Green Travel: Ship or Plane?
I will be moving back to the United States at the end of this month after spending five years in Spain. Ever since i arrived in Spain i have had the wish to take a long boat ride so i have decided to travel back to America on a freighter boat. I have booked a passage on the freighter Ibn Sina which sails from New York through the Mediterranean and the Middle East to India and which stops in Valencia, Spain before returning to New York. It will be an 11-day voyage, non-stop, leaving “on or about” April 21st.
The decision to travel by boat was influenced by several factors. It will allow me to transport all my books and other stuff to the US without having to pay an extra shipping cost; it will be a long and slow journey during which i can reflect on my time in Spain and enjoy a more gentle transition into my new life instead of having a plane zip me from one world to another; and it will help me get to know a part of our world (the ocean) in a way that i have never experienced it before. However, the reason that initially inspired me to inquire about boat travel was the desire to find a means of getting from Europe to America in a way that is more environmentally-friendly than flying. I have been hearing more and more about how damaging for the environment commercial airlines can be so i wanted to find an alternative… but now that i have done some research i am not sure if i made the correct ecological decision.
I naturally assumed that travel by ship is better for the environment than travel by aircraft (mostly because i thought it must take more energy to sustain a plane’s altitude against the force of gravity than to propel a boat along the water) but as some of my friends have pointed out, this is not necessarily a correct assumption. Freighter boats require a lot of energy and are responsible for a substantial amount of the world’s CO2 emissions. Indeed, a recent article in the Guardian opened with the line: "Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping are double those of aviation and increasing at an alarming rate..."
So i did some research on the internet to find some comparisons between boat-travel and plane-travel and try to determine which is less harmful to the environment. And the main conclusion that i came to is that nobody really knows which is better or worse. There have been some studies done on the environmental effects of the aviation industry (for example, see the thorough report, The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment) and there are some statistics on the CO2 emissions of the shipping industry but there is very little reliable information that compares the environmental effects of the two modes of transport.
The best sources i could find were the Guardian article, a response to that article on treehugger.com, and an article on planetark.com. But even these articles provide insignificant comparative data; their benefit lies in their attempt to explore an issue and raise awareness in the face of a dearth of facts and figures. Indeed, i found the comments to these articles more illuminating than the articles themselves because they demonstrate how little we know and how the available information can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
Having read a number of articles and opinions on the issue, my general understanding of the situation is: 1) that little attention has been given to the environmental effects of shipping partly because, like the aviation industry, it is not regulated by the Kyoto protocol and because it is difficult to assign responsibility for international transportation to individual countries; 2) that the shipping industry, overall, is responsible for more environmental pollution than the aviation industry (about twice as much) but that this is due to the fact that the shipping industry transports much more of the world’s goods (90%) than the aviation industry; 3) that if we were to transport everything by plane the financial and environmental cost would be exorbitant and therefore that the ecological footprint of flying is more costly than shipping; 4) and that ships and planes produce a different type of pollution due to the fact that "modern jets emit substantial quantities of nitrogen oxides [in addition to carbon dioxide] because they operate at very high temperatures and high pressures" and because planes release most of their emissions in a different layer of the atmosphere than vehicles close to the surface of the earth. (This complicates the attempt to conduct a comparative study of the two industries.)
There is a lot that we don’t know about the specific details of global warming and the effects of our actions on the environment and, until we have more of a consensus, each of us has to make decisions based on our own understanding. Often this will mean that our actions are determined more by our beliefs than any factual data. But the scarcity of reliable information does not absolve us from taking responsibility for our world. We need to make personal changes if we want to improve the conditions of our world – even if those changes turn out to be misguided or misinformed.
So i am going to take a boat to America and i hope this is better for the environment than flying. But, to be honest, i don’t really know if it is.


6 comments:
Phil -
Thanks for this entry. I am presently trying to make some big decisions about if and how to travel back to europe. I completed my undergrad at Virginia Tech this May and am feeling both immense freedom and restriction, wisdom and ignorance. I spent three months in italy last spring on organic farms, in pristine mountain ranges, and learning how to live in this world. Although I feel a strong desire to return to the mediterranean, I am hesitant to purchase a ticket. I too held the belief that there must be a better alternative to plane travel and have thought about taking to the sea. Alas, I don't think this option can quell my environmentally aching heart.
Our intentions are of the utmost importance, but if I intend to truly contribute to the sustainability of life on this planet, I wonder if I should then abstain from international travel. I understand that it is within my own heart that I must make these decisions, but I wonder how you've come to embrace the matters of travel, personal growth, and spiritual awakening.
namaste
~maggie
Funnily enough we were discussing this at work today (as you do).
You have to compare like for like though. Ships use a lot of fuel but carry a lot more cargo.
I reckon per kg transported Boats would win out easily.
yeah, this is the problem with comparing planes to other modes of transport. they offer different benefits and problems so it is difficult to make an equal comparison. they are different animals. air travel offers speed but it costs more (per pound) than boats, it uses different fuel, and emits a different kind of pollutant. boats are more cost effective but slower and they also emit a great deal of carbon-based exhaust. it is like comparing apples to oranges.
but the point of eco-travel is that the increased speed (of air transport) often comes at the cost of environmental destruction. which leads me to believe that trains and boats are better than planes. we just need to allow ourselves the added time to use these "alternative" forms of transport.
Thanks for your entry, I was desperatly looking for some personal thoughts on that dilemna.
Here's some data, from http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/everyday_acts.html: "in plane, long haul (one return trip from Paris to New York, or a one-way trip from Europe to Japan) : about 0,9 tonne carbon equivalent per person (all greenhouse gases included) in second class, but 3,15 tonnes in First Class, that is 25 to 80 times more than in a boat (where a passenger generated roughly 40 kg carbon equivalent for the same distance)."
If it helps, this article suggests that plane travel is around 100 worse.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/paul-mccartney-hybrid-car-delivered-by-plane.php
nice to have this perspective.
comes when i also am making this decision.
it comes down to what cost we want to pay, or rather if we choose to pay it wholly instead of externalizing and pretending to be ignorant of the use of energy it takes to propel one across an ocean.
it is hard after coming to grips with a world which is priced out to the hidden and cheap cost of oil, and then realize that its true cost is socially and environmentally. this means that the $3000.00 (return) dollars to travel across the sea must come out of your pocket, instead of being squeezed out of the earth and other people.
it seems somewhat right to pay for someone taking care and feeding you for 8 days and nights. that is the extreme cost, with some of that going towards the fuel and vessel and the like. but we are pretty sensitive and needy cargo, for a freighter company. its something like $100 dollars a day, food and facilities and travel.
it is surprising to look at the cost of travel intercontinentally, or more accurately, overseas. i would love to sail it instead. but am traveling to hold an exhibition in England and there aren't too many people looking for inexperienced crew to cross the north Atlantic at the end of hurricane season.
that would be ideal, in a boat for 2-3 weeks.
in future, to conserve cost and deal directly with nature in the exchange of collected wind and fish across the ocean, i will have to sail. i will have to make time for it and consider the gravity and the epic status of 'crossing an ocean.' it, not so long ago, was a great accomplishment of our species, and now has become but an eight hour annoyance. a trifle.
the last time i crossed in a freighter from antwerp to montreal the clock went back one hour per day, in some sort of natural rhythm. it was beautiful for that, though much like an 8 day floating hotel which you cannot leave or touch the sea.
even better if i can collect footage of it and show others the perspective, the vastness of water, which we usually see on a map. there is possibly something healing about traveling at the speed of our species.
if we ride a horse we must aknowledge the energy it takes to propel us faster, and ensure that we are responsible for that horse keeping up its energy. all of these kind of natural/organic exchanges of energy have been hidden. now it is not unusual to hear 350 horse power. it would be unusual to see that. a person hauled down the freeway by 350 horses.
anyway. i should put my own energy somewhere productive, and stop thinking about this.
thanks again.
m.
Post a Comment