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5306
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 10 May 2018, 17:36:54

dohboi wrote:

So really, vegan non-flyers are not some kind of weird ascetics or whatever special name one wants to come up with. It is regular flyers (only about 6% of the world's population are thought to fly regularly) and heavy meat eaters (more than an a few ounces a week) that are the outliers, and who truly deserve to have therefore 'marked' terms applied to them, perhaps flesh-glutton, jet-setter planet destroyers, perhaps??


This is a good point. Although I wouldn't say vegan was the historical default of humans, but certainly mainly vegetarian with much much smaller quantities of meat and yes no flying around. T

I have mentioned in the past that humans do not handle abundance well since nature always historically set the limit and we never had any real cultural or biological mechanisms in place for self regulation of consumption in times of abundance. And once we achieved extended abundance during the fossil fuel age we have proven to be miserable at any significant type of self regulation.

And so we can see how consumption in modern civilization goes through this cycle where once you lift out of poverty you recklessly ramp up consumption. This happened in America in the 20th century, happening to China today. Obesity and excessive material consumption are symptoms.

Meat consumption follows this. You lived for generations cherishing those few ounces of meat when available. Suddenly its available in abundance and you consume it to excess. And now we do find more and more people completing that cycle and actually today choose for health reasons to consciously go back to the historical norm you mention Dohboi of having a largely vegetarian diet. That is my family's diet since a couple of decades. Not vegetarian, just greatly reduced amounts of animal protein.

So again, between the historical norm of tiny amounts of meat consumption because it was not readily available and the conscious choice to not eat a lot of meat when abundantly available we have this large and quite ugly middle ground, this learning curve where we have to go through gluttony in order to begin to self regulate.

To get back to the thread how much of flight is superfluous, in excess? Whether it be for tourism, business, military. Certainly there is an indulgence in this excess, flying to Las Vegas out of boredom more than for any nourishing reason for the body or soul. How much of modern human consumption is because of boredom and a general unfulfilled life? You wont find a graph or statistics on this unless you look at the cruise industry for example and see how that has grown.

I call cruise ships shit factories, they leave port loaded with 1 or 2 weeks supply of food and all the passengers work all week in converting all that food to excrement. The cruise ship comes back to port at the end of the trip with the job complete and giant septic pumps suck out the product and then the ship is once again filled up with food and then the 2000 plus new passengers wait in line for another week work converting all that food to shit.

Most everyone who takes a cruise on these shit factories had to fly to the port to start their trip. Just consider a moment this sector of tourism, driving to the airport, flying on a plane, getting on the cruise ship, consumption gluttonous amounts of food, ending the cruise, getting back on a plane and arriving back home. What well being was actually generated on this kind of tourism? Nothing, just a whole lot of excrement!
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 10 May 2018, 17:44:53

What well being was actually generated on this kind of tourism? Nothing, just a whole lot of excrement!

And yet rich world citizens work and look forward greatly to these vacations. So the well being is the perception of well being of the participants. Don't underestimate the power of subjective perception
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Ibon » Thu 10 May 2018, 18:09:46

onlooker wrote:
What well being was actually generated on this kind of tourism? Nothing, just a whole lot of excrement!

And yet rich world citizens work and look forward greatly to these vacations. So the well being is the perception of well being of the participants. Don't underestimate the power of subjective perception


In this I will take an arrogant position that what they are calling well being on these cruise holidays is really not nourishment for the body or soul. It is gluttony. But this is the middle ground between poverty and measured consumption. That awful ugly cluster fuck place so many modern humans find themselves in. Going to the mall, going on a cruise, cheap consumption entertainment. This is a very undignified place that our ancestors a couple of generations ago would have recognized as abhorrent. What would have Mark Twain or Benjamin Franklin said about the modern cruise industry?

That Wall E movie comes to mind. Right on target actually.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 10 May 2018, 18:19:46

is really not nourishment for the body or soul.

Yes, ultimately its a false perception in my humble opinion 8O
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 10 May 2018, 23:42:24

KaiserJeep wrote:I got curious about the relative energy used to transport said tourists. The following table was taken from Wikipedia, the reference for the original data is the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 30, US Dept. of Energy, 2009.

Transport Mode/ Avg passengers per vehicle/ BTU per passenger-mile

AMTRAK Rail/ 20.9/ 2435
Jet Air/ 99.3/ 2826
Personal car/ 1.55/ 3538
Buses/ 9.2/ 4242
Taxi/ 1.55 / 15,645

Rail is indeed the most economical, but it's only modestly better than a jetliner. Cars are better than buses and almost anything beats a taxi, which spends a lot of time idling empty and must deadhead back from the paid destination.


KJ---Thank you so much for posting this.

I have guilt (and topics like this one don't help) about all the jet travel I've done over the years for various scientific research projects and to attend scientific conferences around the world. But now that I know that the efficiency of Jet travel is actually close to train travel, and BETTER then cars or buses or boats, I feel a lot better. I chop a lot of wood to heat my cabin (zero carbon emissions) and I ride a bike or use a motorcycle much of the summer (zero or small carbon emissions). In winter I drive a 4WD vehicle, but don't do many miles, so perhaps it all evens out to a pretty average carbon footprint after all.

Image
Thanks again!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21509
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Fri 11 May 2018, 01:34:17

Im heading off for my second overseas trip for the year in a few weeks thats 2 months away this year
But I spent less than $300 on petrol for my car for the year
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 00:43:28

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 11 May 2018, 11:59:28

KaiserJeep wrote:I got curious about the relative energy used to transport said tourists. The following table was taken from Wikipedia, the reference for the original data is the Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 30, US Dept. of Energy, 2009.

Transport Mode/ Avg passengers per vehicle/ BTU per passenger-mile

AMTRAK Rail/ 20.9/ 2435
Jet Air/ 99.3/ 2826
Personal car/ 1.55/ 3538
Buses/ 9.2/ 4242
Taxi/ 1.55 / 15,645

Rail is indeed the most economical, but it's only modestly better than a jetliner. Cars are better than buses and almost anything beats a taxi, which spends a lot of time idling empty and must deadhead back from the paid destination.


AMTRAK is a paragon of inefficiency and hardly the measuring stick any sane person would use. Japan, Germany, France even the UK with electrified rail in part or in whole powered with nuclear energy and renewables has a minuscule carbon footprint compared to air transport. Air also has a lot of hidden carbon usage in the form of grossly subsidized airports containing thousands of cubic yards of concrete in the landing strips but I will concede that rail has lots of carbon legacy usage in the form of concrete cross ties and steel rails. The stupid buses we use in the USA are also a joke compared to the electrified systems most cities in other countries use with cantenary wires powering electric motors. The USA has gone a very long way through deliberate policy to make our transportation systems fossil fuel dependent from the practice of replacing electric trolley and commuter rail with diesel buses right on up to using jet fuel burning high speed aircraft in thousands of short haul operations better served by almost any of the alternatives through subsidizing these activities. Air travel is useful for long range rapid travel, but any flight of under two hours is ridiculously inefficient. I also find the contention that taxis on average carry no more passengers than a typical private vehicle very questionable. Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport. In the case of dropping the fare off at a different destination like a conference or private residence they still don't just turn right around and head back to the airport, they contact the dispatcher and get an assignment as close to their then current location as possible.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14877
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Fri 11 May 2018, 12:31:34

Tanada wrote: Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport.


It may not work this cleanly due to regulatory restrictions. Until a few years ago here in Ottawa, any taxis could drop a fare at the airport but a very limited number of taxis were authorized to pickup fares at the airport - the result was a lot of taxis traveling long distances empty to/from the airport. Going back further, Ottawa was actually a group of municipalities each with its own taxis licensing -- thus the airport situation on a larger scale! Amalgamation has resulted in one licensing system for Ottawa but as we are on a provincial border we still have the situation that an Ottawa taxis can drop a fare in Gatineau but it can't pickup a fare there. Uber has really shaken up the taxis industry and the days where local politicians were very protective of the taxis industry seem to be over.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 11 May 2018, 13:35:51

Tanada wrote: Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport.

But even if cabs were PERFECTLY efficient as far as not driving out of their way, that would double their efficiency at best. But that would assume they NEVER drop anyone off where they can't find a fare AND that they never wait with the engine running. (Both of these things are clearly false).

For example, the long cab stand lines at places like popular motels in cities are indications cab drivers want to get another fare reliably, even if they know they have to wait in line. The implication is longer waits (and/or drives to a fare) elsewhere.

So the terrible cab efficiency numbers might be inflated somewhat, but they're still terrible.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5653
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 11 May 2018, 14:21:38

Ibon wrote: "Although I wouldn't say vegan was the historical default of humans, but certainly mainly vegetarian..."

Thanks for getting what I'm trying to say, generally, above. But this part I found curious.

The main difference between vegan and vegetarian is dairy, and most humans are lactose intolerant. Furthermore, lactose tolerance is a very recently evolved trait, and even in Europe where it is perhaps most predominant, many people have or eventually develop lactose intolerance. If your point was that people have been eating eggs when they could get them for quite a long time, I would certainly grant you that. But two eggs for breakfast every morning has certainly not been the norm for most people in most cultures throughout most of history.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17598
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby Ibon » Fri 11 May 2018, 21:05:40

dohboi wrote:Ibon wrote: "Although I wouldn't say vegan was the historical default of humans, but certainly mainly vegetarian..."

Thanks for getting what I'm trying to say, generally, above. But this part I found curious.

The main difference between vegan and vegetarian is dairy, and most humans are lactose intolerant. Furthermore, lactose tolerance is a very recently evolved trait, and even in Europe where it is perhaps most predominant, many people have or eventually develop lactose intolerance. If your point was that people have been eating eggs when they could get them for quite a long time, I would certainly grant you that. But two eggs for breakfast every morning has certainly not been the norm for most people in most cultures throughout most of history.


My point was that historically we weren't vegan because we have always eaten meat, just in greatly reduced amounts. We evolved being omnivorous, just like the capuchin and spider monkeys in the forest in my back yard here. The howler monkeys also here are almost exclusively vegetarian and mainly leaf eaters and thus have the slowest metabolism of all three species of monkey here.

Yes lactose tolerance evolved relatively recently in northern Europeans.

Not proven but compelling is a theory that when our ancestors left arboreal habitats and ventured on to the savanna we evolved bigger brains. The theory is that three things happened to encourage larger brains; a more complex habitat, tool use (aposable thumb), and greater meat consumption that permitted higher metabolic rates and larger brains.

Homo sapiens, unlike howler monkeys or even Mountain gorrilas are not solely vegetarians but historically evolved a diet and metabolism where animal protein was essential from termite larvae to grubs, arthropods, reptiles, birds, amphibians, shellfish, fish and mammals.

Veganism is not part of our species history outside of some religious belief systems in India and maybe some other locations and again recently in western sub cultures almost always directly related to some respectful reverence of life and respect of ecology. It is a cultural ideological and spiritual/religious identity and as honorable as that might be does not reflect our evolutionary history as a species.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6535
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 12 May 2018, 07:07:48

Tanada wrote:-snip-
AMTRAK is a paragon of inefficiency and hardly the measuring stick any sane person would use. Japan, Germany, France even the UK with electrified rail in part or in whole powered with nuclear energy and renewables has a minuscule carbon footprint compared to air transport. Air also has a lot of hidden carbon usage in the form of grossly subsidized airports containing thousands of cubic yards of concrete in the landing strips but I will concede that rail has lots of carbon legacy usage in the form of concrete cross ties and steel rails. The stupid buses we use in the USA are also a joke compared to the electrified systems most cities in other countries use with cantenary wires powering electric motors. The USA has gone a very long way through deliberate policy to make our transportation systems fossil fuel dependent from the practice of replacing electric trolley and commuter rail with diesel buses right on up to using jet fuel burning high speed aircraft in thousands of short haul operations better served by almost any of the alternatives through subsidizing these activities. Air travel is useful for long range rapid travel, but any flight of under two hours is ridiculously inefficient. I also find the contention that taxis on average carry no more passengers than a typical private vehicle very questionable. Taxi companies make money by hauling fares from A to B and they seem to assume that after hauling one person from A to B the taxi then drives straight back to A and waits for the next fare. In the real world taxis have dispatchers that notify cabs in a given area that a fare has called for a ride from C and whomever is closest to C and not otherwise already engaged swings by to pick up that fare and take them to D or A or B. This is done to maximize the efficiency of the cab company so they can show a profit and is a major motivation for avoiding those empty cabs just dropping a fare and heading back to their A starting point empty. Take a cab working the airport circuit, they pick up a fare at the airport and haul them off to the hotel of the fares choice or rarely somewhere else. the cab then picks up someone coming out of the hotel and takes them wherever they need to go, often back to that same airport. In the case of dropping the fare off at a different destination like a conference or private residence they still don't just turn right around and head back to the airport, they contact the dispatcher and get an assignment as close to their then current location as possible.


There are multiple examples of such measurements, from multiple sources. The figures are based upon actual fuel usage. Here is another, which chart popped up when I Googled "BTUs per passenger mile":
Image
Most people posting such data also seem surprised by the figures themselves. When I get on the light rail just a mile from my home, it's only half as efficient as a jet airliner.

I will readily admit, the efficiency is highly dependant upon number of passengers per vehicle, and the airlines are managing routes to near 100% occupancy per plane, while the typical light rail or urban bus service suffers from a low occupancy rate.

Still, food for thought. These figures are not likely to change much as fuel gets more expensive, either. The other thing that's easily seen: the biggest impact you can have is to plan and minimize the use of your personal car, such as I and some other members have done. But if you divested yourself of that car and substituted public transit, big mistake - huge mistake, energy-wise.

The minimization of the personal vehicle usage and getting an electric-assist bicycle or tricycle would seem to be a viable plan for your latter years.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5306
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 12 May 2018, 08:07:20

What these graphs leave out is ease of traveling long distances.

No one is driving across the Atlantic.

Flying enables more very long distance travel that often times just would not take place.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17598
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 12 May 2018, 13:14:52

Yet the figures DO reflect some surprising insights that have implications beyond the tourism topic which sparked this thread.

Some of our basic assumptions about mass transit seem to be mistaken. Light rail for example is not very energy efficient, even if 100% electric. Here in the Santa Clara Valley, the VTA Light Rail is troubled by low occupancy and always will be. The former mayor of San Jose thought that his city center should be a hub for the whole area. What was actually needed was express service between the major employers and the suburbs. So occupancy is low - my local stop is the next to last on the Southernmost lightrail line, I would guess that the train has fewer than a dozen occupants when I get on, and most trains are two vehicles with either 56 or 64 seats. At rush hour, some trains are four cars instead of two - but full occupancy is only approached at rush hour and near the central hub.

Likewise the myth of urban bus systems. The SCV VTA did an exhaustive evaluation of multiple bus technologies, and they really really wanted to find a carbon-free bus. I have written of this several times in the forum. However after four years, all the electric, flywheel, hydrogen, etc. alternatives lost out to a vanilla hybrid diesel-electric technology that improved efficiency 25% over the entirely conventional diesel it replaced - and the system is still 100% petroleum powered.

Now we find that jetliners are fairly efficient compared to all other long range alternatives. Need I point out that the bulk of the passenger miles in the USA are on the 30-year-old Boeing 737, which remains in production today? The ARE newer designs with 20-25% less fuel consumption than the 737, and after that most successful of airliners is out of production and replaced by the newer composite airframes and high efficiency engines, jets will be considerably MORE EFFICIENT than rail.

Last I heard, nobody was giving AMTRAK money to modernize either the tracks or the rolling stock. Passenger rail appears to be going obsolete.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5306
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 12 May 2018, 14:55:15

From your link:

There is a bit of a paradox within these numbers. In spite of them, it is generally the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car. That's because the transit is running anyway, so the incremental cost of carrying one more passenger is indeed less than just about any private vehicle...

As such, these numbers should not make you feel better about taking your car instead of the train. Particularly solo, since solo drivers are what make the car's average efficiency worse while carpoolers make it better.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17598
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Tourists are Killing the Planet

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 12 May 2018, 15:15:12

I furnished no link. Where is that from?

In any case, after retirement the VTA light rail no longer has any utility for me. The VTA Park&Ride lot is the same distance or further from my suburban home than two grocery stores, a hardware store, a large home center, several restaurants, the pharmacy, and the gas station.

The only regular trip I make that is further is the monthly doctor visit, an 18-mile round trip. I checked online and if I caught the bus, it becomes a 38 mile trip, plus it takes an hour longer each way, as I have to change buses once in each direction.

Mass transit may make sense in cities, it seems to me that LSVs or electric-assist bicycles and tricycles make more sense in the suburbs.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5306
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi and 31 guests