I am sick and tired of reading Britain constantly blabbing on about CO2 emissions and its fight against global warming.
What with sensors in dustbins, flooding hysteria and the government wanting to monitor our every move.
The fact is while countries from Pakistan through to China and the whole of South-east Asia along with the US and South America pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day, it leave Britain and the rest of the EU fighting a lone battle.
Britain and Europe is being taxed to pay for the guilty CO2 poluters.
It's time the government got off the people's backs and got real.
I left the UK 18-months because of its constant prying on British people, its tax-this tax-that mentality, the government's constant hoodwinking and its growing Muslim 'problem'.

Dennis Spence (British ex-pat), Manila, Philippines

Why on earth would "Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK" want a less mobile society. That is the most nonsensical environmentalist drivel i've ever heard. While i support that widespread car ownership cannot be condoned, this is a market economy and ultimately car ownership will be determined by choice and not by force. This is the UK not the USSR, I know our government and the environmentalists aspire to be like the latter hopefully common sense will prevail.

ANDREW, HACKNEY, LONDON

The DfT continually comes up with ever more imaginative excuses not to electrify mainlines such as from London to Bristol and South Wales, and to the East Midlands. Since privatisation the railway industry has managed a grand total of ..err.. 8 miles, excluding the Channel Tunnel rail link. The problem with the fragmented structure of the rail industry is that it does not encourage investment in this sort of infrastructure, even though it is clearly much cleaner and more efficient in terms of pollution by the trains themselves, and the electricity that can be generated by carbon-free sources. Much of the so-called new investment announced yesterday is nothing of the kind, and is purely routine maintenance and renewal. It is one thing for the government to spout about 'green' travel by not building new roads, but there is little evidence of the DfT putting its money where its mouth is and coming up with some real bucks for the railways either

Richard, Bexhill, UK

To Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK,
A less mobile sociaty? Internal migration and a geographically mobile society is one of the greatest advancements in the modern age. It is a far too limited forum to discuss all the benefits and indeed some of the possible negatives, however, it suffices to say that you would not be enjoying the life you have, nor would Britain be enjoying all the societal benefits it does if it were still a relative non-mobile society. For example, high rates of geographical mobility contributes to increased rates of sustainable economic growth via higher levels of employment and productivity. It is also associated with increased levels of social mobility. By some accounts Britain already has the lowest levels of geographical mobility in the developed world. If Britain were to move to a more immobile society this would impact in the levels of unemployment in many regions especially the North. Yes it does place pressure on transport systems, housing the....

Chris, Huddersfield,

Trains are low friction but importantly for their capacity have a very small frontal area. This means that they use far less energy per passenger at high speeds than does a car or a plane. (Power required increases according to the cube of the speed. Double the speed, multiply power by 8)

Electric power can genuinely be green - wind, tide or solar. Oil never can be.

Hence the Continental obsession with high speed electric trains - pending teleportation it is the transport of the future.

Bob T, London, UK

If the passenger numbers on the trains were more balanced throughout the day/week this would make train travel more profitable and more pleasurable. That you will travel with the masses at one time of day and virtually alone at other times makes no sense (the masses usually return from whence they came on the same day!). The cheaper (off peak) fares need to be even cheaper to help employees to convince their employers to change their working hours, which would reduce 'crush hour' volumes, and fill the quieter trains.

Justin, Alford, Lincs, UK

I found the Nottingham tram was the fastest and most environmentally efficient way of getting out of Nottingham.

Jim, Woburn, Bedfordshire

We need to discourage car ownership, not just car use. A car takes about as much energy to manufacture as it will burn in petrol. The widespread car ownership creates a culture of "industrial zones" and supermarkets and country walking, which means more and more car use. Once everyone has a car, everyone needs a car.
Whilst the CO2 burn per mile might not be too favourable on the train, it encourages a less mobile society.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Railways are the most efficient mode of mass transportation in terms of carbon dioxide emission in the United Kingdom. What is more, they were also the most efficient when measured by billion passenger kilometres travelled in 2005 with 0.0423 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted per 1 billion passengers kilometres travelled in comparison to 0.1937 million tonnes for road transport (4.57 times worse) and 0.2727 million tonnes for air travel (6.44 times worse).
DfT Data - 2005

Slawek, Torun, Poland

The tram in Nottingham is anything but slow, since it travels at speeds up to 50 mph, is extremely efficient in keeping time, and is used by all sensible people. Hopefully the system will be extended to two more areas within the next few years.

john, Nottingham,

It took me a while to figure out what's wrong with the journalism in this article. You're measuring the wrong thing!

The train will run whether you board it or not, so it has a large fixed consumption of fuel. If you board it, will consume a little bit more fuel. it is this MARGINAL fuel consumption and carbon production which you need to compare with a private car, and I'd estimate it would be around 10 g/pkm from the figures in the article.

Only when all existing stock is running at full capacity and more and/or longer trains need to be deployed to cater for the extra passengers do you need to measure the carbon footprint of the extra rolling stock.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Expensive, slow, inefficient,and polluting...
Can describe all public transport. Here in Nottingham we have tram that is all of the above, however was sold in as environmentally friend when in fact it just moves the pollution to the power stations and causes standing traffic.
Just go to show that the holy trinity of greenos, government aand celebrity entrepreneurs are talking rubbish.

Lord c, Tingham,

Catch up and electrify the network, for goodness sake! It'd be a lot quieter too.

starling, Lancaster,

It beggars belief that huge sums of money can be pumped into hosting the Olympic Games in a country where the infrastructure has been starved of sensible investment for generations.
This country is excellent at blowing its own trumpet, but bloody useless on detail.
Look at the French. I recall using a TGV in 1984 (yes, 1984!) and arriving, cool and rested after a three and a half hour journey from Paris - the doors opening to the oven of Provence in July. On the way home we were treated to the sweat and guts of British Rail, lumbering up through the Kent countryside and into the dusty arms of London at a snail's pace...the diesel fumes poruing through the windows. In 2007, little has changed for the better; whilst all of France is now served by the clean, green machines which transport our gallic cousins from Toulouse to Lille, it still takes me almost three hours to get fom Dorchester to Waterloo.
What is that phrase..private affluence and public squalor? So apposite in 2007 GB.

John Pownall, Bridport, Dorset

A lot in this article is true, hence why people have been banging their heads against brick walls pleading for more of the network to be electrified not just for the reasons stated above but for faster journey times.

The headline is unfortunate though. It'll be seized by the anti-public transport brigade as orthodox as why they should never use public transport and they can jolly well drive their cars round as much as they please.

Worse still you start to get to the situation we're in at the moment where some commuters are deserting the trains e.g. virgin XC and flying from the north east to the south west instead because it's about the same price or cheaper.

Paul, York, UK

Quote: "a family of three or more would be responsible for at least double the carbon dioxide emissions on many routes when travelling by rail compared with driving in a typical medium-sized car"

Rubbish! The family will be responsible for zero emisssions, because the train is going to run anyway, whereas using the car can only produce more emissions.

And anyone who has used a Virgin Voyager will know how often they are only a third full!

Stuart, South Shields,

Well, duh. The precise environmental cost depends on the details. This is always the case.

The cost argument is the same - I grumble about the cost of train tickets, but if I ran a car instead, I'm pretty sure I'd be seriously out of pocket (being single and living in London). It would just be less shocking to pay £X,000 in one go and watch it depreciate, rather than forking out £20 a time.

One could argue that if companies are running the trains for business travellers (which appears to make perfect sense), the incremental carbon emissions of a family hopping on as well are quite small. Particularly if they are going the opposite way to the commuter traffic and so take advantage of nice empty trains running back for the next load.

Pav, London,

It is true. A smalle engined car is still cheaper to trqavel in even on your own that fget the train.

Example - Coventry to East London in a Peugeot 206 (1150cc)
and back again takes arounf a third to half a tank of petrol. Costing between £15 and £20

Same return journey from cov to london on rail was around £33 last time i travelled, and i know prices have still gone up. i believe to arounf the £35-£36 mark. Even with a young persons railcard which knocks this down to around £25, car is STILL cheaper, especially when considering tube cost get from the train station to home.

Taking into account car sharing, and if there are more than just the driver in the car, theres really is no contest. Even if the M1 is going to be a mess for another year!

Come on rail people! Do the math!

Jen Lines, Mostly London, occaisonally Co, England

Very much a slanted report. Families, perhaps, quiet times of the week, maybe. But the assumed load factors are only 30-40% for trains and 20% for buses. Yet, price apart, what is the chief criticism of public transport? That it's overcrowded. We should surely be more concerned about the rush hours, when most cars carry only one or two people. A very different picture of relative "greenery" would then emerge, even disregarding the scourge of traffic congestion. The London model, of charging the commuting motorist (though preferably by the mile) and using the profits to improve public transport is clearly the right one.

Barry, Wallington, UK

There are hybrid diesel-electric trains. One is used being used with Ntetwork Rail's New Measurement Train.

Michael, Edinburgh, Scotland

It's self evident that trains are inneficient, the huge cost of travelling on them is testament to that fact.

If it weren't for very heavy bulk goods, there'd be a substantial gain in turning the railway lines into roads.

JonB, Glasgow, UK

Where did you get the 131g/pkm figure from for the average UK car? The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders say the average figure for the fleet is still 180g/pkm http://www.smmt.co.uk/ despite the recent growth in small cars and diesels.

John, Manchester,

If emissions were the only problem with mass-car-use then maybe one could argue for more car-travel if trains really are worse. However emissions are but one problem out of many caused by our gross over-use of cars.

Emissions notwithstanding, which is better? 10 people each thundering through a previously quiet village in Land Rovers, or 10 people in a sprinter train unobtrusively passing through the same village on its own right-of-way.

Rail has by far the greatest potential for safe and environmentally sound transport-provision, on pretty much all fronts. Take a look at the extensive electrified system in Switzerland and see how well that works. Unfortunately opportunities to create sustainable transport in Britain have been squandered by 50 years of the dumbest government policy imaginable. There is nothing to be proud of over British transport strategy since WW2, and before long the lunacy will have to be faced up to.

David Bond, Wellington, New Zealand

If emissions were the only problem with mass-car-use then maybe one could argue for more car-travel if trains really are worse. However emissions are but one problem out of many caused by our gross over-use of cars.

Emissions notwithstanding, which is better? 10 people each thundering through a previously quiet village in Land Rovers, or 10 people in a sprinter train unobtrusively passing through the same village on its own right-of-way.

Rail has by far the greatest potential for safe and environmentally sound transport-provision, on pretty much all fronts. Take a look at the extensive electrified system in Switzerland and see how well that works. Unfortunately opportunities to create sustainable transport in Britain have been squandered by 50 years of the dumbest government policy imaginable. There is nothing to be proud of over British transport strategy since WW2, and before long the lunacy will have to be faced up to.

David Bond, Wellington, New Zealand

Before privatisation, there were several large scale electrification projects such as the east coast main line plus Bournemouth to Weymouth and Cambridge to Kings Lyn.

The 7 year franchises that the private companies operate under give them no incentive to think long term or make such substantial investments in the railway.

Luke Nicolaides, London, UK

It would be advisable to remove many rail lines that take only local passenger traffic and resurface them as dedicated coach and bus routes. These would lower pollution, increase capacity, greatly increase reliability, be safer and reduce congestion on the roads.

(With trains, as compared with cars, you should also factor in the CO2 cost of people getting to and from the stations.)

Coach and bus routes should also be very much cheaper for us mug punters. So they aren't going to happen!

Frank Upton, Solihull,

You seem to have missed the key point.
Trains may emit diesel fumes because sections of track are not electrified, but this is irrelevant. The real problem is that they are inefficient and use more energy than an equivalent car journey, whether produced in a train borne diesel engine or in a remote power station it is STILL energy and still involves CO2 production.

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

One of the saddest parts of rail privatisation is the missed oportunities of electrification. Essentially there has been none. As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, we need electric trains. They are more energy efficient (and thus less greenhouse gas producing) and if generation changes to 'green' electricity could become totally sustainable.

As private motoring becomes less practicable, because of congestion, price of oil etc. we need to develop electric public transport, rail, tram and trolleybus.

Gordon Mackley, East Malling, UK

In response to Laura - Virgin aren't responsible for Voyagers - they are leased from Angel Trains, a subsidiary of HSBC. In any case, the Department for Transport pretty much control everything these days now anyway - including most fares, timetables and types of trains used.
Virgin aren't responsible for all the ills in the railway industry - in fact they take much less profit than other train companies with a lower profile. Most people forget that if it wasn't for Virgin Trains there wouldn't be millions more people using the railway than ten years ago.

Dr L, Birmingham,

Conventional rail is potentially a very fuel efficient and low friction form of transport. Many bulk freight trains operate very satisfactorily at up to 60 mph with around 3,300 bhp locomotives hauling over 2,000 tonne trains, that is equivalent to a small hatchback car trying to tow a 44 tonne lorry, so the problem is not with rail itself, it provides a very low friction environment. Recent passenger trains are seriously overweight and there is the capability for lighter construction to combat this - at a cost. The problem is that other governments are much more ready to look at a complete senario whilst ours tries to compartmentalise every decision individually. Make no mistake, under rail franchising arrangements, it is the government that decides what is going to be funded, not the companies. Further electrification would stop many trains having to carry their own mini diesel powered power station!

Keith Simpson, Marske-by-the-Sea,

Tell the learned proffessor to forget the CO2 arguement, you just cannot fit all the cars in! its as simple as that.

john, warwick,

Except, of course, that the speed limits on roads and motorways are becoming so rigorously enforced that we're having to drive slower and slower, away from the 'peak efficiency range' of cars' engines.

Trains are overpriced, over-crowded and over-polluting. Roads are over-crowded, over-polluting and, oh yes, increasingly charging their users so: over-priced.

Commuters are stuck between a rock and a hard place because nobody will let us be flexible and work from home when we want to. And it has to end.

There, that's my personal gripe for the day!

Mark Thomas, Biddulph, Staffs, UK

Why not think about the long distance buses ,if the trains' fare is always high.Maybe a bus have the right capacity for different people but with the same destination.

changtuo, xi'an, China

Why are there no conditions on rail franchises for companies to meet a minimum carbon emissions standard through sensible train design? Similar to those for new housing?
I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that all of the unnecesary and always-on lighting, electric appliance frenzy and unpleasantly high levels of air con on virgin trains detract from what should be the most pleasurable form of transport?
So much from Branson's green credentials - and that of our Government if they don't put such requirements in place...

Laura , London,

Why are we not hearing more about the Maglev type of rail travel. It is electric, much faster and smoother, less maintenance, safer with rapid and safe braking (OK so passengers will have to use seat belts as on an aircraft). If an enclosed tube is used, the potential speeds are in thousands, not hundreds of mph. Electrically powered with the new (we know they have to come so stop prevaricating you Greens) nuclear power stations, non-polluting of the atmosphere, quiet even to some one living alongside the tracks unless the train goes through the sound barrier, so why are we messing around with diesel engines still?

We used to lead the World with our advanced engineering achievements and innovations. The maglev can even replace most of the aircraft used today.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

If only a 1/3rd or less of train seats are occupied on some diesel trains then if you want to cut emissions it makes more sense for those seats to be occupied rather than get people to travel by car. The extra weight of more people in the train is not going to increase the fuel consumption by very much.

and railton, Leicester, UK

The trains are priced to keep you off them, low prices equals overcrowding, high prices equal empty seats. Its just a balancing act.

They make enough profit and this is ploughed back into the infastructure anyway.

Garry, Blyton, Lincolnshire

if train fares keep going up so what happens next more cars go on the road for its cheaper.
i have a family of three and for me to take five people on the train is a thing of the past and its cheaper for me to go by road even though traffic is a nightmare but the crunch is "still cheaper" if rail companies get the stupid heads togethaer and stop whining about profit and think there will be more profit if the train fares were to come down to a level that mums can take there kids on the train for the day while dad works or gran and grandad as they miight have there free bus pass but it still cost an arm and a leg for them to travel. so train companies think logic bring fare doon and then you will have the answer to profit in the long run.

angus , winchburgh, west lothian