europe - australia by ship

According to this emission calculator, a flight from London to Sydney via Singapore would emit about 1,200 kg of CO2 per passenger. -- Seems to be a mis-placed decimal point at #6.

ColinP - are you as astounded as I am at what you can find on the web?? An emission calculator no less.

Ahh... the modern world - it never ceases to amaze me.

(Im glad you sorted out the numbers - I multiplied 12,000 by 400 and almost fell of my chair...)

Indeed! How did we ever survive before Google?

Britannica...

You've missed the boat by about 35 years, pud. And, bearing in mind that ship emissions (per passemger) are little different to those of aircraft you really have missed something.

We weren't rich enough for Britannica - we had to settle for Funk & Wagnalls.... :-(

It's not just the CO2 emissions that you need to consider. Shipping might account for twice as much global CO2 emission as flying but it's emmission of "traditional pollution" is much higher due to the heavy fuel oil most ships use, especially nitrates and sulphates (acid rain) and particulates details. Also consider the water pollution they can cause with pumping out oil contaminated bilge water, rubbish and sewerage disposed of overboard and the transfer of invasive species in bilge water .example. The longer transit time also means that the extra food and water that has to be transported needs to be included in the calculation as well.

Flying on the other hand is quick so there is little waste involved in transporting food and water, it's fuel burns relatively cleanly, and you pay a carbon tax on your ticket, not something that you'll pay on a shipboard fare.

World Book Encyclopaedia in our house when I was a kid. I think me old Mum's still got all 26 volumes of the 1961 edition in her bookcase.

Also note that while flying is pretty much direct, any surface route (sea or land) will travel a longer distance to arrive at the same location.

For example Babs to Brisbane (mentioned above) calculated that it would take her around 26,000 km to get to Brisbane whereas the direct route would be 16,500 km. She also calculated she would use 1.65 tonnes of CO2 (including the benefit of the non-existant Singapore to Darwin Ferry) while the same flight would only produce 1.2 tonnes of CO2.

What about the fact that the ships fuel is less refined, therefore requiring less energy to produce. The ship also has a dual purpose in carrying cargo AND passengers, where as passenger planes generally stick to passengers and the odd mail bag or similar. The net benefit of a ship carrying cargo, as opposed to a plane carrying passengers, would be an interesting economomics case study.
There are gargo ships travelling from Germany to Australia, Russia-Hong Kong-Japan to Australia (FESCO).
I hope you dont get seasick mate, try these guys as well.