The trouble with travel

For those not familiar with the myth of Sisyphus, the gods punished the king of Ephyra for deceitfulness by forcing him for eternity to roll a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back downhill requiring him to start over again.  For eternity.  For those of us that try to manage the pollution associated with our lives, we run into a similarly frustrating circumstance every time we consider traveling to another part of the country for work, vacation, or family.  All the effort we put into reducing carbon and other emissions throughout our daily lives can be obliterated by one trip to another part of the country.

According to the EPA, the average American home generates 124,500 pounds (27.91 mtons) per year through energy consumption and waste disposal, while a family of six adds another 66,000 pounds (15.0 mtons) per year for food, and about 50,000 pounds (11.3 mtons) per year for daily transportation.  If the typical American household reduces this impact of almost 55 tons per year by as much as ten percent in a given year, they still could find most of that 5.5 tons reduction replaced by 3.63 tons of carbon for a trip by flight halfway across the country.

So what can we do?

First and foremost, we can do as much as possible at our homes.  Significantly reducing energy use, entering into contracts to buy electricity from all renewable sources instead of coal, nuclear, and natural gas can have a major impact.  Many states and utilities have programs to help homeowners afford improvements to their homes that can make marked reductions in the need for heating, cooling and lighting (the major uses of energy in the home).  In our home, we replaced two-thirds of the windows with double-pane and sealed those that we did not or could not replace.  We replaced every light bulb with a compact fluorescent seven years ago, and the net change was to drop our energy use by about forty percent.  As a result, using the EPA greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculator, our homes yearly greenhouse gas emissions total a little over 34,000 pounds (7.62 mtons) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year (compared with the 27.9 mtons for the typical home).

Now for travel, as an example, we recently took a trip to New York City to visit family and look at colleges for my teenagers.  We had a couple of options to get there: drive, fly, train; and a couple of options when we arrived: rent a car or take the subway (obviously neither of these were necessary if we drove).  We compared the environmental impact, cost, and risk associated with all the options, with the following results:

Environmental
(According to the Carbon Footprint calculator)
Driving = 0.71 tons of carbon for 1580 miles of driving
Flying = 3.63 tons of carbon for flight from Chicago to LaGuardia (six passengers)
Train = 1.99 tons of carbon for 1580 miles of travel (six passengers)
Hotel = 0.02 tons of carbon for two days (required only if driving)
Driving in NYC = 36 kg per day (50 miles/day...0.13 tons for the week)
Subway in NYC = 22 kg per day (40 miles/day for six passengers...0.08 tons for the week)

Note:  Assumes that the days spent in the apartment equal a typical summer usage for our house, and that a hotel would be similar.

Transportation
6 travelers
Driving:  0.86 tons
Train with subway:  2.07 tons
Train with rental:  2.12 tons
Flight with subway: 3.71 tons
Flight with rental:  3.76 tons

2 travelers
Driving: 0.86 tons
Train with subway:  0.72 tons
Train with rental:  0.77 tons
Flight with subway:  1.53 tons
Flight with rental:  1.58 tons

Cost
Driving:  $395 + $300 + $350 = $1,045.00
Train with subway:  $950 + $150 = $1,100.00
Flight with subway:  $1,500 + $150 = $1,650.00

Risk of death
Driving:  1 in 84
Train with subway:  1 in 156,169
Flight with subway:  1 in 5,051

We added to this the stress associated with driving, and the coincident reduction in quality of life.

I included the impact of transportation for both a couple and a family of six in order to highlight that car travel depends heavily on the chosen vehicle, and the other forms by the number of passengers.  Also, I did not take into account the impact of buying carbon offsets because the total cost amounted to less than five percent of any form of travel, and purchasing the offsets has value but not as much as an equivalent actual reduction in emissions.  (I have a family member who refers to them as "environmental indulgences", which does not miss the mark by too much.)

We chose to take the train because it afforded us a large reduction in environmental impact relative to flying (even with taking public transportation while in the city), and it provided lower risk and stress than driving.  Had we decided solely on environmental concerns, we would have driven and then used public transportation while there.  Our choice still resulted in us increasing our annual carbon emissions by twenty-eight percent.  We accepted this increase knowing that without the travel we have the 1/4 the impact of the average American home, and with the travel we have the equivalent of 1/3 the impact of the average American home.

I do recognize the option not mentioned so far: to not travel at all.  For the time being, we look to make as many changes in our personal lives because we like to visit our family that is spread throughout the country.  The communal importance of this time with loved ones justifies the unavoidable emissions associated the travel - at least for now.  I hope that as technology improves for producing fuels - especially for train travel - we can enjoy this time with family without the scale of impact.

For today, better trumps perfect, but I recognize that someday, better than perfect may be required, and will require further sacrifice.  It is a shame that one of the great joys in this world - being able to meet people and experience cultures from all over the world - has such a significant impact on the quality of life of our entire world.

I hope someone gets that anti-matter-powered transporter up and working soon.