Recently, I did something I’ve long dreamed of. I took the train across America.

The views were majestic, particularly as we swayed through the West. The Wi-Fi was bad, and the food not much better. But I wanted to do it partly because trains are cleaner than flying.

But when I got back home and crunched the numbers, I discovered something surprising: it would have been less polluting for me to have flown.

As a climate journalist, I often fly to report my articles, but I’ve always worried about the climate cost. Flying in jets that burn a lot of fuel is probably one of the most polluting things we do. By taking a flight to report on a problem, I’m basically making that problem worse by causing tons of planet-warming emissions that are heating up our planet to dangerous extremes.

So when I started to work on a story that would involve spending time with two climate scientists at Stanford University — one who wants to rid the school of fossil fuel funding, the other fully funded by Exxon — I wondered whether I could try something different.

What if I traveled from New York to Stanford by train, a method of transportation that generally has a far smaller climate footprint?

The most direct route was to take the Lake Shore Limited train to Chicago, then the California Zephyr from Chicago to Emeryville, Calif., just outside San Francisco.