交通的碳足跡是多少?

交通的碳足跡是多少?

The statistician and engineer W. Edwards Deming once said “In God we trust. All others must bring data.” Some of the best data come from the Our World in Data team at Oxford University. Their latest looks at what form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint.

統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家兼工程師w·愛(ài)德華茲·戴明曾說(shuō)過(guò):“我們相信上帝。”其他所有人必須攜帶數(shù)據(jù)。“一些最好的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)自牛津大學(xué)的‘我們的世界數(shù)據(jù)團(tuán)隊(duì)’。他們最近研究了哪種交通方式的碳排放量最小。

Big personal vehicles have the highest carbon footprint.Lloyd Alter

Probably to no one's surprise, driving a big car is the worst. The data are all from the UK, so we are probably talking Land Rover here. The next worst way to travel is a short domestic flight. "This is because take-off requires much more energy input than the ‘cruise’ phase of a flight. So, for very short flights, this extra fuel needed for take-off is large compared to the more efficient cruise phase of the journey."

也許沒(méi)有人會(huì)感到驚訝，開(kāi)一輛大型汽車(chē)是最糟糕的。數(shù)據(jù)都來(lái)自英國(guó)，所以我們說(shuō)的可能是路虎。第二糟糕的旅行方式是國(guó)內(nèi)短途飛行。“這是因?yàn)槠痫w比飛行的‘巡航’階段需要更多的能量輸入。所以，對(duì)于非常短的飛行來(lái)說(shuō)，起飛所需的額外燃料比旅程中更高效的巡航階段要多得多。”

CC Our World In Data

Long-haul flights in the economy section don't look that bad in terms of carbon per kilometer, but of course, one is traveling a much longer distance.

從每公里碳排放的角度來(lái)看，經(jīng)濟(jì)艙的長(zhǎng)途飛行看起來(lái)并沒(méi)有那么糟糕，但當(dāng)然，長(zhǎng)途飛行的距離要遠(yuǎn)得多。

The first important question this chart raises is, why do we have big cars and short flights? The large car has almost double the footprint of a small one, and we are not even talking about the embodied carbon from making the thing, we are simply talking about fuel consumption. And look at the difference between national rail and domestic flight; both are covering the same ground, but one has six times the footprint of the other.

這張圖表提出的第一個(gè)重要問(wèn)題是，為什么我們有大汽車(chē)和短途航班?大型汽車(chē)的碳足跡幾乎是小型汽車(chē)的兩倍，我們甚至不是在談?wù)撝圃爝@種東西所包含的碳，我們只是在談?wù)撊剂舷?。看看?guó)家鐵路和國(guó)內(nèi)航班的區(qū)別;它們都覆蓋著相同的地面，但其中一個(gè)的面積是另一個(gè)的六倍。

OXFAM

From the Oxfam Carbon Equity study, we also know who is driving the Land Rovers and taking those short flights; mostly the top 10%, the wealthy. They are incentivized to spend more money to consume more energy, and they do, because as economist Robert Ayers noted, "the economic system is essentially a system for extracting, processing and transforming energy as resources into energy embodied in products and services."

從樂(lè)施會(huì)的碳公平研究中，我們也知道是誰(shuí)在駕駛路虎并進(jìn)行短途飛行;主要是前10%的富人。他們被鼓勵(lì)花更多的錢(qián)來(lái)消費(fèi)更多的能源，他們確實(shí)這樣做了，因?yàn)檎缃?jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家羅伯特·艾爾斯指出的那樣，“經(jīng)濟(jì)體系本質(zhì)上是一個(gè)提取、加工和將能源作為資源轉(zhuǎn)化為體現(xiàn)在產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)中的能源的體系。”

What About Bikes?

自行車(chē)怎么樣?

Bikes in Copenhagen. Lloyd Alter

Also interesting is that bikes and e-bikes are not included in the chart or in the options. (You can click on +add travel mode on the actual chart and pick your own mode of transport, but bikes aren't there.) But they do mention them in the copy:

同樣有趣的是，自行車(chē)和電動(dòng)自行車(chē)不包括在圖表或選項(xiàng)中。(你可以在實(shí)際圖表上點(diǎn)擊+添加旅行模式，選擇你自己的交通方式，但沒(méi)有自行車(chē)。)但他們確實(shí)在副本中提到了:

"Over short to medium distances, walking or cycling are nearly always the lowest carbon way to travel. While not in the chart, the carbon footprint of cycling one kilometer is usually in the range of 16 to 50 grams CO2eq per km depending on how efficiently you cycle and what you eat."

“在中短途，步行或騎自行車(chē)幾乎總是碳排放最低的出行方式。騎車(chē)一公里的碳足跡通常在每公里16到50克二氧化碳，這取決于你騎車(chē)的效率和你吃的食物。”

The top number there is higher than rail or a small electric vehicle, which seems odd. In the footnotes, they explain:

最高的數(shù)字比鐵路或小型電動(dòng)汽車(chē)還要高，這似乎有些奇怪。在腳注中，他們解釋說(shuō):

"Finding a figure for the carbon footprint of cycling seems like it should be straightforward, but it can vary quite a lot. It depends on a number of factors: what size you are (bigger people tend to burn more energy cycling); how fit you are (fitter people are more efficient); the type of bike you’re pedalling; and what you eat (if you eat a primarily plant-based diet, the emissions are likely to be lower than if you get most of your calories from cheeseburgers and milk). People often also raise the question of whether you actually eat more if you cycle to work rather than driving i.e. whether those calories are actually ‘additional’ to your normal diet."

“找到騎行過(guò)程中的碳足跡數(shù)據(jù)似乎很簡(jiǎn)單，但實(shí)際情況可能會(huì)有很大不同。這取決于很多因素:你的體型(體型大的人在騎行過(guò)程中消耗的能量更多);你有多健康(健康的人效率更高);你騎的是哪種自行車(chē);還有你吃什么(如果你主要吃植物性飲食，所排放的熱量可能比你從奶酪漢堡和牛奶中獲取的要低)。人們還經(jīng)常會(huì)問(wèn)，如果你騎車(chē)上班，是不是比開(kāi)車(chē)上班吃得更多，也就是說(shuō)，這些卡路里是否真的會(huì)‘額外’到你的正常飲食中。”