public transport contribution to CO2 reduction is exagerated, because the US DoE Transport Data Book gives per passenger energy by rail as 2,784 BTU's vs 3,445 BTU's by car
You are misquoting him here - the article refers to "fuel efficiency" not CO2 reduction. It is undoubtedly a deliberate choice on his part. The reduction in CO2 emmisions from light rail may be far greater than is suggested by the comparative BTU values - it just depends on the source of electricity that is used. Even if you choose to burn fossil fuels to produce your electricity, at least with a fixed power station there is the option to try CO2 sequestration. That won't happen with cars any time soon.
Moreover, the agency's calculations assume no improvements in automotive fuel efficiency. Yet Congress in this session might enact a measure to raise average mileage from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2018. That one conservation measure, a 40 percent per mile improvement even before the tunnel will be complete, would extend Sound Transit's greenhouse gas pay-back period to the year 2088. Further, public transit's contribution to fuel efficiency is exaggerated. ...
Further, public transit's contribution to fuel efficiency is exaggerated. ...
So his argument relates energy efficiency to CO2 emissions payback first, before he provides the numbers from the US DoE. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
