Wednesday, June 10, 2009
New Scientist Mis-Lede
An article in New Scientist has a misleading title and lede. The headline says, " Train can be worse for climate than plane."
The article's lede continues the deception, saying,
The New Scientist article is attempting to report an academic study by Mikhail V. Chester and Arpad Horvath, entitled, "Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains," Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) [link.pdf]. It's a pretty good attempt to look at more than just fuel use in determining how various means of transportation use energy and pollute.
The study compares the per-person-kilometer energy footprints of busses that are full with busses that are empty, but it fails to compare full and empty airplanes. It breaks out airplanes by size but not by another, more important variable, short-haul versus long haul trip. It fails to even attempt to account for the trips that *never would occur* if there were no airplanes, or if they were slower, etc. And it fails to relate that every plane trip begins and ends with a car, bus or train trip to and from the airport.
The study, and the New Scientist mis-reporting of it, it impels this rant against the apparently irresistible urge to conclude more -- and different -- than the data indicate.
The article's lede continues the deception, saying,
True or false: taking the commuter train across Boston results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than travelling the same distance in a jumbo jet. Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is false.The whole premise is false. Nobody ever takes a six mile trip on a jumbo jet. It's as meaningless as saying the average human has one testicle.
The New Scientist article is attempting to report an academic study by Mikhail V. Chester and Arpad Horvath, entitled, "Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains," Environ. Res. Lett. 4 (2009) [link.pdf]. It's a pretty good attempt to look at more than just fuel use in determining how various means of transportation use energy and pollute.
The study compares the per-person-kilometer energy footprints of busses that are full with busses that are empty, but it fails to compare full and empty airplanes. It breaks out airplanes by size but not by another, more important variable, short-haul versus long haul trip. It fails to even attempt to account for the trips that *never would occur* if there were no airplanes, or if they were slower, etc. And it fails to relate that every plane trip begins and ends with a car, bus or train trip to and from the airport.
The study, and the New Scientist mis-reporting of it, it impels this rant against the apparently irresistible urge to conclude more -- and different -- than the data indicate.
Technorati Tags: Energy, Environment, Global, GlobalClimateDisruption, Press, Rant, Science, statistics, Sustainability, Travel
Comments:
Post a Comment
