A reader has an answer to my question about comparative carbon footprints and passenger train travel:
Re: Carbon, you saved about half: https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/plane-train-or-automobile-which-has-the-biggest-footprint
From the link:
According to the National Geographic Green Guide, you roughly double your emissions if you cancel your plane reservations and drive across the country instead. If you take the train, then you’ll cut carbon dioxide (CO2) by half compared to the plane. A key reason is that the train (or the diesel bus) may be a big carbon emitter, but it’s designed to carry a lot of passengers, so the per capita emissions are a lot lower.
Airplanes are about 3 percent of total global climate emissions. A single flight produces three tons of carbon dioxide per passenger, but the amount goes up dramatically if the plane is nearly empty. Further complicating the picture for planes is that they produce vapor trails and emit tropospheric ozone, which have big — but not long-lasting — climate impacts. CO2 from your car’s exhaust, by contrast, will stay in the atmosphere for centuries.
I noticed in the article there are references to just trains, as well as to high speed trains. Our Amtrak travel did not involve a high speed train, or at least it didn’t seem to be moving all that fast to me. It’s not clear to me if this study applies to my trip.
Still, it’s a great encouragement to consider using the train whenever possible. I’m tired of long distance driving in any case.
