Planes Vs Buses: Who's The Bigger Polluter?

Transport is responsible for around a quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions. Aviation contributes about 2% of the world's carbon emissions, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). However, as other sectors become greener, aviation's share of total emissions is expected to increase. The question of whether planes or buses pollute more is complex and depends on several factors, including the number of passengers, distance travelled, type of fuel, and engine type. While planes have long been considered the most polluting mode of transportation, recent studies suggest that cars may be just as polluting, if not more, over equivalent distances.

Short-haul flights produce more CO2 per mile than a bus

The transport sector accounts for a significant portion of global carbon dioxide emissions, with aviation contributing about 2% of the world's carbon emissions. While aviation has long been blamed for high greenhouse emissions and global warming, recent studies suggest that other factors, such as vehicle occupation rates and technical advancements, should be considered when comparing transport options.

When comparing short-haul flights to bus travel, it is important to note that short-haul flights generate over twice as much CO2 per mile than a bus. This is primarily due to the energy-intensive nature of take-off, which requires much more energy input than a flight's "cruise" phase. Additionally, the number of passengers on a plane or a bus can significantly impact the emissions per person. For example, a full bus will have lower emissions per person than a partially occupied one. Similarly, a higher number of passengers on a plane will result in lower emissions per person.

The type of plane or bus can also affect the emissions. Bigger planes that make longer trips consume more fuel, which can impact the emissions per passenger-kilometer. Electric or hybrid buses may have lower emissions than traditional diesel buses, reducing local air pollution and congestion.

It is worth noting that while short-haul flights have higher CO2 emissions per passenger-kilometer than long-haul flights, the overall carbon footprint of a trip also depends on other factors such as infrastructure and life cycle emissions. These include emissions from the maintenance of roads and airports, as well as the manufacture and end-of-life phases of the vehicles. Additionally, the source of electricity for electric transport options can vary across countries, impacting the overall carbon footprint.

In conclusion, when considering short-haul travel options, taking a bus is likely to produce fewer CO2 emissions per mile than a short-haul flight. However, it is important to consider various factors, such as vehicle occupation rates, technical advancements, and infrastructure, when comparing the environmental impact of different transport options.

Long-haul flights are more efficient

Long-haul flights are more fuel-efficient than short-haul flights. During a typical long-haul flight, an aircraft reaches its cruising altitude in about 30 minutes and then flies level for several hours before beginning its descent. During climb and descent, there is much more aerodynamic drag on the jet than during the cruise portion of the flight. The climb and descent segments account for nearly 15% of total flight time at high-drag conditions, while the remainder of the flight continues during low-drag conditions.

Short-haul flights have a lower cruising altitude, which means the air density is relatively higher, resulting in greater aerodynamic drag. Higher aerodynamic drag increases carbon emissions and reduces fuel efficiency. Additionally, short-haul flights accumulate more flight cycles (take-offs and landings) than flight hours, which increases maintenance requirements and further reduces fuel efficiency.

According to the International Council on Clean Transportation, carbon intensity (grams of CO2 emitted per passenger-kilometer) is higher for short-haul flights than for long-haul flights. At very short flight distances (less than 1,000 km), carbon intensity is very high and gradually decreases with distance. Beyond 1,500 to 2,000 km, carbon intensity levels out and changes very little with increasing distance. This is because the take-off requires much more energy input than the cruise phase of a flight.

While aviation contributes about 2% of global carbon emissions, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), it's important to consider the entire travel journey when comparing emissions across transport modes. For example, a journey from London to Madrid would emit 43 kg of CO2 per passenger by train but 118 kg by plane (or 265 kg if non-CO2 emissions are included), according to EcoPassenger. However, if two people are travelling together, the car becomes a more efficient option than the plane.

In conclusion, while long-haul flights have a negative environmental impact, they are more fuel-efficient than short-haul flights due to lower aerodynamic drag and more accumulated flight hours than cycles. However, it's important to consider other factors such as aircraft maintenance, carbon footprint, and the number of passengers when comparing the efficiency of different transport modes.

Passenger numbers impact plane emissions

The number of passengers on a plane impacts its emissions. The more passengers on a plane, the lower the emissions per person. This is because the total pollution of the plane is divided by the number of passengers. For example, a Delta Airlines 717 Boeing has a capacity of 134 people and had an 85.5% occupancy rate in 2018, which means the average number of passengers was 115. Therefore, the emissions per passenger were lower than if the plane had only 88 passengers.

The type of seat also makes a difference. First-class seats take up more space, so each first-class passenger accounts for a larger amount of the plane's pollution. A first-class ticket on a long-haul flight emits, on average, four times as much as an economy seat on the same plane. Business-class seats also have a higher carbon footprint than economy seats.

The number of passengers on a plane is one of the factors used to calculate carbon emissions from aviation. The other two are energy efficiency (how much energy is used per kilometre) and carbon intensity (the type of fuel used, which indicates the carbon emitted per unit of energy).

While aviation currently contributes about 2% of global carbon emissions, this is predicted to increase as passenger numbers rise and other sectors of the economy become greener. Rutherford, a specialist in sustainability, economics and low-carbon transitions, states that while fuel efficiency is improving, it is not keeping up with the rapid increase in total passenger numbers, which are projected to double in the next 20 years.

Technological advancements have reduced plane emissions

The aviation industry has long been blamed for high greenhouse gas emissions and its contribution to global warming. However, technological advancements have played a significant role in reducing plane emissions and improving fuel efficiency.

One of the key advancements is the development of more fuel-efficient aircraft engines and airframe designs. For example, new aircraft models can be up to 20% more efficient than the ones they replace, according to the IEA. This improvement in fuel efficiency results in lower carbon dioxide emissions per passenger per kilometre. Additionally, the use of alternative fuels, such as biofuels, synthetic fuels based on hydrogen, and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), has the potential to further reduce emissions.

Another factor contributing to reduced emissions is the implementation of global initiatives and standards. For instance, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) aims to limit the net carbon emissions of international flights between participating countries for the years 2021-2035. As of 2019, 81 nations have signalled their intent to participate, covering about 77% of anticipated emissions growth during that period. This scheme provides airlines with flexibility in choosing how to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Technological advancements have also led to the development of electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft. While electric propulsion is currently limited to regional flights due to its range limitations, it still plays a crucial role in reducing CO2 emissions. Additionally, revolutionary aircraft designs, such as new airframe configurations, can further decrease emissions by optimising flight altitude and reducing the impact of other factors like contrails.

Furthermore, advancements in production processes and capacity have contributed to emission reduction. According to a study on global aviation emissions, a 15% increase in production capacity can result in a 1 to 2.6% decrease in emissions. This improvement is significant, considering the projected increase in demand for air travel.

In conclusion, technological advancements have played a crucial role in reducing plane emissions. These advancements include more efficient aircraft and engine designs, the adoption of alternative fuels, and the implementation of global initiatives. Additionally, the development of electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft, as well as improvements in production processes, have further contributed to emission reduction. While there is still work to be done to achieve net-zero emissions, these advancements demonstrate the aviation industry's commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.

Other transport methods are often more time-efficient

While flying is often the quickest way to travel long distances, it is not always the most environmentally friendly. Other transport methods are often more time-efficient and produce fewer carbon emissions.

For example, a train journey from London to Madrid emits 43kg of CO2 per passenger, whereas a plane journey emits 118kg, or 265kg if non-CO2 emissions are included. Similarly, a train trip from Paris to Bordeaux (around 500km) emits 4.4kg of carbon dioxide per passenger, while a journey of a similar distance between two Polish cities emits 61.8kg. This is because, in Poland, about 80% of grid power is generated from coal, whereas in France, 75% of electricity comes from nuclear power.

The number of passengers in a vehicle also affects its carbon emissions. For instance, if a car has only one occupant, it corresponds to 20-25% occupancy, and the climate impact is similar to that of an average air trip. On the other hand, planes have seen an increase in their occupancy rates over the past four decades, with an average of 1.38 persons in vehicles and 84% of seats occupied in planes. As such, the emissions produced by air travel are spread out across more people.

Furthermore, the distance travelled also impacts the carbon emissions of a trip. Short-haul flights generate over twice as much CO2 per mile than a bus, and flying has a higher carbon footprint for journeys under 1000 kilometres than driving a medium-sized car. However, for longer journeys, flying has a lower carbon footprint per kilometre than driving.

To reduce carbon emissions from the aviation sector, several measures can be considered, such as using clean fuels, adopting e-fuels like power-to-liquid or e-kerosene, and implementing zero-emissions aircraft, including hydrogen or electric planes.

Frequently asked questions