Cars are Greener than Planes & Trains
Back in 2004, Lancaster University's Professor Roger Kemp, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Engineering, produced a report for the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, on the environmental impact of high-speed rail versus air and car travel. He used the example of the London to Edinburgh route to illustrate his findings. The conclusions were startling and rather annoying for the car hating Green fundamentalists.
With electricity generated from fossil fuels:
Trains are heavy, get their energy inefficently down wires where much of the energy is lost and are fundamentally a nineteenth century point-to-point technology belonging to a slower era. Cars are light, fuel efficient, and a liberating, flexible form of transport suited to modern life. Greens hate them so much because they are ideologically opposed to capitalist modes of consumption. So why are the Tories giving headspace to this anti-Car, anti-Air travel nonsense with their penalty tax proposals?
Source : www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/research/download/Environmental impact.pdf
- Travel by conventional rail contributes as much to global warming as travel by car
- Over a 600 km sector, travel by high speed rail is as environmentally unfriendly as air travel
- Cars are more fuel efficient than planes or trains. Cars are greener.
Trains are heavy, get their energy inefficently down wires where much of the energy is lost and are fundamentally a nineteenth century point-to-point technology belonging to a slower era. Cars are light, fuel efficient, and a liberating, flexible form of transport suited to modern life. Greens hate them so much because they are ideologically opposed to capitalist modes of consumption. So why are the Tories giving headspace to this anti-Car, anti-Air travel nonsense with their penalty tax proposals?
67 comments:
That would be the Jacksons providing the "Show you the way to go" soundtrack. Inspired choice of backing music.
Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick.
Anonymous said...
Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick.
Guido, please don't stop with the anti-green stuff. It's amusing, and even if it's wrong - which it probably isn't - it winds up those sanctimonious ex-marxists a treat, which is a justification all by itself.
Greens are just bigger wankers than the tories or pnewlab.
More fodder for the spoil yer paper/minimum wage campaign
'a point-to-point technology belonging to a slower era..'
When you find a people carrier that does 350mph, do let me know...
Twat.
C'os they're critical faculties in common with most of the liberal establishment have been lasered out by manevolent aliens bent on destroying civilisation.
Anony-twat,
When you find a train that does 350 mph (not kmh) and comes to your frontdoor and drops you outside your destination using less fuel-energy than a car, do let me know.
I'm sure those efficiency statistics are completely accurate.
Of course, every car I saw this morning was stuffed to the gunnels with eager commuters.
And there wasn't any traffic at all. oh no.
When this crap gets peer reviewed, and variables like the ones above are taken into account, then I might give it some credance.
Climate change deniers are just sticking their heads in the sand. That's ok with me- when sea levels start rising, they'll be the first to drown.
Robin 12.10
hence little green men?
When I see meaningful tax reductions on the savings made by carbon footprint friendly goods THEN I will believe.
Till then its all tosh!
Can a Green explain how a heavy train is greener than a lightweight car?
"Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction." Like addiction to your motor?
Clearly, trains are not as green as people assume.
However, Prof Kemp’s figures show that on inter-city journeys the fuel use per passenger is about the same for a fully-laden 125 train as for a car with 4 people on board.
How many fully-laden cars do you see on the motorway?
anonymouse: 12:10 haha Twat!
when you become an engineer let me know.. I drove to France last year, my wife and kids flew. Point to point leaving at the same time I got there first and I didn't break the speed limits.
Aardvark,
I think the figures assume two passengers in the car (40% capacity).
Points not covered:
non hydrocarbon electricity generation - as the percentage of electricity from other sources increases the train's carbon cost goes down.
Journey time choice - as global warming kicks in people chooses to go slower so we don't need 350 km/h trains and can have fewer planes.
Also I can't see the speed that the car's consumption figure is based on.
Perhaps I'm biased because I like your blog. I often have differing opinion
from yours. Sometimes it is better to differ each other because it gives a
totally new perspective in our outlook. I honestly believe yours is one of
the best blogs on the web. Thanks for the nice work. :-)
Guido Fawkes Esq. said...
I think the figures assume two passengers in the car (40% capacity).
There were various comparisons in Prof Kemp's paper. Fuel consumption per passenger was about the same for a 2-passenger car as a 350km/h train (which we don't have yet).
Good points Tony.
Also, Guido, I take it you haven't read this report by Prof Roger Kemp - the same author who wrote the same presentation you so keenly quoted:
http://education.independent.co.uk/careers_advice/engineering/article2550044.ece
Not as black and white as you make out.
He says that; "Recent work at Lancaster University has shown that efficient electric trains produce only a third of the carbon emissions of car travel"
His main gripe is with the use of diesel trains and the governments strategy to develop a new generation of non-electric high-speed trains.
If you read what he says, he suggests that double-decker trains, further electrification of the rail network and to improve local commuter networks are a big part of the answer.
Subtly different to what you suggest..
The impact of aviation on climate change is increased over that of direct CO2 emissions alone by some of the other emissions released and their specific effects at altitude. These effects include increased tropospheric ozone, contrail formation and a small amount of methane destruction. The environmental impacts of aircraft have been assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) and more recently by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002), and they are thought to be 2-4 times greater than that from CO2 alone.
Normally I find your libertarian rants quite amusing but this is serious stuff.
fucking hell this subject brings out all the new labour marxist cunts doesnt it?
man man climate change is about as believable as Gordon Browns economic miracle.
You fucking deluded mongs.
Time to order a car with more cylinders.
Normally I find your libertarian rants quite amusing but this is serious stuff.
In other words, "you can have free speech as long as I like what you say?"
Go and find a copy of On liberty and beat yourself unconscious with it.
"he suggests that double-decker trains, further electrification of the rail network "
OK how much energy would be needed to manufacture and replace every overbridge on Notwork Fail to allow the 'double decker' carriages to run? There would have to be some serious civil engineering carried out to accomodate double decker trains. Moreover, electic trains also require additional generating and distribution infrastructure which the greens tend to forget.
Green Economics is full of understated capital costs and overstated benefits.
Isn't it funny how the reds of 25 years ago have become greens?
Dear anon 1.44
The most recent estimate on multipliers (Saussen et al) puts the radiative forcing multiple at 1.9, which DfT has rounded to 2. To give a rough idea, at present UK-attributable aviation CO2 is roughly half that from Drax power station, and its RF effect is about the same.
anon 2.44
I presume you're referring to UK attributable aviation using flights that originate and land in the UK rather than international
flights to and from the UK.
Drax isn't at altitude or growing at 7% annually.
Ah Guido good find. Pleased to see not idly wasting time on the Cote.
Those poor bastards who have bought "Toyota Pious" cars won't be feeling so smug now.
> The Hitch
I'm insulted, a cunt I maybe but new labour or Marxist I'm not.
As for man made climate change, arguing over this is now completely academic, the climate is changing, does it matter who believes what about what, what we need to do is get ready for that change and do our best to slow it by reducing our output of those gasses proven to affect it.
anon 2.44
The volume is for emissions attributable to domestic and international movements. And it is a mistake to equate passenger growth to emissions - the correct indicator is flight numbers or, even better, mileage flown. For the most recent full year comparison for which CAA has data (2006 v 2005), UK passenger and cargo airline movement length growth was 4.7% - still significant, but not the 7% you claim. And for the record, Airports Council International forecasts Europe-wide movement growth to average only 1.5%/yr between 2005-25.
The professor has forgotten that the existence of 350kmh trains would merely ensure that stockbrokers would find homes 350km away from central London. The impact on CO2 production would be minimal, as more people would engage in longer journeys.
Anyway, time for a cup of tea. The problem with working from home is you have to make it yourself.
Suggesting green politics is about the environment is like saying the NHS is about healthcare provision, when as any fule kno both are about transferring money from hardworkers to the notworkers. As is indeed almost every government endeavour.
Anon 12:16pm
Climate change deniers are just sticking their heads in the sand. That's ok with me- when sea levels start rising, they'll be the first to drown.
No they won't - they're inevitably richer than the average bear and will head for the hills, leaving the proles to row about in circles in their skidrow-on-sea inflatables.
anon 3:36
fair point about mileage being better than passenger numbers. However, using data from last year alone is misleading. UK airline available tonne kilometers have grown from 16456m in 1984 to 48185m in 2005.
And Drax still isn't at high altitude or refusing to pay tax on fuel....
anon 3.36
Yes, aviation emissions have grown rapidly (from a relatively low base), but perhaps you would like to set out the volume growth over that period for road transport, domestic emissions and power generation?
And Drax may not be at high altitude, but its climate change impact is still the same as all Uk-attributable aviation. And how much discount do other mass transport modes (trains and buses) receive on fuel duty?
I am sure Guido's readers would like to know.
Interesting report, and very ironic that this should come from Lancaster University, a university (and city) that if full of Green Party voters and fanatical environmentalists!
anonymous 4.38
Available Tonne Kilometres is not the appropriate way to measure emissions. Revenue Tonne Kilometres is more suitable, and bear in mind that emissions per RTK are steadily falling, although not by quite as much as RTKs are growing.
"Guido, please don't stop with the anti-green stuff. It's amusing, and even if it's wrong - which it probably isn't - it winds up those sanctimonious ex-marxists a treat"
It is wrong to suggest that all those who acknowledge the environmental crisis are "ex-marxists"
It should be noted that Martin Durkin, the man behind the anti-green film the Great Global Warming Swindle is an ex-marxist.
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29
Just a couple of small points of detail:
a. The full presentation runs for 17 slides rather than just 5 and the punch line.
b. Do Airbus actually make an A371?
Mr kennick
as you rightly and politely point out the climate is changing, it always has. Once upon a time where I am sat now was a primordial swamp and rather warm , at other times it was covered in ice for thousands of fucking years.
It didnt change because people were driving a Range Rovers.
20 years ago these green cunts were telling us that we were facing another ice age and now its we are all going to die in a desert.
Fuck them!
Trains: taking you from where you don't want to be, to somewhere you don't want to go.
Incidentally, when will people grasp the reality that nothing we do in the UK matters anymore. The Chinese open a new Drax every week. Sometimes 2. True last year, true this year, and for some more years to come. There are hundreds of cities in China with the same population as London. Every ~18months just the increase in emissions in China exceeds our total annual output.
Let's get over ourselves already.
G
Heretics all! climate change is the new religion,the new opium of the masses and like religion its all about control.They nolonger threaten you with the sky fairy and hell its your carbon footprint(soul) and paying more tax (atonement) the ecomentalists are the new clergy and are probably lining up the choirboys already with home made eco friendly ky.
This is all very well, but what nobody talks about is the real problem. CO2 is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. For every atom of carbon based fuel we burn, we lock up a molecule of oxygen. No need to worry about floods, desertification, starvation and plagues. We're all going to suffocate way before any of those happen. Go forth and party till you can't breathe!
I think it's probably best if I continue to use my car. If CO2 does cause global warming, then by avoiding planes and trains I shall be doing the least damage.
However if, as seems likely, man-made global warming is a hoax, then avoiding late trains and planes and instead having fun in my sports car is the better option anyway.
A win-win situation!
Thanks for this interesting item; the penultimate slide sets out the solution:
'A “green” high-speed line ?
• Modest top speed, 200 –250 km/h
• Non-carbon energy sources: renewables, nuclear
• High capacity, wide bodied, double deck EMUs
• Lightweight, low drag (articulated, smooth, aerodynamic)
• High passenger utilisation: serves major population centres
• Targets “1 person/car” market, in preference to groups
• Discourages travel growth (e.g. longer commuting distances)
• Provides capacity for parcels, mail and similar services
• Frees-up other lines to allow modal transfer of freight'
1. The trains run anyway so everytime you take a train journey you not only don't produce the carbon you would have done in the car but you reduce the 'carbon footprint' of every person on that train.
2. Investing in trains is another matter entirely and of course we should. The problem being that the government is afraid to invest the real money needed to make a fast, cheap and low carbon emissions system. If Japan, Germany, and France can do it we can to.
cynic 12:24pm
Can a Green explain how a heavy train is greener than a lightweight car?
Only if you stick one upside-down in a tin of lime-green emulsion and use the long-haired cunt to redecorate the entire length of an intercity express.
anon 3:47 PM
I make a good strong cuppa and prefer making it to working anytime. ex civil servant. refs available if req.
hitch 6:18pm
Who needs globalwarnist scientology when we got you ducks!
How ridiculous: The Professors "assumptions" are laughably refuted by his own graphs. The assumed fuel consumption for the car (a VW something or other) is 5.8 L/100km. A few slides later, we see the actual average (as in all the vehicles used, not just one randomly picked for outstanding fuel efficiency) is close to 8 L/100km. This simple math of changing his assumed number to the actual, factual number means the car consumes 30L/passenger to the trains 22L. That's just one example of why this "academic" study is total rubbish. I could continue about trains being able to use lower carbon alternative energies where cars cannot, the fact that the numbers are based on a 350km/hr train, etc.
"Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick."
Only to the minority of car-haters. Fact is that most people in this country (rightly) don't give a stuff about global warming and do not see why their comfortable lifestyles should be destroyed just to keep a bunch of unwashed loser-hippies happy. Global warming will mean a warmer climate in the UK - something I rather look forward to.
actually "no longer anonymous" you are a total idiot. Global warming would not make the UK warmer, but would freeze it. Haven't you wondered why the UK has a moderate climate despite its latitude? That is because of ocean currents, which when the polar ice cap melts you will no longer have and the UK will freeze. Wanker.
"no longer anonymous", from what you say, presumably you regard the benefits you imagine coming to the UK as all we should care about? If we are collectively responsible for massive droughts, flooding, food shortages, extinctions etc. in other countries, are you saying we shouldn't care? I can only agree with anon 10:50: You are a massive wanker.
Anonymous 11:10
Even if this man-made global warming thing exists, the UK only produces 2% of the world's CO2 output. So to say that we would be responsible for droughts, flooding, food shortages and extinctions in other countries because we drive cars instead of taking trains is total bollocks.
You are the massive wanker and I claim my five pounds.
"Guido, stop with the anti-green stuff, it makes you look like a massive dick."
Guido, keep up the anti-green stuff, it will give you a massive dick......
anonymous 1.38pm..
I look forward to you voting Tory. John Redwood is proposing electric trains and double deckers! Even running on rubber tyres!
The Handwringers are out in force today! Green is the new red I think!
A question for the greenie common sense deniers here, How do you get to the train station? and how do you get from the train station to your destination? add the extra travel at both ends and you then have the increased costs over private cars!
You idiot common sense deniers still cling to your failed "CO2 bogeyman" theory like your pathetic lives depend on it? Let me clue you fucking sad muppets in a bit here There is NO global warming because temperatures have been falling since 1998 and when you delete the false temperature data from surface based sensors and replace it with TRUE data from sattelite based sensors then what you have is is a picture of natural cyclic variation that can easily be handled by humanity with a capitalist outlook! In short you fucking socialist/leftist jerkoffs couldnt run a piss up in a brewery!
You have been wrong about everything because you make the basic error of looking at things with political goggles on! Life is not all about politics you know!
engdem 8:00am
Life is not all about politics you know!
It is if you are a state nappy wearing socialist.
Guido, does the report say which car was used for comparison purposes? I bet my left testicle that the result would vary hugely on this.
For what its worth, I think its the indulgent element of the car market that gives the car a bad name. Not content with getting you from A to B comfortably, economically & enviromentally as friendly as possible, the manufacturers build the 4x4s, used mainly by urban drivers who's only ever have to negotiate a pot hole or speed bump, and cars that can reach over 150 mph when the legal maximum is 70 mph.
But this sells cars, with a higher profit margin, by appealing to our self indulgence. And yes, before you ask, if I had the money I would buy one of those. I whip myself nightly with the guilt.
You know, I've always wondered why the English flee their country at every three-day opportunity. Can someone tell me just why it's so hateful?
The main problem with this presentation is that poor Professor Kemp is being quoted by salivating climate change deniers in a very broad way, when his research, even taken at face value, is focussed on a narrow issue. He states that he meant to highlight ways to make rail travel more efficient.
He is also on record as saying there are no easy quick fixes to reducing carbon levels, small efficient cars will have to become the norm if carbon reduction levels are to be met and seems to be calling for a massive investment in the rail infrastructure, which I can only assume would come from public money (Search for his 17th May article in the independent 'no quick fix..' for more on this.
None of this fits in with the ethos of this blog, but Guido is obviously so desperate for someone to justify his petrol yearnings that he'll jump in with some very strange bedfellows. Stick to the funnies!
Blog readerships are very good at checking facts, and bollocks on stilts will quickly be knocked over.
Unlike the Grapefruit (green outside / red on the inside) on this blog, I thought I would read the report before commenting! ;)
So, 2 people driving a VW Passat which does 48 mpg from London to Edinburgh works our more economical than doing the same trip in a totally full Train doing 350 kph all the way.
However, looking a few graphs down and you'll spot that a slower train doing 225 kph works out about the same fuel cost per passenger so the figures are a little confusing ... until you realise that all you need to do is to put someone in the back of the VW and suddenly its the most environmentally friendly way to get around bar none!!
Shame my V8 doesn't do 48 mpg! I wonder if the fact I use LPG will grant me the pardon of the green god Gaia?
Posted on CommentIsFree: British Airline Pilots Association fail to read Professor Kemp's work correctly.
I'm sure no one here has made the mistake of confusing engine efficiency (miles per gallon) with CO2 efficiency (emissions per mile)...
It's hard to think of an interest group with more to lose from curtailing flights than the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa). So it wasn't surprising that during the recent Camp for Climate Action Balpa called for "peace talks" with the environmentalists, claiming that "most flights, compared with other transport modes, are green".
Having a declared interest shouldn't disqualify you from voicing your opinion - provided your argument is grounded in fact. Unfortunately, Balpa's recent report, Aviation and the Environment is anything but. Despite claims from Balpa's chairman, Captain Mervyn Granshaw that "we were determined from the outset to concern ourselves only with the facts", the report makes some very basic mistakes which could leave readers confused.
The first rule of comparison is to use a standard measurement. For green issues, it's carbon dioxide, and when comparing aviation emissions with surface transport, calculations need to include the mix of other gases and the height at which they're emitted. This is known as radiative forcing, and Defra and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommend using a multiplier of 2.7 to calculate a "carbon equivalence" (CO2e).
So it's odd that Balpa chose to use the volume of fuel burned to compare the efficiency of planes, trains and cars. Unlike other scientific studies, Balpa is judging efficiency on the number of miles per gallon - despite different fuels producing different quantities of greenhouse gases. This method also ignores radiative forcing, so the report's calculations cover only about a third of the damage planes are doing to the atmosphere.
Leaving out radiative forcing puts the rest of the report on to very shaky ground, but it isn't the only error. Central to Balpa's argument is a graph comparing efficiency per passenger when the three modes of transport - cars, trains and planes - are a quarter full, half full and totally full.
Balpa sourced the graph from an energy consumption discussion paper by Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University, which covers the amount of fuel used to propel different vehicles - and therefore also excludes radiative forcing. Professor Kemp looks at a typical aircraft, a car, and two forms of train: one which travels at 225km/h and another at 350km/h. Notice, however, that the two graphs are surprisingly different: the first is taken from the original source document and the second from the Balpa report.
Professor Kemp's graph.
Graph from the Balpa report.
While Kemp's graph (top) shows the expected linear decrease in emissions as occupancy rises (so that two people in a car is twice as efficient per person as single occupancy), the pilots' version (base) implies that both the VW Passat and the "conventional GNER train" are only marginally more efficient per person at 50% occupancy than they were at 25% - an odd conclusion which conveniently makes the plane the most efficient mode at 50% occupancy. Also, notice that Balpa has swapped the 100% load figures for the conventional GNER train and the high-speed "TGV style train" - with the result that the conventional train appears less efficient than the plane.
Balpa describes Kemp's 225 km/h train as a "conventional GNER train", but GNER trains don't travel at more than 200km/h for fear of missing trackside signals. More seriously, in the text of the report Balpa compares the plane to "a standard high-speed train traveling at roughly 350 km/h", even though there are no 350km/h trains in the UK and even French TGV trains have a maximum operating speed of 320km/h.
So what are the real figures? In a more recent paper Prof Kemp reveals that on a London-Edinburgh route an Airbus A321 would actually emit 210gms CO2e/passenger km - more that five times as much as the 40gms emitted by a conventional GNER train on the same route (based on the appropriate occupancy rates of 70% and 31% respectively). By 2020, when the electricity generating mix has a higher renewable content, the figure for the GNER train should drop to 30gms/passenger km, and as trains become fuller, so their efficiency increases.
This isn't the first time the aviation industry has got its figures muddled. In January Ryanair admitted misleading customers when it claimed to have reduced its CO2 emissions by 50%. Closer examination showed that while the airline had reduced emissions per passenger by 50%, its overall emissions had shot up by 800% between 1998 and 2006.
Ryanair has since been chastised by the Avertising Standards Agency for claiming that aviation accounts for only 2% of emissions. The ASA said it breached rules on truthfulness by not explaining the figure was based on global rather than UK emissions (which according to the British government are closer to 13%).
Balpa has invited the environmental movement to debate the "real effects" of flying, but first I'd like Balpa to think a little harder about what these real effects might be. In the meantime we'll continue planning direct action against an industry which seems reluctant to acknowledge the true damage it is causing.
Well you couldn't make it up. Just read about this 1000 mile "Cut the Carbon" Christian Aid march, finishing in London on October 2nd. And of course they are hiring coaches to take people to the final rally.
Begs the question what is the carbon footprint of all this? and since just about all legislation financially adversely affects poor people that they are supposed to help WTF has this got to do with Christian Aid?
Perhaps Europeans ought to just focus on their Kyoto obligations. To date, despite widespread chest thumping, the Germans, French, Italians, Brits and a few other countries are well in excess of their Kyoto CO2 emissions promises. Additionally, I read somewhere lately that the Americans (i.e. anti-Kyoto Bush people) halve outperfromed Europe in CO2 emission in since 2001. Say it ain't so.
Chris Paul said...
"Sadly by the time Boris gets in to work after a 60 mile pedal it is time for him to turn round and go home. That is the best place for him."
Boris lives in Islington. His return journey to work in Westminster is about 6 miles.
Great to see the Global Warming Fascists discomforted. They are about to given a worse shafting by SurfaceStations.org.
You heard it here first!
FUck off Guido you stupid dickhead.
It is nothing to do with bollocks like 'ideological opposition' you thick, ignorant cretin. It is to do with the fact that if we don't stupid creating greenhouse gases the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to rise to 700+ parts per million and the planet is going to fry.
You can try and bury your head in the sand, and hanker after your penis-extending motor [and I bet you bloody need it] till you are blue in the face. But the truth is cars are a twentieth century mode of transport which is fucked in the twenty first. Selective choice of data just shows how badly misleading your arguments are, and how desperately you are pissing in the wind.
Rather than pursue crap like this, why don't you try and come up with some bright, capitalist ideas of your own for reducing CO2 pollution - like photovoltaic cells or Severn barrage, or an increase in the no of wind farms. Oh, I forgot.
You are one of that rare band of brigands, the man-made global warming is a myth flat-earthers who will be smoking your 6-litre V12 manhood substitutes because you are too fucking thick to see that we are doomed without an alternative.
And what 'hard-of-thinking' idiots like you fail to realise is that it is not only 'greens' who realise this - there are some people even within our Tory party who are bright enough to have woken up and smelled the coffee. Too bad you aren't one of them - but then being intellectual isn't your long suit.
I love trains and hate driving and I am willing to accept the scientific consensus with regard to mans impact on the climate.
That said I loathe your average green liberal they are a bunch of politico elitist wankers, who are the same people that were cheering on the soviet union during the cold war, call themselves socialists but have nothing but contempt for the working class.
Their opposition to nuclear power illustrates there position is based on faith rather than logic.
Their silence with regard to overpopulation illustrates innability to think.
Their ignorance with regard to the pernicious effect of our system of credit based money creation, on human economic activity and the fact that as long this continues we will never be able to live in a sustainable way, demonstrates they have nothing useful to say.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=561&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=money+as+debt&total=1141&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
One thing that does make trains less efficient is that after the train companies have run them in to London in the morning they then have to run them back out empty and run them back in again empty because there is nowhere for them to put them for the day in the city.
Post a Comment