EcoWorldly

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

The Sahara desert is a truly vast environment - with sand dunes reaching 180 meters high, scorching temperatures and fierce sand storms it provides a real test for any method of transportation.

So how, does the eco-option for crossing this massive and barren landscape stack up against more modern technologies? This is a question posed regularly at EcoWorldly and I recently had the opportunity to put it to the test during a journey which took me from the ‘Gateway to the Sahara’ in Douz, Southern Tunisia, to Matmata, a desert village of cave dwellings famous for providing the location for Luke Skywalker’s home in the Star Wars movies.

(Note: the author only discovered this fact after arriving - this was not a pilgrimage.)

Our local guides presented us with two options: The camel - trusty ship of the desert, as used for centuries by desert dwellers, and the equally ubiquitous Toyota Land Cruiser 4×4 – the motor vehicle of choice for those needing to travel across challenging terrain.

We gave both modes of transport a thorough workout in an attempt to compare our eco camel against it’s more modern counterpart, making assessments on comfort, emissions, speed, reliability, off-road capability and fuel consumption. The testing process consisted of two days of travel across the desert by camel, camping overnight in the dunes, followed by a further day’s journey in the Land Cruiser.

First Impressions

The Land Cruiser holds no surprises. It’s big, sturdy, and confident.

The camel, on the other hand, is a strange beast. It has a rather delicate air, which belies its toughness and ability to cross large distances and carry heavy loads without food or water. It’s an arrogant animal which on first acquaintance eyes you with a look of utter contempt, before snorting and then taking a much greater interest in the sand beneath it’s feet. It was clear that we would never become friends.

Comfort

Camels are not uncomfortable, and the gentle back-and-forth rocking motion as they plod along is rather calming. The rug tied to the camel by a piece of old rope provides a comfortable saddle. There are a few drawbacks, however. Camels don’t have air-conditioning, do not smell nice, and are able to attract every single fly within a radius of 100 miles. A small towel is essential in order to continually shoo away the flies which constantly swarm around you. A day spent sitting on a camel leaves one desperately in need of a shower – a major downside in a place where water is too scarce a resource to use on trivial luxuries such as washing.

In comparison, the Land Cruiser provides 5 star air-conditioned comfort. Even over the most bone jarring terrain it manages to shield its occupants from discomfort and the harshness of the environment.

Emissions

The Land Cruiser produces 387 grams of Co2 per kilometre, putting it right in the top bracket for vehicle emissions. This option is by no means gentle on the earth.

Alternatively, the camel emits a foul mixture of Co2 and other odorous gasses from it’s mouth, which initially appears to be more toxic than the Land Cruiser’s emissions, but contains significantly fewer greenhouse gases. Some emissions were also detected from the other end of the camel, but were reasonably harmless.

Fuel Consumption

The Land Cruiser uses 14.7 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres when cruising on the highway. This figure is significantly worsened when driving off road, especially on sand.

A camel uses fully sustainable fuel supplies, occasionally munching on pieces of dry, thorny vegetation that can be found from time to time in the desert. As a special treat (presumably for added performance) our camels were topped up with a kilo of dates after breakfast.

Power

Producing 230 horsepower our Land Cruiser was very rapid on flat ground and proved itself to have the muscle to climb even the steepest dunes with ease.

The camel produces 1 camelpower, roughly equivalent to 1 horsepower. In this comparison, the camel represents the tortoise rather than the hare. It’s not fast, but it can carry everything you need and gets you there eventually.

Reliability

Despite the punishing terrain and high temperatures the Land Cruiser didn’t miss a beat. However, it should be noted that mechanical solutions are generally more prone to failure than their biological counterparts.

Our camels got on with the job without fuss, but also without enthusiasm. Slightly alarming was their absence in the morning, having wondered off during the night. This is apparently normal behaviour, but can lead to delayed starts and some anxiety whilst the guide goes to search for them.

All terrain ability

The Land Cruiser can perform apparently gravity defying stunts as it climbs dunes which are seemingly vertical, causing passengers to make full use of the internal hand grabs. Its ruggedness was fully proven as it bounced over boulder strewn dry river beds, and its versatility demonstrated by later cruising down a short paved road section at 100kmh.

Our camels were similarly unfazed by obstacles, giving only a brief snort of disapproval when required to traverse any slight gradient.

Summary

To fully experience the Sahara and its natural environment the camel is the only true option and comes with the plus that it is fully sustainable, if rather smelly. I would certainly recommend this choice, particularly for those keen to minimise the environmental impact of their travels. However, I would have to admit that after two days with a camel one tends to forget about environmental concerns and is more than happy to make the return journey by Land Cruiser.