Archive for high speed rail

After writing on this blog for many many months about environmental issues one consistent theme I just cannot fathom is the lack of foresight that is often exhibited by our corporations and politicians in terms of future planning as it relates to environmental impact. So much of what I read and then write about hinges upon investment and costs, the recurrent argument being that combating climate change is just too expensive at the moment, there are other priorities that better need money to be administered towards fixing them, the evidence is incomplete and there is no guarantee of success, the public want to accept the added costs to make things more environmentally friendly.

Each and every one of those arguments plus many more are routinely rolled out every time the call to combat climate change via governmental policy/ legislation or corporate strategies are tuned in to the right frequency. Cost-cutting and environmental protection just don’t go hand-in-hand according to many politicians who represent us. We can’t afford to do what needs to be done at the moment we are told, conversely I argue how can we possibly wait? It reminds me of many of the studies conducted about urban infrastructure renewal as cities have expanded and spread. Proposals and costings were laid out for highway construction, additional public transport and housing to meet rising demand. The debates would then drag on for years and years but the need would never change, only increase. At the end of reluctant meetings the roads, rails, buildings and all infrastructure were still constructed only at much higher costs than had originally been factored due to the passage of time.

I sincerely feel we face the same scenario now when it comes to tackling environmental issues head-on. If the groundwork is not accelerated now and the costs are not taken on board, The greater costs of global warming and a continued over-reliance on fossil fuels and non-renewable energy will be our lasting legacy for generations to come. Even now in Washington DC the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being systematically attacked as not having the ‘legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions’ which is really a convenient way of driving through the proposed 17% budget cuts that the agency is being faced with due to new budgetary measures if approved. Opponents argue that the proposed cuts of $1.6 billion will take the agency backwards rapidly in terms of achievements relating to environmental and safety measures previously implemented. The clean air act which does demonstrate tangible successes could well be weakened as a result. Will money be saved? Of course it will in 2011, only for the costs to better manage environmental issues to escalate further in the years to come. Its the same story in far too many countries, people cite ‘bigger priorities’ as if climate and environmental issues will somehow be suspended and placed on pause just because we decide so.

So how does such shortsighted legislation even reach the point of being discussed, never mind implemented? It comes down to the lingering debate that certain politicians on behalf of their electorates are arguing that man-made climate change does not really exist and that spending money to combat something that doesn’t exist is money wasted. Where I stand on that debate is not the issue, the issue is the purpose of the EPA. If the agency is tasked with protecting the environment and the root cause of what is damaging the environment should not be determining how well the department is financed. The necessary work, legislation and standards must be carried out regardless.

The spending cuts that will harm the fight against climate change don’t just stop with the proposed EPA cuts however, opposition to a $1 billion investment in high-speed rail, plus a similar amount proposed for energy to efficiency also stand to face the chop. Sadly if no one pays attention now it’s increasingly likely that where a political party stands on environmental issues will be the single biggest factor in their success 25 years from now. Long-term solutions and short-term thinking remain at odds and and I worry that our future is being gambled away.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For the non-business air traveler the last five weeks of the year mark the peak level of airline travel for holidaymakers. In fact more than 45 million Canadians and Americans will be taking to the air over the winter holidays, for passengers who are eco-conscious the industry continues to (very gradually) move towards being slightly greener. Amongst North American carriers the recession has slowed the race towards becoming recognized as the most eco-friendly airline, although progress is still being made as airlines continue to make changes to improve fuel efficiency on existing aircraft. Changes range from huge (new fleet of aircraft are the most fuel-efficient) to seemingly moderate (new meal carts that weigh less than half of what they replace). Naturally beyond the efficiency of the airliner’s engines the total weight being carried has the most significant impact on the relative overall ‘mileage’ that a plane can manage. Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs at the Air Transport Association:

“It’s not often that economic interests and environmental interests align, but airlines are very focused on minimizing fuel burn. All of the airlines are very focused on this.”

It’s not as easy to compare fuel efficiency for jet aircraft as it would be a passenger car but the industry still looks to measure aircraft net emissions so that net progress can be tracked. Two standards that are widely used include amount of fuel consumed per passenger mile and also the carbon dioxide released which is estimated by experts to be approximately 3.1 gallons of carbon dioxide per gallon of jet fuel use. To put that in perspective US carriers consume nearly 1.5 billion gallons of jet fuel per month. Virgin America has been keen to promote a more sustainable approach, citing that many other changes are little more than cosmetic and that nothing impacts fuel efficiency more purposefully and modern aircraft and equipment. The airline has just 34 planes in its fleet – all of which are newer Airbus A320s. They do have a point, the technology of the new aircraft in terms of fuel efficiency is like comparing a modern hybrid car with a gas guzzler from a decade earlier. Virgin America also offer customers the opportunity to purchase a $5 or $10 carbon offset via the touchscreen entertainment available at every seat on the aircraft, which enables passengers to help minimize the environmental impact of their flight by investing in new alternate projects elsewhere.

eco-friendly-airlinesOf the larger airlines Southwest seem to be leading the charge in making its fleet more eco-friendly and have invested far more time and money than the other major airlines at this time. The largest change which is almost complete throughout their entire fleet of Boeing 737s is the installation of winglets at the tip of the wing which improves the aircraft aerodynamics and therefore fuel efficiency. Southwest also operates its official ‘Green Plane’ which incorporates the latest in weight saving measures which are tested constantly to improve the efficiency of their planes. It’s a fully operational 737 which runs on scheduled services throughout their network. Southwest has reported that the Green Plane offers new seats which are lighter that in itself saves early 700lbs in overall weight from the aircraft load.

In 2011 I will run a series of posts looking at the major existing and planned eco-friendly improvements airline by airline. Although air travel still obviously provides the quickest method to travel long distances efficiencies of the industry still leave a lot to be desired. With that said there are still significant differences between the competing airlines which consumers should be aware of when booking their next flight. With high-speed rail links on shorter routes still probably a decade or more away, airliners still provide the only real choice for short to mid-range journeys (250-750 miles) will be interesting to see who is doing the most to win the support of the eco-conscious traveler.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hello again, regular readers might be familiar with the Green Gazette and perhaps thought your author had retired or exhausted his supply of eco-tales of innovation and improvement. The truth is I was otherwise engaged but now I’m back – if that all feel a little bit Leno vs Conan please don’t cast me in the role of Jay. I do however have a few stories to share if you can stay a while.

It has been a horrible few months for Toyota, it seems that you can’t watch the news without learning more about safety and design issues that are impacting the giant (world’s largest) auto manufacturer. Correctly using the word irony is not always my biggest talent but it seems that the top brass at Toyota are now admitting that the root cause for many of the errors was success, that they grew too rapidly for their infrastructure to properly assess design faults and correct issues as they arose. 2010 will be a telling year for the company as they need accomplish three planes-trains-automobilesthings really rapidly – explain how these things got through the cracks, make appropriate repairs to all vehicles on the road and improve their internal processes so that it doesn’t happen again. I think that they need to hit home runs on all three to remain on the top of the world auto buyers shopping list. In light of that it’s remarkable that the Prius has just won Consumer Reports award for best eco-friendly car. The Prius is a testament to the innovation at the company and the results were compiled after the current dark clouds settled over Toyota. Here’s hoping they resolve these critical issues and continue to lead the industry in making eco-friendly vehicles that benefit us all.

Would you believe that the combined amount of waste created by airlines in the US is in excess of 880 millions pounds of waste per year? More importantly they could (emphasis mine) be recycling some 75% of that total. The sad reality is that only about 20% of the waste created by our airlines is actually being recycled, that is not even a decent effort in my opinion. Perhaps we need to know more to hold airlines more accountable and a report that has just been published empowers you with exactly that information. The entire report is very alarming but I wanted to bring your attention to the following:

While airlines acknowledge the importance of recycling waste, no airline recycles all the major recyclables: aluminum cans, glass, plastic, and paper.  No airline has a comprehensive program for minimizing or composting food waste or waste from snack packages, provides good public information about their recycling program, or reports out on progress in relation to any stated goals.

The good news I guess is that a lot can be done, I would highly recommend taking some time to look at the overall report it might just make you change your preferred airlines. The waste is borderline insulting to anyone who is committed to recycling I’ll just share some numbers if I may. Annually the airlines simply throw away:

  • 9,000 tons of plastic
  • Sufficient aluminum cans to build 58 Boeing 747 jets
  • Sufficient newspaper and magazines to cover a football field 230 meters deep

Shouldn’t the airlines be interested in trying to offset some of the  600 million tons of carbon dioxide per year pumped into the atmosphere by commercial jets alone? The full report is available here, and if you want to take part in the ongoing survey the link is right here.

We have planes and automobiles in the post so I wanted to share something recent about trains. Not much out there to be honest, but as part of the Green stimulus in the US the plans for expanding/beginning high speed rail links look to be on track to a certain extent. I hope sooner rather than later as the thought of avoiding airports for journeys of up to 500 miles would have huge appeal to many in my opinion. If a train went from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 2.5 hours versus the 1 hour flight and all the hassles that go with flying were on offer I know I’d prefer the train. Not to mention that it is a radically greener way to transport people or freight.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes