James Newton wrote:
[snip]
> Humans Walking 0.2 0.05
> Freighter 0.004 0.001

[snip]

> I'm not surprised that a freighter is more efficient and costs less to 
> move
> than a human, but the amount of difference (two orders of magnitude) is
> amazing. I wonder if shipping in goods from China is really so horrible. 
> Has
> anyone actually done the numbers? What is the actual overhead for each
> banana (for example) given that you are shipping a massive volumn of them 
> on
> the ship? I mean, even if the ship weighs as much as the cargo, that 0.004
> figure is so low...

It's difficult to find enough accurate data to do the math, but "moving by 
ship is far less dear than moving by cart" is something that Adam Smith 
pointed out back in 1776, and I argued in the "[OT] Cuba flies lone flag for 
sustainability" thread.

> The 747 also turned in impressive figures. Again, that includes the weight
> of the plane, but it makes me wonder if flying somewhere is actually such 
> a
> bad thing ecologically speaking.

Al Gore relies on air transportation for travel, it can't be THAT bad. ;-) 
Our family of three will fly a combined 7800 miles this holiday season.

> It strikes me that people who are interesting in saving the planet should
> look into living on calm water (houseboats?) and using gondolas (ala 
> Venice)
> to transport themselves and their cargo between home, work, store, etc...

Based on several encounters, I am convinced that the majority of people who 
are "interested in saving the planet" are irrational. I don't know whether 
they're sincere/well-intentioned or not, but the negative effects are very 
tangible. And the real solutions largely go unnoticed.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist