Driving vs. Flying

My husband and I recently opted to road trip cross-country rather than fly after calculating both a) the carbon footprint of travel by car vs. by plane and b) the relative cost of each.

It was a big deal to us to make the switch, as neither of us had been on more than a day trip by car in 20 years.

Having done the calculations, and now completed the trip, I have to say that car travel is more squarely permaculture-appropriate than air travel. While there is an even greater advantage if you can do so by electric or at least hybrid vehicle (ours is a hybrid Toyota Prius), the advantage holds regardless.

We've written this up as two articles:

Driving the point home - on the CO2 calculations
Podcast version if you rather listen.

The cost of travel in the slowpocalypse - on the $$ comparison
Podcast version.

Before running the numbers, I hadn't realized there was such a clear advantage to driving. As a former environmental activist and longtime green enthusiast, I think I had totally absorbed the ideology that cars are evil. Or maybe that was a handy self-delusion to support my preference for air travel, when really it was just more convenient, less time-consuming... and kind of a stature thing as well for me. I'm willing to cop to all of that.

Questions for fellow permies: As you've adopted the permaculture mindset, are you opting to travel by car instead of flying? What is the future of travel in a post-limits world? What place does travel have in permaculture?

Since 1995 I have avoided flying. The primary reason is that I have an intense dislike for airports.  What really convinced me further is a trip I made to Virginia. I was working with a gentleman who lived a few miles to the north of me. On the return trip, I drove and he flew.  The clock started when our work day ended.   I got home at 11:00 pm.  He got home 3 hours later.

Dunno. The math seems a bit thin to apply across the board.

As I understand it, the holy grail of the permaculturistae mindset is to negate the need to travel as much as possible, across the board. That's the best case. That's the most efficient option.

But travel is sometimes necessary and worthwhile. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a while ago to figure out how much biochar I needed to produce to offset a 1.5 hour flight vs. a 12 hour drive. The flight actually needed less, in this case. It was quite a lot of char, measured by weight. (And I didn't believe that a $3.00 offset was anything other than bullshit.)

It's pretty hard to do a full accounting. Tire wear and road wear and supply chains and fuel consumption and the embodied energy of all the hardware and infrastructure involved -- gracious heavens, I throw myself upon the mercy of the court.

We have small planes in the family so for us, flying or driving really is carefully calculated, and it really depends...

We have some camps on a few big lakes in Maine, and often flying in by float plane is a better option. Most places we can fly into in an hour, versus driving the three or four hours that it would take to drive in on all those back logging roads. They almost always puncture tires too, so there is a real tire cost for us in driving versus flying. Add in the environmental impact of asphalt roads, or the cost to maintain them, and all the diesel fuel for that maintenance equipment... I don't know. You have that with airports too, but I bet the total acreage or airports is much smaller than the total acreage for paved roads in the USA.

Interpersonally driving is best. You would not believe the powerful conversations I have had with my step, foster or biological daughters as we drove to various locations over the years. Being in the car with them, literally locked into conversation with them, is just not something we get while flying. There is just too much noise while flying, and up in the air, there is more to see so more distractions.

This year we went on a 3500 mile, 10 day road trip visiting 15 states... we did it by car instead of plane and for another very good reason. I don't have a pilots license so someone in the family would have to fly us, and we are a family of five anyway. The biggest plane only holds four people...

But flying also has its advantages. My extended family is deeply involved in real estate, so flying affords them a lifestyle that driving just could not do. If they need to be somewhere for a real estate deal, they can step out of their lake cabin, get in their float plane, and then fly to the closest body of water a float plane can land in. The client picks them up and they go where they are needed. With camp being 1-1/2 hours to civilization alone, and hours driving to see the real estate in question; without small planes they could not live all summer at camp like they do.

I am surprised that you bought so much 'take away' food.
I would always carry food and  or make sandwiches etc. Which I am guessing would be moere permi like.

I have only made a couple of trips by plane.

It is convenient for business.

For vacations to places in the US, you miss a lot of the scenery when traveling by plane:

https://permies.com/t/91967/Scenery-Ultimate-Souvenir-Share-Favorite

John C Daley wrote:I am surprised that you bought so much 'take away' food.
I would always carry food and  or make sandwiches etc. Which I am guessing would be moere permi like.

Not really sure what you mean. We brought as much food as we could from our garden, ate sandwiches we made both there and on the way back. But if we're playing the "who's more of a permie" contest, then I cede to you.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:Dunno. The math seems a bit thin to apply across the board.

As I understand it, the holy grail of the permaculturistae mindset is to negate the need to travel as much as possible, across the board. That's the best case. That's the most efficient option.

But travel is sometimes necessary and worthwhile. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation a while ago to figure out how much biochar I needed to produce to offset a 1.5 hour flight vs. a 12 hour drive. The flight actually needed less, in this case. It was quite a lot of char, measured by weight. (And I didn't believe that a $3.00 offset was anything other than bullshit.)

It's pretty hard to do a full accounting. Tire wear and road wear and supply chains and fuel consumption and the embodied energy of all the hardware and infrastructure involved -- gracious heavens, I throw myself upon the mercy of the court.

Could you elaborate on where the math seems "thin" to you? And how you would make it "thicker"?

Anne Miller wrote:I have only made a couple of trips by plane.

It is convenient for business.

For vacations to places in the US, you miss a lot of the scenery when traveling by plane:

https://permies.com/t/91967/Scenery-Ultimate-Souvenir-Share-Favorite

Agreed!

This is such a complicated question! I would love to travel by train within Europe to reduce the environmental cost, but when train travel costs more than ten times a flight, the personal financial cost makes it not an option! Best is to travel as little as possible. I did recently fly a 3 hour flight, and chose the airline that had the lowest carbon burden for the trip.

But car (or other land transport) vs plane is an issue for sure, and sometimes our assumptions about what's best for the planet can be wrong!

Jane, have your thought of using a motorbike around Europe.
I have and its great, fuel costs much lower, strangers talk to use, parking is a breeze
and its a great way to smell the 'roses'.

Lisa Brunette wrote:Could you elaborate on where the math seems "thin" to you? And how you would make it "thicker"?

My point is that it's difficult to nail the numbers down in a precise way, and given the variables it's notoriously difficult to make absolute statements across the board.

It's also entertaining to plug the same information into different online calculators. Caveat emptor.

We took a stab at trying to nail down some numbers here (for the amusement of all): https://permies.com/t/197671/Air-Travel-Biochar-Offsets

Jane Mulberry wrote:This is such a complicated question! I would love to travel by train within Europe to reduce the environmental cost, but when train travel costs more than ten times a flight, the personal financial cost makes it not an option! Best is to travel as little as possible. I did recently fly a 3 hour flight, and chose the airline that had the lowest carbon burden for the trip.

But car (or other land transport) vs plane is an issue for sure, and sometimes our assumptions about what's best for the planet can be wrong!

Jane, we have the same problem with the relatively high cost of train travel when looking at a trip out West, further than we have the time and wherewithal to drive. We'd much rather take the train than fly, but it's 2-3X the cost.

John C Daley wrote:Jane, have your thought of using a motorbike around Europe.
I have and its great, fuel costs much lower, strangers talk to use, parking is a breeze
and its a great way to smell the 'roses'.

I would love to motorcycle the trip, John! It's a long trip though, almost as far as from Perth to Melbourne!

Unfortunately I'm unable to drive or ride anymore after a ridiculously bumpy long haul flight followed by a ridiculously bumpy bus ride caused a permanent malfunction in my brain's balance mechanism. So it's train, bus, fly, or get someone else to drive.

Let me just say upfront that I dislike flying and would much rather drive.  If at all possible, I drive.  That said, my time is worth a lot to me.  A LOT.  In the article, it was glossed over with only five words:  "It cost more in time".  You could argue that flight delays may make up the difference, but of course the counter to that is that your car may break down.  Time is expensive for most of us.  If it was't, you would have made the trip on bicycle.  I KNOW that is more permie friendly :)

I think Douglas kind of nailed it.  There are so many variables.  I read recently that it takes 60 tons of raw mined material to make one lithium ion battery.  What about when you charge it?  80% of the electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuels (68%) and nuclear plants (11.9%)  Is an electric, or hybrid, vehicle really more permie friendly?  I just don't know.  

Regardless of whether your calculations are correct, I applaud you for trying and putting thought into this.

The numbers also get more challenging when you start dealing with intercontinental, crossing mountains, terrain that may be inhospitable to air cushioned vehicles (i.e. regular cars).

For me to visit my family back in the states requires either air travel or boat travel. Going by boat apparently takes something like 3 months last time I checked. Traveling by air, car, and public transportation (all required to make the trip) takes about 3 days. I did seriously consider shifting to freighter travel for my rare intercontinental visits... but I haven't done a trip in several years, so it has been a moot point.

I don't mind flying, it's hard to do a 48 hour series of flights, but when I do it alone I can turn on my "endurance flight" mode and sleep opportunistically, do yoga in layovers, and maybe catch a few in-flight movies when I can't sleep. I tend to finish a book or two as well. But flying with little kids proved to be traumatic. One trip back to the states with our son when he was under 2 was enough to break both my wife and I at some point on the trip. We haven't done it since.

Other problems with flying include jet lag, lost luggage, missed flights, difficulty traveling with instruments and pets - slow travel tends to avoid these.

I must say my opinion of airlines improved dramatically after leaving the US. Many other countries airlines have far superior service and reliability than the major US ones I've flown. Flying around Asia is a dream. Again when you're traveling around here you have to choose flying vs boat most of the time.

All that said, I prefer not to travel 99% of my holidays. When I do travel my favorite mode by far is cycling. In some places you can combine cycling with public transportation - they have bike racks on buses and some trains will let you bring them on as luggage if you remove the front tire.

But your OP is driving vs flying, so I have digressed. I guess I have trouble thinking in binary.

Edit: I missed your last questions!

Questions for fellow permies: As you've adopted the permaculture mindset, are you opting to travel by car instead of flying? What is the future of travel in a post-limits world? What place does travel have in permaculture?

I think travel will always have a place in human society, but I do hope we opt for slower modes more and more and develop a more local mindset. Some people just need to travel, flee, or go on their own pilgrimage. For others opportunities will make the rewards greater than the costs. Geoff Lawton and Bill Mollison traveled the globe around, but I do think they have done more good than harm - their purpose was to instruct, design, and develop permanent systems and designers of said systems.

As long as we have the internet and virtual tools for meeting people far away though I think that is a more sensible means of spreading information and communicating on a short term basis (in many cases). I think the future will see more sail, solar electric, and public transportation. Also more walking and cycling and the support systems for people choosing those modes.

The OP has succeeded in generating discussion of the initial blog post. It is interesting to revisit assumptions about forms of travel. However, ultimately I think the most we can surmise from the data presented is “if you need to travel, driving a car might not be as bad an option as you think.”

The problem is that relying on the estimated “carbon offsets” does not truly represent the environmental impact of choosing individual transportation (the personal car) over mass transportation (the plane).  The carbon offset formula is designed to tell the individual *how much fossil fuel was burned to transport them individually* based on their chosen for of travel. It does not address the question of *how much additional fossil fuel was burned by the transportation system as a whole based on that individual’s choice.*  

What do I mean by this? Well, the blogger’s choice to drive did not stop that plane from flying from St.Louis to Charleston.  It still flew, maybe with two fewer passengers or maybe just with different passengers. The individual traveller’s choice had near ZERO impact on the amount of fossil fuel consumed by that flight not taken. All that changed was whether the individual feels personally responsible for it.

Contrast that with the choice to drive or not drive a personal vehicle. Not making that drive means the car trip does not happen at all. Unlike the plane flight, the car trip won’t go on without you. No standby passenger is going to take your car.

So, chose to fly and the only the flight and it’s carbon emissions are added to the ecosystem as a whole. Choose to drive and both the flight and the car trip add their carbon emissions are added to the ecosystem.

Of course, there is a tipping point somewhere, that if some critical mass of people stop flying altogether, then fewer planes fly overall. However there are so many complicating factors such as requirements for airlines to serve small markets, the need to get plane back to a hub, etc that the impact of individual consumer ticket purchase is extremely hard to quantify and very small.

If you go to the extreme and "forget everything you know about air travel..." then suddenly 10,000 more people a day are on I-95 just going to and from Boston and New York City. The driving experience is certain to be a bit different. Congestion, crowded rest areas and bathrooms, restaurants, collisions, etc... and that's if the weather is nice.