While more people opt for travel by car and private transport, the number of passengers that trains and buses can carry has also been reduced to meet social distancing guidelines. This means that people from different households must keep one to two metres apart. So, once a seat is taken, surrounding seats must be left empty.
This has had a profound effect on the climate impact of train and car travel. When running at normal capacity, public transport is more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. Although a train or bus can produce more C0₂ than a car, they transport far more people, so emissions per person are lower overall.
But under social distancing conditions, and assuming that any unfilled seats correspond to a commuter driving to work instead, diesel-powered public transport produces more C0₂ emissions per passenger than a small car.
Can passengers be seated so public transportation can be more efficient than cars while maintaining social distancing?
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday July 19 2020, @03:53AM (6 children)
My on the back on the envelope calculation show that we are going to have at least 1% population reduction per the virus wave. The waves will come 4-9 months apart. So, say 3% per year decrease? No need to worry about the environment, overpopulation, and the people will move to the countryside themselves.
If by any remote chance we eliminate this virus, I am sure our friends will make more. It's a school lab exercise at this point.
Regardless, cities are not more environment friendly. Perhaps they could be made so, but my guess it will be more difficult to do than countryside.
This is especially true since there is no economic incentive to keep people together any more. Sweat shops, physical or intellectual, are mostly gone. Only hardcore will stay in the cities and they will be poor and die of diseases.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday July 19 2020, @10:32AM (5 children)
What virus is going to do that? Covid hasn't come within three orders of magnitude of reducing population by 1%.
Who would these "friends" be? Nobody has shown that a man-made disease has made it into the wild yet.
Are not more environmentally friendly than what? What better configurations of 7.5 billion people are there?
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday July 20 2020, @03:33AM (1 child)
Let's check on your points in two years.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @10:48AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 20 2020, @12:13PM (2 children)
Math error. Global deaths from covid could be underreported too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2020, @07:22PM (1 child)
The secondary damage (economic etc) could cause stuff like famines, major civil unrest or even wars. Fewer people are immune to no food for 1 month...
But there will likely still be billions of people around - we've already figured out how to produce enough food for billions and we don't need high levels of tech to do so. Most of the farmers in India helping to feed their 1+ billion people aren't using robotic combine harvesters.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 29 2020, @05:05AM
"Likely" by what standard of evidence? It's interesting how much terrible advice has been given here on SN about this subject by ACs. First, smoking was alleged to increase resistance to COVID. Then it was that masks don't prevent the spread of COVID while simultaneously ignoring how masks do that. Today it's this crap and the claim that wearing masks makes one susceptible to covid (in other words, it's somehow better to get repeated COVID infections than not).
What secondary damage?