Spring 2009
Can changing the way you travel on vacation significantly reduce your contribution to global warming? According to groundbreaking new analysis by UCS, the answer is decidedly yes.
By Scott Nathanson
When we think about traveling “greener” we tend to focus on our daily commute, and there are numerous resources available to help us drive smarter or explore alternatives. But “green” vacation planning guides tend to focus on the destination (environmentally friendly hotels and activities, for example). No definitive resource has been available to guide travelers on how to get to their destinations in a greener way. Until now.
UCS has filled this information gap with an analysis of the environmental impact of domestic vacation travel, where global warming pollution—largely in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2)—can add up quickly. In Getting There Greener: The Guide to Your Lower-Carbon Vacation, we provide a comprehensive, peer-reviewed comparison of the highest-carbon and lowest-carbon travel options. Our research shows that three key factors determine the environmental impact of your travel:
- The type of vehicle you are taking
- The distance you are traveling
- The number of people traveling with you
While the basic concept might seem intuitive, some of our findings may surprise you.
Flying the Environmentally Friendly Skies?
Air travel is often the most carbon-intensive way to travel, but in certain cases it can actually be a better option than driving a typical vehicle. Carbon from cars and trucks adds up, especially when those vehicles travel long distances and are only partially occupied. If you’re traveling alone or with one other person, you’re usually better off flying non-stop in coach than getting behind the wheel of a passenger vehicle. This is especially true for trips of more than 500 miles each way.
No matter where you’re flying or how many people you’re traveling with, you can reduce your carbon footprint by following these rules of thumb:
Know your plane. Planes vary widely in their per-passenger CO2 emissions depending on their size, age, and seating capacity. The most efficient narrow-body jet, for example, produces 32 percent less carbon per passenger than the least-efficient one. Getting There Greener provides a comparison of different airplane and seating classes; consult your travel agent or airline website to find out what type of plane you’ll be using on each leg of your flight.
Don’t stop. Avoid multi-leg flights if possible; they eat up not only more of your time, but also more carbon. For example, a 1,000-mile direct flight from New York City to Orlando generates about 35 percent less carbon than a two-connection flight down the eastern seaboard. If you must stop, however, fly the route with the fewest total miles.
| A Tale of Two Vacations Here’s an example that shows how simple choices can make a big difference. Like many American families, “the Elsens,” aour fictionalimagined family from the suburbs of Chicago, are trying to minimize their impact on the environment—and their wallets—during their daily commute. Dad drives a Chevy Malibu for his 10-mile round trip. Mom recently switched from a Ford Explorer to a more efficient Ford Escape for her daily 25 miles of travel, which includes driving to and from work and shuttling their two kids to and from after-school activities.
With the holidays coming up, the Elsens would like to travel in style for their first trip to Disney World. They consider cashing in their frequent-flyer miles for four first-class tickets to Orlando; the only available flight has a layover in Houston. But our analysis shows that this one trip would produce more global warming pollution than the Elsens’ entire year of weekday commuting. Using our findings, the Elsens are able to lower the impact of their trip by switching to a nonstop flight in a plane offering coach seating only—shrinking the carbon footprint of their vacation by about 70 percent. |
A Greener Set of Wheels
Buses (also known as motor coaches) and trains are a carbon bargain. A couple traveling by bus, for example, will cut their carbon footprint nearly in half compared with driving (even in a fuel-efficient hybrid car), and by 55 to 75 percent compared with flying, depending on the distance traveled. Buses are also one of the least expensive travel options, with new bus carriers offering fares as low as one dollar each way on coaches equipped with wireless Internet access or other creature comforts.
Trains are generally more expensive than buses but emit 60 percent less carbon per passenger-mile than a typical car (getting 23 miles per gallon) with a single occupant. And compared with a 500-mile trip on a regional jetairplanes, a train emits roughly 30 percent less carbon. Trains have the added benefit of bringing passengers closer to many city centers, saving the further expense—and carbon—of airport parking and cab rides to hotels or tourist attractions (see the sidebar).
If you choose to drive instead, be car smart. Because a vehicle’s per-person carbon footprint shrinks with each additional passenger, car travel can be a low-carbon option for families or friends traveling together. And if you don’t own a fuel-efficient vehicle, consider renting one. Carbon emissions from a large, inefficient SUV are nearly four times those of the most efficient hybrid. Many car rental agencies offer hybrids; if one is not available, choose the most fuel-efficient conventional car being offered.
Time Your Trip Wisely
Americans tend to favor Saturday or Sunday departures for trips of fewer than 500 miles, and Friday departures for trips of 500 to 1,000 miles. But these travel times—which vacationers can usually control—result in a larger carbon footprint, because we often hit traffic, especially in the summer. Even if you’re riding in a more efficient car, its fuel consumption rate in traffic can be double the rate it gets at steady cruising speeds.
Congestion at peak travel times affects the tarmac, too. In 2007, for example, airport delays were responsible for 8.5 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, with airplanes sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off and circling in the air waiting to land.
So, consider changing your vacation schedule to avoid the stress and pollution that go along with peak travel periods. Americans let more than a half-billion days of vacation go unused every year; by adding another day or two on each end of your trip, you can relax and maybe even save money on off-peak flight and hotel reservations. If weekends are your only option, you can avoid some congestion by investing in a GPS unit for your car (which can alert you to traffic hot spots in real time) or avoiding heavily congested airports in favor of regional airports that ideally offer nonstop flights to your destination.
In 2006, some 124 million Americans took a vacation, traveling an average of 1,200 miles. That adds up to a lot of global warming pollution. With our rules of thumb, you can make carbon emissions part of your vacation planning—and sleep better at your destination, knowing that you got there greener.
| Take Me Out to the Ballgame (But Leave the Car) Peanuts and Cracker Jack are hallmarks of America’s pastime. Pollution need not be.
|
If you are planning to travel to a big city to see a baseball game—or play, or museum exhibit, or concert—consider taking the train. Train stations are often much closer to city centers (and thus, many event venues) than area airports; see the chart below for a few baseball-related examples. Camden Yards in Baltimore has the added advantage of being located in Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, where the trains run on electricity, reducing air pollution even further. 
Scott Nathanson is the national field organizer for the UCS Clean Vehicles Program.
Getting There Greener has tips for day-trippers and frequent flyers alike. Visit the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/gettingtheregreener to become a fully informed traveler.
