In my specific case, I was looking into travels between Beppu (Japan) and Osaka. There is a direct ferry line, but other routes exist of course (also trains).
I wonder how a ferry and a plane would compare
In my specific case, I was looking into travels between Beppu (Japan) and Osaka. There is a direct ferry line, but other routes exist of course (also trains).
I wonder how a ferry and a plane would compare
Surprised ferry by car is so low. Cars seem to take up so much space on ferries even when they’re much fewer than the passengers.
Boats are very efficient transportation it seems
Around where I live, ferry crossings are often short, so many of them are battery powered.
This is the best contribution, but it doesn’t explain some of the principles…
for the same mission surface will be less-costly than air.
Within shipping, displacement-mode boats ( slowest moving-through-water regime ) will be least-costly ecologically, & then hydrofoils, then other speedboats ( which have to push their hulls through the water, unlike hydrofoils, which lift them out-of-the-way of the water )…
Within air, prop planes are least-costly, turbofans at the costly end, helicopters higher than that…
but the question requires one to consider the mission, too:
For moving donated-organs, air’s absolutely cheaper than surface, if surface means losing the donated-organs, right?
Mission is the basis for solving costs, see?
Casual-touring, well then surface makes much more sense…
Some want to eradicate air-travel, or at-lease all fuel-based air-travel, but that’d break some dimensions of the economy…
( no more quick emergency-response to hurricane-wrecked islands, for 1 thing )
Oh, & electric aircraft ( short-haul, nowadays, & I don’t imagine that’ll ever be running cross-pacific flights ) would be MUCH less ecologically-costly than normal turbofans…
In short, surface 1st, if you can spare the time, but if not, then try to do electric aircraft, or prop instead of fan.
Prop is presuming NON-leaded gasoline, but the prop-piston engines usually are leaded ( 100LL, aka low-lead ), unless they are the new generation of diesels…
Leaded gasoline needs to cease. ( Canada has said that in tests manganese-based substitute-for-lead works, but the US rejected that. I trust Canada, on this one. )
The info about prop-planes is only in case any reader of this is thinking about chartering a small aircraft to get somewhere…
_ /\ _
I don’t think anyone wants to actually abolish all air travel, even for emergencies.
The same argument is always thrown at people opposing cars. “But what about ambulances?”
The tiny carbon footprint of emergency services doesn’t matter at all for the global climate.
What matters are the millions of flights whose only purpose is to fly people to another continent, where they then lie next to a hotel pool for a week before flying back.
Since it says per person per km I assume it only counts modes moving people? So not transportation of cargo or emergency services. Of course these should be counted in a different way and I don’t think anyone would suggest replacing emergency or medical planes with any other mode of transport regardless of emissions. A source for that graph would be nice though, so we actually know what was counted.