Travel

Use terrestrial means of transport to arrive at transnational meetings

Objectives

Reduce the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases arising from (transnational) transport and mobility

Green Value indicator

CO2 savings, but further, less quantifiable greenhouse effects of air traffic due to the higher altitude of emissions have to be taken into account

Explanation

Indeed, in the 20th century and until today mass air traffic has been contributing to previously unknown degrees of mobility. Travelling by airplanes has compressed time and space and never before in history has it been so easy to travel from one end of the planet to the other. Relative to the distances one can travel in a comparatively short time, air travel can be had at extremely cheap prices. However, those prices do not reflect the real costs for air traffic and are rather political decisions. The negative effects of moving huge metal containers high up through the air are being externalized, that means part of the costs caused by the air traffic industry are not paid but passed on to the environment and future generations. Those costs include CO2 emissions dumped into the atmosphere and other damage to environment. Airplanes cause massive CO2 emissions, e.g. 300kg of CO2/person for a flight from Rome to Leipzig and back. To remind you, globally annual CO2 emissions should not exceed 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per person. Only by attending a few physical transnational meetings travelling by plane gets you close to this value. Yet, comparing only CO2 emissions is actually not enough. Cirrus clouds and condensation trails, which due to their physiological properties of trapping energy in the earth’s atmosphere further contribute to global warming.

So, before your next transnational meeting think twice and ask yourselves: do we need to travel long distances to meet in person or can we have an online meeting?

We know that personal meetings are highly valuable and often necessary in transnational projects. Yet, is it possible to take terrestrial means of transport?

Before you decide what alternative means of transport fits your needs best, you should plan ahead from the beginning. A good option could be to decide in the application phase, where the best meeting cities are within the consortium. If the consortium requires airplanes for meetings (e.g. if a partner is from an island state like Cyprus or Malta), think twice and select the meeting venues wisely so that as few as possible flights are necessary. It´s better when only the island partner uses a flight than if the whole consortium flies to the destination.

There are three common ways of terrestrial mobility for longer distances: cars, buses (coaches), and trains. The CO2 emissions for cars are comparatively high: around 94,2 kg for a 500km journey (higher for cars with larger engines). Yet, by car sharing you can divide this number by the number of passengers. Nevertheless, when you drive a car, one person must be focused the entire journey which is really tiring. Handing over this responsibility is something you get when using trains and buses. Plus, when it comes to CO2 emissions, trains and buses outperform cars: around 26 kg of CO2 for trains and 19 kg for buses. Yet, also here the values depend on the utilisation rate. The more people using a means of transport, the less CO2 is emitted per passenger kilometre. That’s why the value for buses is below the one for trains: they generally have a higher occupancy rate.

Nevertheless, we would opt for trains, as usually they are more comfortable and depending on the route quite time efficient. Indeed, the pan-European railway infrastructure is currently not the best, but night-trains and fast connections are being implemented at an increased pace. 2021 was also the European Year of rail. So, improvements might be on the way.

We think that if a train ride to a transnational meeting takes you less than a day, it is acceptable to refrain from using the most environmentally damaging mode of transport: air travel.

And to be fair, do you really save so much time through air travel?
check-ins and security checks at the airport, queuing and making it from the airport to your venue or hotel. If you take the train, you travel from one city centre to another, you sit down and read or work. What is not to like!

PROS/CONS of the action

Pros:

the effective travel time is not substantially longer, especially for shorter and medium distances
often more comfortable
saves substantial amounts of CO2 and other damaging effects on the environment (including noise pollution in cities) for low effort
no luggage restrictions in terms of weight or the transport of liquids and other restrictions in air traffic

Cons:

train tickets are often more expensive than flight tickets
for some very long distances or sea crossings not feasible
pan-European train infrastructure requires further improvements

Certified

Not Certified

Link to useful sources

Heinrich Böll Stiftung and Verkehrsclub Deutschland: Mobility Atlas - Facts and figures about alternative mobility

Intelligent mobil (German source)

Klimaverträgliches Jahresbudget