This lesson is called Reducing Emissions from Transport and is from the unit Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases.

Hi there, my name's Mrs. McCready, and I'm here to guide you through today's lesson, so thank you very much for joining me today.

In our lesson today, we're going to describe how to travel in ways that reduces the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we are producing, and in our lesson today, we're going to come across a few keywords which are listed up here on the screen for you now.

You may wish to pause the video to make a note of them, but I will introduce them to you as we come across them.

So in our lesson today, we're going to, first of all, talk about efficiency and what reduces efficiency and how we might improve the efficiency of the transport we are using, and then we're going to have a look at infrastructure and how that can be changed to influence how people travel.

So, are you ready to go? I certainly am, so let's get started.

Now, the main purpose of a car is to move people, or objects, from one place to another, and what we want to do is do that as efficiently as possible, because the more efficient a car is, the less energy it needs to make that journey.

So if a car uses 18 kilowatt hours of electricity to drive 100 kilometres, and another car uses 20 kilowatt hours of electricity to drive a hundred kilometres, we can say that the green car using 18 kilowatt hours of electricity is more efficient than the blue car using 20 kilowatt hours of electricity, because it has used less electricity to make the same journey, and that is what we are trying to do.

When we are trying to improve efficiency, we are trying to make sure that we are using as little energy as possible to achieve the very same end.

Now, in reality, what that means is a more efficient petrol car will burn less fuel than a less efficient petrol car will for the same journey, and if a more efficient car burns less fuel, then we will spend less money in order to make the journey, and there will be fewer greenhouse gas emissions from the journey, because less fuel will have been burnt.

So if a very efficient petrol car can travel at 56 miles to the gallon, that's 24 kilometres per litre, then we can say that we have a very efficient car.

It has burnt as little fuel as possible for the journey that has been made.

So the less fuel that is burnt, the fewer greenhouse gases which have been emitted and the cheaper that journey has been to make.

So we want the most efficient vehicles we can possibly get, because they will be cheaper and they will be better for the environment.

So which is the most efficient car? The red one, which travels 15 kilometres using one litre of fuel; the green one, which travels 18 kilometres using one litre of fuel; or the black one, which travels 28 kilometres using two litres of fuel? Which is most efficient? I'll give you five seconds to calculate that.

Okay, so you should have calculated that the most efficient car is the green one, travelling 18 kilometres with one litre of fuel.

The black car travelling 28 kilometres using two litres of fuel is actually only getting 14 kilometres per litre, which is worse than the red car at 15 kilometres per litre, so well done if you calculated that correctly.

Now, if we add extra weight to a car, we will need to use more energy in order to complete the journey, because we have more weight, and therefore we will need more energy to speed the car up with its luggage and to slow it back down again.

So the heavier the car, the more energy is going to be needed to complete the journey.

However, sharing a journey, so having two or more people in the same vehicle, is much more efficient than driving alone, because for every extra person that we are adding the extra weight for, although that requires more effort and therefore more energy to move the car, we aren't adding the car as well.

So the car is having an extra passenger, but we don't also have to move a second car for every extra passenger, and therefore it is more efficient to have more than one person in a car for each journey than it is to have each of those people travelling in their own cars separately.

Now, if we apply that principle and extend it out further, we will see that public transport will therefore be much more efficient than travelling by car on our own or even a fully loaded car, and that's because although a train uses 200 times the amount of energy that a car does to make a journey, it is carrying 900 people.

So it may be using 200 times more fuel, more energy, but its passenger and luggage payload is 900 times more than a car, and therefore it will be much more efficient.

So let's consider this.

A bus that does 10 miles per gallon is more efficient than a car that does 40 miles per gallon.

True or false? So you should have said that that is true, and that is true, because a car might be able to carry up to five people, but a bus can carry more than 70 people, so well done if you were able to reason that out.

So we talked about the amount of luggage or the number of passengers that are being carried by the car, but the way it is driven can also affect its efficiency.

So how fast the car is travelling, firstly, affects its efficiency, and the aerodynamics of the car also affect its efficiency.

So let's consider those separately.

When we're travelling on a motorway, the faster we travel, the less efficient the car is, and you can see that in the graph there that, as the speed increases, the efficiency in miles per gallon reduces.

So at 50 miles an hour, we might get 40 miles per gallon, but by 80 miles an hour, we've got well less than 30 miles per gallon of a typical petrol car.

And driving at 70 miles an hour uses 9% more fuel to travel 100 miles than driving at 60 miles an hour.

Yes, it would take you a little bit longer, but actually, the efficiency of the car itself will mean that less fuel is burnt to travel the distance required.

So driving at a slower speed on the motorway will reduce the amount of money that it costs, it will reduce the amount of pollution that is created, and therefore will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere.

I also said that aerodynamics will change how efficient a car is, and a car with a roof box will use much more fuel for a journey than a car without it, and that's because the roof box attached to the car also needs to push air out of the way, and so the car engine is having to supply the energy to do that, and so the car will be less streamlined, it will have more air to have to cut through, and that is harder and therefore needs more energy.

So if we take the roof box off a car when we don't need it, then the car will be much more streamlined and therefore more efficient.

And you see the same principle being applied to cars that normally travel very, very quickly, like racing cars.

The shape of the body of the car is such that it cuts through the air in as streamlined a way as possible, and that makes it more efficient and allows it to go much faster whilst using less fuel.

So changing the aerodynamics, or the streamlined nature of the car, will change its efficiency, and a roof box will reduce the efficiency of a car, and removing the roof box will improve the efficiency of the car.

So which of these cars is the most efficient? A, a car with a roof box travelling at 60 miles an hour; B, a car with no roof box travelling at 60 miles an hour; C, a car with a roof box travelling at 70 miles an hour; or D, a car with no roof box travelling at 70 miles an hour? I'll give you five seconds to decide.

Okay, so you should have said that the most efficient car is the one with no roof box travelling at 60 miles an hour.

Well done if you did say that.

So what I'd like you to do is to consider each of these statements and decide whether you are sure it is correct, whether you just think it is correct, whether you think it is incorrect, or whether you are sure it is incorrect.

And the statements are: using more efficient transport can reduce greenhouse gas emissions; smaller cars are usually more efficient than bigger, heavier ones; and public transport is always more efficient than using a car.

So pause the video and come back to me when you are ready.

Okay, let's review your work.

So for statement A, using more efficient transport can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that is correct.

For statement B, smaller cars are usually more efficient than bigger, heavier ones, that is also correct.

And for statement C, public transport is always more efficient than using a car, that is incorrect.

Well done if you got all three of those statements correct.

Okay, now let's consider infrastructure and how this can influence the choices that people make over the transport they are using.

So we probably already know that walking and cycling are good for our health.

Plus, they are good for the environment, because they do not require the burning of fossil fuels in order to make them happen.

So walking has the added benefit of not just being good for us, but also good for the planet, and so if we can make short journeys by foot or on bike instead of using our cars, we will reduce the number of greenhouse gas emissions being made and also improve our health.

Now, there is a lot of evidence that backs up this assertion that walking or cycling regularly reduces the risk of getting many diseases, and these are quite a varied list of diseases including cancers, dementia, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

So regular exercise is really good for our health by reducing the impact of these diseases, but regular exercise is also good for reducing the symptoms of depression, and it also helps to improve sleep.

So which of these are common benefits of regularly walking or cycling? Improved health, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved sleep, and improved mental health.

I'll give you five seconds to decide.

Okay, so you should have said that all of these are common benefits of regular walking or cycling.

Well done if you did.

Infrastructure can change the choices that we make about our journeys and influence us to make journeys in certain ways depending on what the infrastructure is.

So infrastructure that encourages more journeys to be made on foot include things like wider pavements, pedestrianised streets, traffic signals that prioritise pedestrians over traffic, and reliable public transport.

So all of these things are types of infrastructure, and they all help to influence how we move around the space.

Now, most of us in the UK do not cycle regularly, and, in part, that's because it's quite common to feel rather unsafe when we're cycling, especially on very busy roads.

So the infrastructure that supports cycling and allows cyclists to feel safe and encourages us to choose that form of transport will help us to cycle more frequently.

Now, in the Netherlands, over half of all the journeys to work which are less than five kilometres in length are made by bike, and the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands includes wide cycle lanes, as you can see in the picture, and this helps people to make the right choices and the better health and environment choices when they're moving around from place to place.

So infrastructure that will encourage more journeys to be made by bicycle will include wider cycle lanes; cycle lanes that are separated from other traffic, which will increase the safety of the cyclists; traffic light signalling that will prioritise bicycles over other road users, and therefore make their journey faster and with fewer stops; and secure bike parking, so that when we get to where we're getting to, we know that we can leave our bike there, and it will definitely be there when we get back again.

So these are all examples of infrastructure that will encourage people to use a bike instead of a car to make that journey.

So which of the following is the best definition of cycling infrastructure? Is it A, the parts from which a bicycle is made; B, a network of cycle paths; or C, a set of facilities and systems that make it easier to cycle safely? I'll give you five seconds to decide.

Okay, so you should have said that the best definition of cycling infrastructure is a set of facilities and systems that make it easier to cycle safely, and this includes a network of cycle paths, but is not just restricted to a network.

Well done if you chose that option.

Now, people often drive to work rather than taking public transport or walking, but this is different depending on where in the country you are.

So people who live in large cities such as London usually take public transport or walk rather than driving to work, and in London, less than 30% of people drive to work.

However, elsewhere in the UK, over 70% of people drive to work, and that is because of the type of infrastructure that people who are not living in a large city like London are surrounded by.

So in large cities such as London, it is often economical to provide frequent buses, trams and underground trains, because there is an enormous number of people wanting to use them, and that means that this really detailed and comprehensive infrastructure makes it much easier for people to move around either on foot or by public transport.

And in fact, because the roads are usually very busy and congested, it's much easier to move around by public transport or on foot than it is to drive, and so people will choose public transport and walking rather than driving in their cars in large cities.

However, out in the suburbs and in rural parts of the UK, for instance, there may not be enough people to make regular and frequent public transport cost effective.

If there aren't very many people using a bus, it then becomes extremely expensive to run it.

But that has a knock-on effect, because that makes it much harder for the people living in those areas to get around without using a car, and so they're forced to use a car whether they like it or not.

And you can see there in that picture of Winnats Pass in Derbyshire how rural some parts of the UK is and how difficult it could be if you were trying to run public transport around parts of the country like that, and therefore why people choose to use their car more in rural parts of the country than they do in built up cities.

So good public transport infrastructure is really important to allow people to choose to travel in ways that make fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

And really interestingly, in some parts of the world, such as in Tallinn in Estonia, there is free public transport, and this encourages people to use the public transport, it's free and easy to use and covers the whole city, and therefore also encourages people not to use their cars, and together, this all helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming, but in a city, they also contribute to pollution that affects how people breathe and how healthy they are, and so reducing the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted in a city is both really important for the Earth, but also for the health of the citizens in that city.

So how does getting around in a large city compare to travelling in rural areas? Are there more frequent buses, emptier roads, less air pollution, or more pedestrian crossings? I'll give you five seconds to decide.

So in a large city, there are more frequent buses and more pedestrian crossings.

Well done if you selected both of those.

So for this task, what I would like you to consider is the infrastructure around your school.

How could it be improved to encourage more pupils to walk or cycle every day? So stop and think, make some suggestions, pause the video and come back to me when you are ready.

Okay, what did you suggest? Well, your answer may have included: covered and secure bicycle parking; lockers to store bike helmets; cycle lanes around the school and to areas where the pupils live; more bus, tram or train routes with stops near the school at the right times of the day; and crossings with traffic lights on busy roads around the school, but perhaps you've come up with some other suggestions as well.

Well done if you've included many or all of those, plus other ideas as well.

That's great job.

So we've reached the end of our lesson today, and I hope you found it interesting.

We've seen how the more efficient a car is, the less energy it needs to make a journey, and cars are usually more efficient if they are lighter in weight, if they are streamlined, and if they don't travel too quickly.

We've also seen how more people sharing a car journey is more efficient than those same people having their own car and doing their own separate journeys.

Public transport is usually more efficient than travelling by car, because more people are using the one vehicle to travel, and because it's more efficient, it causes fewer greenhouse gases to be emitted per person per kilometre.

We have also seen how if we replace shorter car journeys with walking or cycling, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our health, and these journeys are made easier and encouraged by good infrastructure that makes walking and cycling easy and safe.

So I hope you found this lesson interesting.

Thank you very much for joining me today, and I hope to see you again soon.

Bye.

Bloody pigeon.