Thursday, January 28, 2010
Bus or car? It's all a blur and I've got a headache
If the answer's yes, then, you would think, environmentalists would say catch the bus instead; you don't have to spend a penny on your premium, get to catch up on world affairs, listen to your iPod or do some serious reading while you travel - who knows, you might even find yourself sitting next to the person who'll become the love of your life - all while helping save the world by reducing your carbon footprint, right?
Well, wrong. The answer to the question is actually so entwined with mind-boggling variables that it places us all at the bewildering centre of a complex moral maze.
The answer would be beautifully simple, if only, yes, if only we were all catching buses that were running at capacity.
But as it is, the average UK bus only carries nine passengers; meaning that, per person, a car carrying two people actually has less of a carbon footprint than the typical bus. Even in London, our great bustling capital, the average bus carries only thirteen passengers.
And, although you might think this would at least settle the question for those travelling in groups of two or more in areas where buses are usually low on passengers, think again.
The bus is already running, so it is therefore the utilitarian option: you may not be reducing your personal carbon footprint, but you'll be reducing that of the world, however infinitesimally.
But by using the same argument with planes, the scale and complexity of the moral maze just intensifies. The plane is already running, right, so what's the harm in getting it?
Come Monday morning and faced with question of whether I'm going to catch the bus or drive to work - it's too far for me to walk and too dangerous a route to cycle - I think I might just sit at the breakfast table, staring blankly ahead, paralysed by the this grave and knotted moral question. I just hope the boss understands...
Image © markhillary via Flickr, under Creative Commons Licence
#
posted by Fuse @ 1:22 AM 
Post a Comment