Guest Speaker: Paul Nieuwenhuis
Dr Paul Nieuwenhuis is co-Director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research (CAIR) at Cardiff University, which he joined in 1990. CAIR studies economic and strategic aspects of the world motor industry. He is a founder member of the ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and... Profile
Discussion - October 2009
Are we doing enough to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to carbon neutral transport systems this century?
29 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Vice President
Transport 2000 Atlantic
said: On 01/10/2009
In short, my answer is a resounding “No!”, at least as far as North America is concerned. I believe Europe is much further ahead than we are here. Neither Canada nor the U.S. have a strategic national transportation plan that coordinates all relevant agencies and modes of travel. Nor is there a strong national effort to coordinate transportation with the land development which it inevitably shapes.
This is partly due to federal government structures where individual provinces or states have different yet partially overlapping jurisdictions and, in some cases, widely differing priorities from each other and from the national level. It is also due to unbalanced taxation and hidden subsidies which often favour less environmentally benign modes of travel. Last but not least, it is also due to strongly represented commercial interests which may feel threatened by the prospect of major changes.
In North America, public investments in environmentally sustainable transportation tend to be erratic at best, and leadership in this area often comes from the municipal rather than the national level. The recently elected new U.S. federal government is beginning to change this pattern, but it is being strongly opposed by many and faces an uphill battle. In Canada, even when federal funding is offered for public transport, it is often funnelled to municipalities through provincial governments that may overlook options like rail freight and local transit.
It is often claimed that North Americans will not use public transport because of the “car culture” and the great distances between cities. In the U.S., the car culture is even equated by some to the “American Dream”. These notions are untenable. When good public transport is provided, large numbers of North Americans use it. The American Dream of independence and self-reliance is older than either the airplane or the automobile, and while both have been embraced wholeheartedly by the last generation, in more recent years congestion, unreliability and urban sprawl have tarnished this image. A significant minority would prefer not to be forced to drive everywhere for everything all the time, and nearly a third of Americans regard driving as a chore. For many, true independence would be to enable individuals to travel without being shackled to the costs of car depreciation, insurance, fuel and repairs.
It seems to me that the best solution would be to change policies and taxation regimes at all levels of government to support a fully integrated, multi-modal transportation network that strives to approach the door-to-door convenience of the automobile while avoiding the impacts on air quality, land consumption, public safety and individual health associated with a car-dependent nation. I believe there is no single “magic bullet” but that several major changes need to be made as soon as possible. Here’s my idea of a 7-point program, to help get the discussion rolling….
- separate car ownership from car usage so that anyone can use a car – preferably an electric car – for those trips for which it is best suited, without having to own one
- integrate all modes of public transport through coordinated schedules, single information sources and attractive, shared terminals.
Strategic Director
Environment and Leisure London Borough of Sutton
said: On 01/10/2009
No. In particular, we’re not yet doing enough to encourage people to make smarter, and more sustainable choices, about how they travel.
In London, as it most major cities, the majority of car journeys are very short, and could easily be replaced by walking, cycling, or public transport. In Sutton, we’re in the third year of a groundbreaking initiative, called Smarter Travel Sutton, which enables our residents to make these smarter choices. Our objectives are: to decrease the carbon footprint for car journeys; to reduce congestion and delay; to provide options for cheaper travel; and to encourage healthier forms of transport (primarily, walking and cycling).
Smarter Travel Sutton is a three-year, £5m partnership initiative between the London Borough of Sutton and Transport for London. It is aimed primarily at ‘softer’ options encouraging behavioural change and modal shift; rather than the traditional ‘harder’ options of engineering solutions, charging and taxation. This is in line with Sutton’s wider philosophy about behaviour change. Our focus is primarily on the soft measures of behaviour change – of encouragement and enabling – rather than the harder measures of legislation, enforcement and taxation; based on enabling residents to make smarter choices about the way they live their lives; and the relationship they have with the council. We are deliberately challenging the status quo about the boundary between the responsibility of the citizen and the state. Our politicians like to describe this as Sutton employing “more of the carrot, and less of the stick…”.
Successes for Smarter Travel Sutton to date include:
• a 50% increase in cycling in the borough
• helped by a 17% decrease in cycle theft
• a 13% increase in bus use
• all of our schools – and 16,000 of Sutton’s employees – covered by travel plans (including the council’s own staff)
• 29% of Sutton’s 180,000 residents being aware of the campaign, and understanding its objectives
• And a 2% mode shift from car to other more sustainable forms of transport.
We are confident of further successes as the programme progresses.
Board member
The International Emergency Management Society
said: On 01/10/2009
Part I: My opinion as a European citizen
Let’s split the expression “transport systems” into 2 sectors:
1) passenger’s transport systems
2) goods transport systems
Point 1):
key to success will be productivity, competition, innovation – the car industry is strongly working on solutions to reduce drastically, eventually eliminate carbon emissions. Governments have to assist this “elan” by implementing rewards/bonus schemes to those following the roadmap, on the other hand by imposing taxes/burdens on those not changing. This movement is well in place (with for instance France’s latest carbon tax implementation), the world crisis has probably helped envision this method as a business opportunity to help the car industry to get out of their slump.
Distances between cities will shrink with an healthy development of TGV style trains, then cities should ensure an efficient public transport system. I am also positive and optimistic here, as one can see throughout European cities bike rental systems blooming, bus lanes, etc.
As for flying, our world is mainly split between two giant constructors, and there I am a bit more pessimistic. It will take many years to replace the actual (polluting) planes, I guess passengers numbers will increase over the years, not looking good there for a rapid reduction on carbon emissions.
Point 2):
I read stats, that on our (Euopean) roads, the volume of freight transported by trucks increased by 25% between 2000 and 2006 (source EU: Energy and Transport in figures, attached), while CO2 emissions increased by 7% only. The way we are organised, we will not see a decrease in transportation soon. Here, I guess it will be drastic measures imposed by governments that will force down emissions by lorries. I am not seing railways as a “rapid and smooth” alternative to freight transport (at least considering the volumes of freight involved).
Conclusion:
1) passenger transport, optimistic (except for air industry).
2) freight transport, still a long way to go, change will come through European wide penalising taxes
Part II: My opinion as a professional in critical communication (critical as in “message with important content needing to reach the right counterpart by any means available”)
From my business point of view, carbon emission reduction will come with more efficient traffic management tools. In Mexico (or more precisely Guadalajara), a transport company called CEMEX had huge problems in the 90’s in delivering their cement due to traffic jams in the city. They were losing lots of money daily. They implemented an intelligent system to avoid traffic jams (detailed article on
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/639-the-cemex-story). They reduced the number of trucks on the roads, became more efficient, increased their profits, and actually contributed to reducing traffic jams and carbon emissions. That’s the way we should go.
Other example: my company M-PLIFY developed AlarmTILT (www.alarmtilt.com), a critical alert management solution used normally by first response teams, but also companies and governments in disaster situations. It is also used to optimise organisation within a company, for instance in the transportation sector. An airplane arriving 4 hours late can cost a cargo company a lot of money, as their staff will be on call waiting to load/unload on the tarmac, or sent back home as plane late. With AlarmTILT, the head of department can inform/call out his teams 15 minutes before arrival, saving time, energy, and transport costs by being more precise and efficient.
3rd example: a few months ago I heard on French radio RTL, that Michelin had become greener in producing their tires, because in the old days they would SELL lorry tires to the industry, today they enter LEASING contracts with them. This means when in the old days it was good for Michelin to have tires changed regularly, today they build longer lasting, more robust tires, hence greener.
Last example (I promise): enter a parking lot equipped with accurate “parking sensors” (Brussels airport has them), you’ll save on carbon emissions by gearing the car directly to the right parking space. Same goes with GPS and RDS systems foreseeing traffic jams on motorways.
Professor
Institute of Traffic and Transportation National Chiao Tung University
said: On 01/10/2009
In viewing the governmental action plan, technology maturity, people’s consensus, operator’s support, etc., I think we are not doing enough to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to carbon neutral transportations systems this century.
Project Geoscientist
Nexen Petroleum U.S.A., Inc.
said: On 01/10/2009
Being carbon neutral, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing a measured amount of carbon released with an equivalent amount sequestered or offset. With the definition now laid down, we can attack the question you posed. We, as in, the human race, are working on carbon neutrality in differing amounts. For example, there are only a handful of countries that have pledged to reduce their carbon emissions to zero – to name a few of these countries: Norway, Iceland, the Maldives, and New Zealand. As you can see, these countries are not very large, a very important observation…let me explain: they are the ones with the most likely possibility to actually have the ability to reduce their carbon footprint to zero – the larger the country, the more people there are, and, hence, the larger their carbon footprint.
I think we will be able to use these countries’ approach as a model for future carbon neutrality for larger countries, such as India and China. Firstly, though, it should be mentioned that these countries that will begin this trend must be small and advanced in nature; i.e., they will most likely have to be 1st world countries – this is almost required b/c they need to have had to gone through “growing pains,” if you will, referring to the fact that they must have already had their “industrial revolution.” Since most 2nd and 3rd world countries are just beginning their ascent into becoming more advanced civilizations, they almost have to have a carbon footprint (due to factories, etc. that spew carbon at a massive rate) – to expect these countries to have zero-carbon emissions would be very naive of us. Just as the United States grew in the early 20th century, with factories spewing tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere, so will these 2nd and 3rd world countries – as I stated earlier, it’s almost a requirement.
So, are we indeed doing enough to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to carbon neutral transport systems this century? Very doubtful…it’s very expensive and time-consuming to change the way we do things. We need to have a true paradigm shift, in every sense of the phrase; i.e., we need to change nearly EVERYTHING that we do! This will begin with creating a new infrastructure capable of supporting a truly carbon neutral system. Time will be the true judge of these countries’ capability to become carbon neutral. I think the best thing for us larger countries is to simply sit back and see how things unfold with these smaller countries and their approach to carbon neutrality.
I do believe, however, that over time, things will begin to iron themselves out and we will have a template that ALL COUNTRIES can follow. This may take decades, but the time will come.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/carbon/
http://www.gcbl.org/energy/regional-agenda/climate-change/what-does-it-mean-to-be-carbon-neutral
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 01/10/2009
In answer to your question there is really more than one answer. The european continent is well on the right path with extension of high speed rail across the continent. Even Spain with it’s limited industrial base is “on board”. Now regarding the US, well that’s another story all together.
I think the collapse of the US auto companies were a necessary wake up call to the need for a completely new approach to transportation in the US.
The biggest challenges facing the US are the huge mileage to be covered and the vast expanses of rural sparsely populated regions and states.
Here in Ohio there is FINALLY serious support for the first phases of new higher speed rail transit between population centers.
As we move forward in this century I think it will be more and more clear that we will need to shift to large scale high speed rail and kill off small regional airlines. They are horrible fuel wasters, never make any money and do not serve a more environmentally conscious approach.
I see high speed rail connection major population centers. The rail hubs would be at larger airports for cross country and transoceanic flights.
Light rail in urban centers are also finally proving themselves and more are on the drawing boards.
The US responds when hit in the head with a bat.
Author
Divine Primates: Hope For Our Stressed-Out Species
said: On 01/10/2009
Rapid and smooth” are not terms I’d apply to any of our efforts to transition to more carbon neutral practices. In the US, we struggle with a political culture that still resists government planning efforts on principle (and lobbyist campaign contributions), but the Obama administration has a vision for moving forward. I’m optimistic, but we are not doing enough.
Managing Director
Newmark Knight Frank
said: On 02/10/2009
I have an issue with Carbon Neutrality. Carbon offsetting and sequestration are nice but should not ever be counted towards a carbon producing venture (everything that is not a carbon offsetting or sequestration project falls into this category). Following this, it is not possible to actually achieve a carbon neutral transport system. If it was possible, you could have the most pollution based system and simply purchase offsets without actually improving performance.
With that said, improvement of transportation systems is somewhat of a crapshoot. No one knows what system future transport systems will actually be. Personal cars are highly inefficient from a societal viewpoint. Subways and trains require fixed infrastructure which is both costly and dependent on effective central planning to be located in the right areas. Buses and other flexible mass transit solutions are inconvenient for most users.
The future of transport systems will likely be something that does not currently exist because existing options can only be improved so far from a carbon viewpoint and have very well known limitations and drawbacks. It will be at least 20 years before these systems can be replaced at any sort of scale though.
I again want to emphasize that carbon neutrality is a terrible metric to use for any system evaluation. It can be gamed too easily by people who simply desire to use it as a label regardless of their actual carbon efficiencies – it’s simply a matter of money.
Senior Project Manager
NIRAS
said: On 02/10/2009
Your question “Are we doing enough to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to carbon neutral transport systems this century?” leaves me with a question for you: What is carbon neutrality ? I believe that we will see – in some places – a focus on electrically driven transport systems ie cars, trucks, trains etc – but we will still have hydrocarbon fuels in the system. The question is more how to optimize the efficiency of the existing systems ? It is quite interesting that the car maker VW some years ago introduced the Lupo to the market possible of going up to 30 km/l of gasoline. This actually meant an increase of 200% in comparison to other european cars. I believe that we in a ten year time from now will see an increase in the amount of electrically driven cars; we will focus on how to put the sun, the wind and the waves into the transport sector – this is important. So – things takes time – but we are moving……..
Executive Director
RE Sources for Sustainable Communities
said: On 02/10/2009
In a word: No. We need to be doing more to change transportation mechanisms (i.e., vehicles and transport systems), social systems (e.g., localization, urban renewal, food security, etc.), and behaviors (e.g., expectations, work/life balance, telecommuting, etc.). All of it needs re-examination and retooling to make meaningful change in this arena.
Director
Centro Mario Molina Chile
said: On 02/10/2009
My answer is clear: no.
Today there are two driving forces:
• The introduction, mostly in developed countries, of cleaner vehicles (not carbon neutral) on the market.
• And a high rate of increase of vehicle fleets in developing countries.
In some countries, the government’s efforts to improve public transport systems are not enough to slow down the motorization rates (i.e. Colombia and Chile) where the car fleets, growths more than the economy. It is clear that the number of cars in developing cities will increase and probably will be three fold year 2050.
The astounding new vehicle technologies that we are seeing now a day, are far away from the developing countries markets, where the best seller car models are below US$ 8.000. It seems difficult to have during the next decade a competitive low price plug-in hybrid vehicle; and by the other side, coal, oil and natural gas are playing a role in electricity generation in regions like Latin America.
Probably, I will spend the rest of my life (until 2050 – I hope) seeing how we try to mitigate the impact of the 1,5 billions new cars in developing countries, with a mix of best than ever, internal combustion engine cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, EVs and, possible, fuel cell vehicles. In best case scenario, we can reduce the CO2 emission in a 50% in comparison with a business as usual scenario. This is not a “carbon neutral transport system”, but is not so bad. To reach those results is necessary a strong effort, establishing fuel economy, CO2 standards and incentives, among other actions, in vehicle markets policy in developing countries.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 05/10/2009
The answer to this question is almost inevitably no. However, an apparently simple question hides a complex set of systemic issues. We need to define the systems in debate, identify their scope in terms of carbon neutrality and identify potential for and progress towards sustainable improvement. For example, systems we can consider include; the system for daily commuting to places of work, systems for short and long haul travel for business and leisure, transport for goods and systems for ad hoc personal journeys.
Taking the system for the daily commute, many public transport systems use electrified rail and hydrogen fuelled buses, both of which can use electricity supplied from renewable sources. However, both also require considerable inputs of materials and services that are more difficult to make carbon neutral (rather than using carbon offset). The battle to improve sustainability is hampered by the need to continually increase capacity and through inefficient use resulting from ‘rush hour’ travel patterns. A systemic approach would include steps to even out traffic flows but most importantly to reduce demand to sustainable levels. Changing patterns of work to include flexible hours and working from home could help achieve this. The UK seems to view nationwide high speed broadband as an objective to be delivered using free market forces and for the provision of entertainment services. New ICT infrastructure and communications applications could deliver a range of public services to the home so reducing pressure on transport infrastructure e.g. healthcare, education and working from home capabilities. Strategic government policies to transfer some expenditure from face to face to online services would inspire suppliers to develop the necessary infrastructure and applications. Prioritising traffic for these over non public service traffic would ensure infrastructure isn’t swamped by free or wasteful traffic.
Short and long-haul travel systems require a holistic analysis that ‘parks’ some of the emotion and rhetoric about the virtues of air versus rail etc. Assuming that we are where we are with infrastructure deployed so far, we need to be clear about the relative environmental impacts of transport options in terms of maintaining existing infrastructure, implementing new systems and effects of use of each. Trains may be more efficient in use but not if the laying of tracks and building of stations is accounted for. It may be easier to cancel empty flights than empty trains. Removing the vested interests may show that a well run mix of systems with requisite ‘polluter pays’ polices and impact reduction targets is better than a switch to one option or another. Some countries forbid the sale of products at below cost price. Perhaps it should be forbidden to provide travel services at less than cost price unless a predetermined social benefit is delivered?
Systems for transport of goods require a different approach in that requirements are more varied. Questions that should be asked include;
• is home delivery preferable to personal shopping travel?
• could core rail freight networks between strategically placed hubs reduce the effects of road haulage?
• could low flying dirigible freighters be a viable alternative to rail (never discount a wacky idea)?
• can bulk materials be sourced, recycled and disposed of locally e.g. could used glass be locally processed as a building aggregate rather than ship old bottles, sand and gravel around our roads?
It is likely that some human activities cannot be made truly carbon neutral. So, some may have to be mitigated by real carbon offset. Consequently, we shouldn’t waste carbon offset initiatives on less critical activities.
In summary, I say; move less, move more efficiently, think openly and work within a genuinely strategic framework of objectives and policies.
Associate Professor - Department of Economics
University of New Brunswick
said: On 12/10/2009
Our world in general and transportation in particular is still 90% petroleum driven. There are some fundamental reasons for that:
- Economic: current system of economic incentives and disincentives favours utilization of conventional hydrocarbons;
- Technological: in the short-run, it is impossible to make our vehicles completely free of hydrocarbons;
- Managerial: conventional energy producing companies have huge resources to lobby against alternative, carbon neutral fuels;
- Political: existing geopolitical and political goals of current administrations in majority of the world countries, both developed and developing, are associated with extraction and utilization of hydrocarbons;
- Social: people in the world have not developed their preferences towards carbon neutral transport systems yet.
Therefore, in order to speed up the transition to carbon neutral transport systems we need:
- introduce a system of economic incentives for utilization of carbon neutral transport systems;
- promote technological progress in the field of non-petroleum driven engines in the short run and carbon neutral engines in the long run;
- educate people in terms of the role of transport in climate change;
- change attitude of the world leaders towards utilization of hydrocarbons.
Actually, what we need is a sustainable transportation system with equal access of all modes of transportation including walking and cycling, with environmentally friendly fuels and engines, and the one that is build on principles of economic efficiency rather than political considerations. Are we doing enough currently to achieve that? Definitely not. In my opinion, sustainable transportation should become our ultimate goal in this century since it can address economic, social and environmental aspects discussed above simultaneously.
President
FinAEnviro
said: On 12/10/2009
Yes, of course we are ! “.
If you had asked the same question last year, I would have been slightly less positive. However, as one could see at the Frankfurt car show last month, car manufacturers are now seriously moving towards electric cars, with Renault, Nissan and other top 10 confirming or announcing plans to mass-produce them. This in turns brings several comments :
- car manufacturers might not be the best placed to produce electric cars. That is probably one of the reasons newcomer Tesla got so much US government funding, compared to the Detroit Big Three ;
- electric cars are as “clean” as the power stations recharging them. So distributed, renewable energy has to go hand in hand with this effort ;
- cars have developed so much because of many reasons (car price falls, cheap oil, urban planning, social status, safety, etc.). In many towns -where half of the world population lives- they should not make sense if cycle lanes were more developed, urban planning insisted on higher building density (with more green spaces shared) and public transport contributions by developers, safety concerns were lower etc.
- cars are only one mode of transport : along with “clean” cars, we need clean trucks & vans, clean trains, clean boats and clean planes… and also people who will chose to walk, cycle, or stay where they are and teleconference ! So changing attitudes (Yes we can…) is also paramount.
Talking about “clean” planes, several possibilities have been examined &/or tested over the last half dozen years : the cryoplane burning hydrogen (EADS study), electric plane with fuel cell (Boeing), biofuels (so many tests in course already), not forgetting the various solar planes (Piccard being most famous). What was interesting a couple of years ago was that, from denial in early ’00s (“we are only a small problem, leave us alone”), this, the fastest growing transport sector, changed its tack and its chief Mr. Bisignani set the objective “to achieve carbon neutral growth in the medium term and to build a plane that produces no emissions within 50 years.”
So, a carbon neutral transport systems this century? If we can survive the transitions, yes. And I would say the positive emerging trends are going to accelerate, also because the alternative is unpalatable. One never does enough, but to me it is starting to look rather promising.
In 1999, I bought some Ballard shares because the Daimler CEO had said we would have fuel cell cars by 2004. It did not happen, of course, and I still have not changed my 1996 car : I am hopeful I might get those electric wheels soon enough now…
Projects Manager
The Centre for Transport Research Aberdeen University
said: On 12/10/2009
The main challenges facing our ability to ensure a rapid and smooth transition are, 1) a real understanding of the total transport demands faced by society and 2) an acceptance that everyone has to be prepared to change the way they travel and provided services. It is essential to maximise the use of our limited resources to meet demands in the most effective manner. This is not an easy process. Clear dynamic leadership is required from all sectors. There has to be a willingness to work together to understand the problems and opportunities. This will require joint working between Research Centres’ Universities, Industry, Operators and Authorities. Education and training is also required for all sectors of society to enable understanding of alternatives to car use. This may require an international “language” to cover information relating to services and how to use them. The continued development of multi modal journey planning systems is critical. However, the ability to access and use these to their full potential cannot be overstated as to date this aspect has largely been overlooked. Nor can it be assumed that people know how to use the full range of alternatives to the car. Change is never easy. We have to successfully sell the vision on how the world will function in the future to meet our demands in a sustainable manner. We are all part of the problem but more importantly also part of the solution. Technologies alone will not save the planet.
Doctoral Program
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney
said: On 12/10/2009
Transport is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Australia, transport is the third largest GHG producer, followed by stationary energy and agriculture. In 2007, 78.8 Mt CO2-e (i.e., million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) or 14.6 percent of national net emissions were produced by transport, and emissions from the transport sector jumped by 26.9 percent relative to the level in 1990 or a growth rate of 1.5 percent per annum over the 1990-2007 period (the second fastest growth after the energy sector, i.e., 2.0 percent per annum) (Department of Climate Change 2009).
In 2007, 53.2 percent of transport emissions were contributed by passenger cars, i.e., 41.9 Mt CO2-e (19 percent higher than in 1990). Meanwhile 26.6 Mt CO2-e emissions were produced by other road transport (mainly light commercial vehicles (LCVs), trucks and buses), followed by civil aviation (5.3 Mt), domestic shipping (2.9 Mt), and railways (1.9 Mt). Road transport is the main source of Australian transport CO2 emissions, in particular passenger cars. The reliance on passenger cars is very strong in Australia; car travel accounts for over 85 percent of Australian-wide metropolitan travel in passenger kilometres per cent by car, 10 percent by public transport, and the rest by cycling or walking, according the estimates of Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE). Hence, the key challenger is to reduce GHG emissions from passengers in a cost-effective manner (Hensher 2008).
There are two main categories of instruments aimed at reducing fuel consumption and emissions, namely technological advancement and pricing (or taxing) regimes. The improvement in fuel efficiency is a typical example of the former strategy. The first compulsory regulation of road vehicle fuel efficiency or fuel economy is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard introduced by the United States in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The system works such that if a manufacturer fails to meet the CAFE standards, a penalty is applied. The CAFE standards have contributed to the reduction in fuel consumption as well as emissions over the past three decades. In addition to America, other regions have also implemented vehicle fuel economy standards, such as Japan and the European Union. However, Australia has not yet embraced a compulsory rule to regulate car manufacturers in terms of improvements in car fuel efficiency. In the absence of a regulation on fuel efficiency, the average car fuel efficiency slightly improved from 11.8 to 11.5 litres per 100 kilometres between 1998 and 2007 (ABS 2001; ABS 2008). Clean or cleaner fuel is another approach to reduce carbon emissions. However, the Australian vehicle fleet highly relies on traditional fossil fuels, where 93.2 percent of cars use petrol as the primary source of combustion in Australia (ABS 2009).
With respect to environmentally related taxes levied on cars, Australia has excise taxes on fuel (e.g., AU$0.38 per litre on unleaded petrol; AU$0.40 per litre on diesel, etc.), registration fees, and stamp duties. These charges can be classified as fuel related taxes (i.e., excise taxes) and car related taxes such as luxury car tax, registration fees and stamp duties. However, these policies have a common disadvantage. That is, a lack of direct connection with emission abatement, unlike a carbon tax or congestion charge.
To date, nowhere in Australia has the decision been made to implement a congestion charging scheme or carbon taxing, even though the environmental effectiveness of a congestion charge could be significant. For example, Denmark introduced a carbon tax in 1992, and its total CO2 emissions decreased by 5.7 percent from 1990 to 2005 (EEA 2007). In the London charging zone (London introduced its cordon toll scheme in 2003), CO2 reduced by 16 percent compared with the 2002 level (Transport for London 2007).
Australia has one of the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world. Researchers at Yale and Columbia universities also ranked Australia as one of the world’s worst performing nations in addressing climate change (SMH 2008). Recently, Australia has suffered severe climate change impacts (such as the worst drought and the worst dust storm). Indeed, more effective environmental instruments must be urgently implemented to fight against those negative impacts and ensure the sustainable development. The government has already made the response, such as investing in new technology (e.g., the production of Hybrid Camry which will go on sale in February 2010) and the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (an emission trading scheme to be introduced by 2011).
Using TRESIS (an integrated transport, land use and environmental strategy impact simulation program developed by the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies), we also investigated the potential impact of a number of policy instruments which have not yet been implemented in Australia (suppose to be implemented in 2011 up to 2018 and in the Sydney metropolitan area). For example, a 50c/kg carbon tax would lead to a 5.9 percent decrease in total CO2 emissions from cars by 2018 and a 5c/km variable user charge would deliver a reduction in CO2 being 2.95 percent. However, these policies would also stimulate public transport. The improvement in public transport (e.g., bus and rain) is needed before hand.
References
ABS (2000) Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, Oct. 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government.
ABS (2001) Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, Oct. 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government.
ABS (2008) Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 31 October 2007, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government.
Department of Climate Change (2009) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australian Government, Commonwealth of Australia.
EEA (2007) Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2005 and inventory report 2007, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Hensher, D. A. (2008) Climate Change, Enhanced Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Passenger Transport – What can we do to make a difference? Transportation Research Part D, 13, 95-111.
SMH (2008) Australia among worst climate offenders, Sydney Morning Herald, January 24, 2008.
Transport for London (2007) Impacts Monitoring: Fifth Annual Report, London Government.
Director
National Center for Transportation Studies
said: On 12/10/2009
No, we are not doing enough to ensure an aggressive and effective transition to a carbon neutral transport system at present. I believe this is due to variety of obstacles including those that government and industries (including transport groups) themselves create to protect interests that would be significantly affected should there be aggressive efforts towards attaining carbon neutral transport. Public transport alone in developing countries present tremendous challenges with both conventional and informal transport contributing much to the deterioration of air quality. Paratransit systems like jitneys and motorcycle powered 3-wheelers are often the dominant form of public transport and have the largest share in person trips – thereby, making cities dependent on these systems as mass transit like buses and rail remain unviable. The term carbon neutral itself is not understood by many and requires social marketing strategies for stakeholders to appreciate its co-benefits in contrast with the related costs.
Acting Manager
Air and Noise Washington State Department of Transportation
said: On 13/10/2009
While I don’t suppose we’ll ever be “doing enough” to achieve carbon neutrality, I’m encouraged by the sea change in environmental awareness and political action that has swept the United States in the past 2-3 years. For those of us working the environmental arena, the change is palpable through new regulation and policy updates. However, perhaps more telling is the shift in awareness by the general public as evidenced by the presence of environmentalism in the popular media, the success of the hybrid/higher fuel economy vehicle sales in a slumped economy, and passage of new regulations at the state and federal levels for reducing GHG emissions.
The prevailing metaphor to describe the focus of a shift towards a carbon neutral transport system is the four-legged stool composed of more efficient vehicles, lower-carbon fuels, reduced VMT, and improved vehicle/system operations. Recently in the US, improvements to all four legs have been seen that highlight a shift towards more efficient transport systems. For example, new federal vehicle fuel economy standards, improved understanding the costs and benefits of lower-carbon fuels, state actions and federal grant monies to reduce VMT through land use planning and improving public transportation, and increasing acceptance of tolling and other congestion management. Therefore, despite some remaining, and daunting, challenges to achieving a carbon neutral transport system, I remain optimistic that the collective “we” across the world will ensure such a transition occurs this century.
Senior Consultant
Asset Management & Sustainability Assessment
said: On 15/10/2009
In the face of climate change, communities throughout the world aspire to carbon neutral transport. However the current pace of change does not match the timeframe needed to lower the risk of climate change impacts. With the world’s population becoming increasingly urbanised the question of urban transport in cities is paramount to the question. A recent world bank symposium in Marseille saw a wide range of researchers and government agencies raise the need for urgent city level responses to take shape. Transport systems are an integral part of the city fabric and must be considered together with the urban structure and energy supply systems when being tailored to each city. Important first steps are to enable each city’s own communities and the city level agencies to together assess the system scenarios for effectiveness, make the appropriate choice and set in process a transparent approach of delivering what is intended. The ingredients are there. City level governments and their communities are increasingly wishing to cooperate. Transport technologies are increasingly developing the required characteristics. The remaining need is the framework and assessment methodologies to enable the steps to happen. Putting all of these together will provide the best hope for transport systems that are effective in going carbon neutral and able to cope with the climate change impacts that we are likely to risk due to our current pace of transition.
Professor of Sustainability
Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute
said: On 15/10/2009
Of course we are not doing enough on carbon neutral transport, but the last few years at least has shown us what we can now do…. The rapid expansion of greenhouse gases in the transport area at the same time the world is finding ways of decoupling fossil fuels from all other areas of the economy has now left us with a real need to respond to transport. Here are what I believe are the growing trends that can enable us to make carbon neutral transport systems, based on my new book ‘Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change’.
1. No more urban freeways and reclaiming those we have. All around the world urban freeways have finally been seen as the failed technology that they are. All they have done is enable highly dispersed development to occur, they have not saved time. And of course they are now part of the problem. As car use begins to drop many of these freeways need to be reclaimed for fast rail services and at stations transit oriented developments (TODs) can begin to reclaim the urban space.
2. Renewing public transport and making it electric and renewable. Transit is rapidly growing again and as it doubles and triples in car dependent cities there will be exponentially related decreases in car use. This will be helped by carbon pricing and oil price increases but will only really happen if the investment in fast electric rail is made down each major corridor. Perth’s new Southern Suburbs Railway is carrying 55,000 a day compared to the 14,000 on the buses because of its speed. It is part of a renewed rail system that has gone from 7 million passengers a year to 115 million a year in a 17 year turnaround.
3. Building walkable centres that are the focus of green technology. TODs around rail stations should be the main focus of development as it creates options for people to live with one less car thus saving 20% of household income and 50% less transport fuel according to the Center for TOD. These need to be designed for walking and biking to make the most of them and all the latest in green building design.
4. Making 100% renewable cities with plug-in EVs and smart grids. With the city restructured for less car use we will still need to have cars and the best way of creating carbon neutral cities is plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) as they not only can use renewably-based power themselves but through their battery storage and with smart grids the whole electricity system can be facilitated to take renewables.
5. Creating renewable natural gas for freight, industry and regional transport. Larger vehicles and those that travel beyond the city into regions can best use natural gas to replace diesel as this is a simple technological change. But as natural gas has to be phased out too we should see this as a transition to renewable natural gas from CO2 that is converted back to CH4 through solar power; this technology is looking feasible and the big appeal is that present natural gas infrastructure can be given a longer life as part of a carbon neutral future. Process industries can go through the same transition.
6. Facilitating biofuels for agriculture. The reduction in food miles and greater use of food production in cities will all assist in the agricultural system around cities. However the carbon neutral fuel of choice to agriculture is likely to be ‘growing their own’ biofuels, especially from cellulose and algae.
7. Replacing air travel with telepresence, fast trains, airships… The big problem for carbon neutral transport is air travel. There will be reduced long distance travel, increased use of telepresence for meetings including family events, fast electric trains as in Europe and airships that use a tenth of the fuel (they are a lot slower but can carry big loads) and can use many renewably-derived fuels. But aviation fuel remains hard to replace.
Researcher
Institute of Transport and Logistics - The University of Sydney
said: On 15/10/2009
A key condition for achieving carbon-neutral transport systems is a fundamental shift in both our motivation for travelling and the means we consider for the trips we choose to take. I am not confident that we are doing enough to ensure that this shift takes place in this century, and hence my answer to the question is no.
If carbon-neutral transport systems are feasible by the end of the century, the choices made by participants in these systems would need to reflect a developed understanding of the impacts that each choice has beyond one’s own immediate well-being. This applies both to everyday decisions such as how to travel to work, and to fundamental lifestyle choices such as where to live, where to locate firms, whether to encourage or participate in telecommuting programs, how we choose to spend our free time, and how one’s children should travel to and from school. Within a carbon-neutral transport system, participants’ reference point for whether a trip or series of trips is worthwhile would need to be one that accounts for the impacts of travel on the environment rather than simply one’s own benefit. Whether policy or an evolution of social attitudes enable us to shift to that point, it does not appear to me that we are currently on a path to reach that point by the end of the century.
Integrating environmentally-responsible travel demands with carbon-neutral means of satisfying these demands is an immense task. Continuing with technological advances within our current set of travel alternatives will most likely not achieve this integration. That is, the current focus on developing technologies that keep people in their cars whilst feeling better about the level of emissions resulting from their travel is not a sufficient solution to the problem, barring carbon-neutral means of building, distributing, powering, maintaining and disposing of cars and building and maintaining road infrastructure. To achieve carbon-neutral transport systems, we will need to move beyond simply tinkering at the margin, toward creating essential changes in the set of travel alternatives available and how we view these alternatives.
For example, many transport systems I have participated in treat pedestrians and cyclists as nuisances that get in the way of car travel; this only constrains demand for walking and cycling and encourages greater mode share for cars. We are not going to observe substantial increases in mode share for walking and cycling by making minor improvements to infrastructure whilst continuing to relegate pedestrians and cyclists to the role of pests within transport systems. Conversely, if networks are built that encourage walking and cycling (at least in some strategic areas), and policies are established to support these modes, we could observe meaningful changes in how people consider their alternatives of walking or cycling. Similarly, it will be difficult to improve public transport patronage in areas where the role of public transport providers is limited to treating potential riders as exceptions to a norm of private vehicle travel. Elevating public transport alternatives (again, at least in some strategic areas) to a level where they compete favourably with cars may be the only way we could reasonably expect people to consider public transport as a desirable means of facilitating activities that are either currently reached by car or not undertaken at all.
One particularly important area relating to behavioural shifts involves the movement of goods. To progress toward carbon-neutral transport systems, it may be necessary to make considerable changes in how distribution networks are shaped and utilised. Moving consignments of inputs and outputs along supply chains can be quite energy intensive (especially when considering total carbon costs including road maintenance). Network structures with features such as global sourcing of inputs, locating freight origins away from destinations within urban regions and a reliance on highly-responsive road freight may need to be re-shaped under revised management philosophies if we are to observe a trend toward carbon-neutral impacts of freight transport. This must be balanced against costs of lower productivity and responsiveness that could arise from changes in the level-of-service offered by freight transport systems under such re-shaping.
At the end of the day, this is only one dimension of the obstacles facing us in the development of carbon-neutral transport systems, but it is an important one. Developing suitable technologies to support a move to carbon-neutral transport systems is clearly a critical goal in itself. Not only will we need considerable advances toward carbon-neutral energy supply and more energy-efficient means of carrying out related activities such as infrastructure provision and maintenance, but we will also need to develop suitable technologies for providing useful information to participants to make informed travel choices that support sustainability goals.
Underlying all of this is an urgent and continuing need for public and private policy will and vision to promote sufficient progress in each of these areas. We will need stakeholders within government, industry and the community to identify intelligent strategies that we can support in the long road toward carbon-neutral transport systems. Fortunately, in contrast to the current, inadequate state of progress toward carbon-neutral transport systems, there are passionate people that acknowledge the social and economic costs of failing to capitalise on the advances that could be made toward this goal. This single point, highlighted by the insightful comments of others in this forum, leave me with confidence that we can indeed achieve critical reductions in the environmental impacts of transport.
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 15/10/2009
One thing that concerns me about the debates and policies on carbon neutrality globally is that so many are focusing on the carbon neutrality of one activity of another. This is an unnatural way of looking at this.
What do I say unnatural? If you look at natural systems the carbon cycles do not happen in just one activity, let’s say tree growing. The carbon cycles cut across many natural activities. For millennia these carbon cycles have been mostly in “fluctuating equilibriums” within certain boundaries. We have had global warming before when the carbon cycles lead to higher amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. We have had ice ages when the carbon levels have diminished.
Other non-carbon cycles and the natural carbon cycles have tended to bring the global climate back into somewhat “normal” “fluctuating equilibriums”. The natural carbon cycles have often been more than vaguely harmonic and rely on many activities and geographic areas to make the cycles work. Surely these natural carbon cycles are complex. There are maybe more complex than what is possible for humans to try to even incrementally and partially replicate.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the massive increases in the use of fossil fuels since that time, and especially in the 20th century, we have seen a change in these natural fluctuations. Instead of a sine wave or the like we see a hockey stick. The carbon sinks are not taking up enough carbon production to restart something of a cycle. Or at least that is the way things seem now. Where this will lead can lead to some rather complex discussions and worries.
However, the future is hard to predict and there may be lots of “black swan” events out there that could make the hockey stick turn into something else. I don’t think any of us really knows where all of this might lead, most particularly if either we do nothing, or if we do the wrong things. Sometimes good intentions can lead to rather awful results.
So, first off, thinking of just transportation carbon neutrality is insufficient and actually a potentially dangerous non sequitor.
But let us for now focus on transportation and the attempts to make it less carbon producing. Are we moving ahead smoothly? No. Are we even moving ahead? It seems to be very in a very slow, timid, and uneven manner.
In the US, even after decades of knowing better, we still have 99% of our transport based on oil. We also have the grand majority of our electricity being produced by hydrocarbons, with 52% being produced by coal, one of the worst carbon emitters.
Worldwide the largest industrial sources of carbon emissions are electricity production with transport not far behind. Overall hydrocarbons are the biggest source, by far, of greenhouse gases, whether they are used for transport or for electricity. Energy-related CO2 production is well over 85% of all CO2 production worldwide. The largest amount of this is from electricity production.
Are we moving to using less carbon in transportation per passenger and ton mile? The answer is yes, but only in baby steps worldwide. We need to move in bold and larger steps, but also steps with careful thought and long term thinking directing them.
China is putting a lot of effort into greater energy efficiency technologies, and is developing new ideas in transport that may reduce carbon emissions from that sector below what they would otherwise have been. But the demand for autos in China is still booming. China is also building dirty coal power stations at a faster rate than any other country on earth. It is also using high sulfur coal. So, possibly, unless there are big changes in the way they produce electricity any changes in transport technology would be fairly moot.
The US is way behind in its miles per gallon standards, and even further behind in its production of energy and environment efficient vehicles compared to the EU, Australia, China, Japan, and South Korea. The US is the largest consumer of refined oil products for transport, by far, in the world, and the slowest to get to more efficient transport technologies and the slowest in moving toward alternative transport fuels. It also has one of the least developed train system of any industrialized country on a per capita basis. Municipal and long distance train systems can be a significant way to reduce carbon production per passenger and ton miles.
There is a lot of talk about electric vehicles in the US and elsewhere. The carbon footprint of these vehicles will be determined by how they are built and eventually recycled, but also by how the electricity is produced. If it is with dirty coal than the whole purpose of the change to electric cars turns out to be rather silly. Even if the US were to focus on natural gas this is still a hydrocarbon and still produces CO2 upon ignition. It produces a lot less than oil-based products and coal, but still produces it. However, movements toward GNG, LPG and the like may help in the future baby steps to a better energy-environment future. Nuclear electricity might be an option, but we have the waste fuel issues to still deal with. There are many other ways to produce electricity that may be less carbon producing. However, the US and others are not exactly moving fast in that direction.
The most important way to reduce CO2 is to be more efficient users of energy.
Take for example your typical gas or coal electric generating plant. About 85 percent of the fuel used is wasted in heat that goes up into the atmosphere at the plant, losses on transmission lines and other losses. If you are going to follow these losses to the typical electric light bulb used in the US then about 97 percent of all fuel used to produce the electricity to make that light bulb work goes up in heat and other losses. The typical light bulb produces more heat than light.
Similar things could be said for the typical transport vehicle. These are massively wasteful, built on the concept of the heavier is better and safer, and environmentally not a smart way of doing things. Light-weighting of transport vehicles, greater movement toward trains (and building more extensive and smarter train systems), and reconfiguring the energy equations in transport vehicles to use the heat and friction wasted toward usable energy could go a large distance toward solving some of our energy and environment problems.
The greatest potential source of energy is in greater efficiency. Greater efficiency in energy use leads to less environmental degradation per unit of end-use services and goods. In plain English that means if we use the energy smarter we also help the environment and may reduce some of the global climate change that so many scientists expect to occur.
Huge amounts of energy are wasted in residential and commercial buildings worldwide, and in many of the other activities we are involved with that produce CO2. But the biggest sources of the waste, and hence the biggest sources of the solutions to the energy-environment problems we face can be found in the production of electricity and in the way we transport people and things.
We don’t need to even change the fuels and the engines at first. We can make the transport vehicles more aerodynamic and lighter. Heavier is not necessarily safer. Actually with carbon fibers, a much lighter material, we could have safer, lighter and more energy and environmentally efficient transport vehicles, including aircraft and ships, not just cars and trucks.
It would be even better to start making more efficient cars to bring the break energy to the batteries, or by even turning the roadways into spring and other powered energy systems. New propulsion methods are already out there, but have been slow to diffuse. Better driving behaviors are known and are being developed, but they are very slow to diffuse into the public realm.
There are 1,000s of ways to improve the way we transport things that could save a lot of money, make a lot of money for investors, reduce CO2 and other pollutants, reduce the reliance on foreign oil and gas for many countries, reduce health costs to energy systems, and even make the highways safer.
The world and the US are caught in the inertia of past ideas. Legacies are holding us all back. It is time for bold change and creative thinking and leadership.
There is a lot at stake, and not just the future environment or the costs of global climate change in many ways. Finding cheaper, safer, more efficient transportation methods, including improving mass transport and train systems of many types, could lead to, possibly, in the medium to long runs another burst of trade and commerce, much like what occurred during the times of the diffusion of the steamship and other new epic transport technologies. But this will take time and trillions of dollars, not the billions that so many governments are so meekly talking about.
If we want to have a transportation revolution and all of the positive economic, environmental, and other benefits that come from it then we need to invest in it, think a lot more about, and lead a lot better toward it.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 15/10/2009
The sense of urgency evident in this question emanates from two scenarios: peak oil and global warming. I am using the word “scenarios” judiciously as the first is bogus and the second relies heavily on computer models. Moreover, it is not clear that our scarce resources are put to the best use in designing and implementing a carbon-neutral transport system “this century”. They may be far better deployed in encouraging and researching carbon sequestration or other cleanup technologies, for instance.
The sciences of ecology and climatology (and meteorology) should not be confused with the hysterical hype and interest-driven fad that is environmentalism. The science is not yet there. We know precious little about the incredibly complex and entangled dynamics of global warming: who stands to benefit from it (yes, there are those, too!) and who to suffer. We know even less about the pernicious impacts that well-intentioned (and highly profitable) technologies such as biofuels and electric engines may have on our environment and natural endowments.
Thus, the first priority should be to invest in scientific studies and to formulate a set of questions and research protocols that are not the poisoned outcomes of political interference, NGO meddling, and mass panic, fomented by a sensation-hungry press and manufactured by compromised scientists. A carbon-neutral transport system sounds like a great idea. But, so did biofuels, DDT, and the Green Revolution.
Founder
Battery Electric Vehicles
said: On 19/10/2009
Certainly not. Carbon neutral transport systems require vehicles to be powered by carbon neutral electricity and, for several applications, by hydrogen.
Electrical Vehicle (EV) technology is ready – although battery technology will keep improving during the coming decades. But widespread commercialization will not happen without state incentives including:
• Charging infrastructure, which is rather inexpensive comparing to any other form of refuelling infrastructure.
• Financial incentives for manufacturers of EVs, batteries and parts, in order to stimulate investments in production capacities.
• Incentives for consumers (such as purchase subsidies, free urban parking and access to bus lanes), until mass production lowers EV price and makes them competitive against fuel vehicles
And the use of hydrogen in transport still requires a lot of research, as well as the development of heavy production, transport, storage and distribution infrastructures.
While some countries, such as China, Japan, India, USA, Norway and France are investing heavily in the development of these vehicles of the future, the European Institutions still haven’t decided which technologies they should promote, putting at risk the whole of the European transport industry.
Director General
CLECAT
said: On 26/10/2009
Transport and logistics are closely connected with our economic growth and, whilst they are one of the key enablers of our modern lifestyle, they show remarkable resistance to external containing measures, be it in the form of charging policies or other instruments aimed at controlling the mobility demand.
Freight transport and logistics have only one master: the customer. The growth in transport has been directly related to the level of service and the spare capacity of the means of transport and all attempts made to divert or shift this natural trend have not been successful. In some cases the result was reached at the price of a decline in the areas where mobility has become difficult. In the end forwarders cannot ensure the transition, if the customer is reluctant to go the same way. In other words what we are trying to say is that greening of transport can be a process that is part of a wider movement towards a more energy efficient and less resource intensive society. Transport or logistics cannot do it alone and, what is more important, they are not best placed to lead the process.
Innovation will be key for greener future transport solutions and freight forwarders and LSP’s also rely on technological innovation as an enabler for better logistics in future. For example the interest to find alternatives to petroleum is vital for the future of our sector and we daresay for society at large. Gradually converting car propulsion to electricity by means of a forward looking continental plan would amount to proportionate savings in transport demand, even abating the EU energy deficiency and the overall emissions, while at the same time bringing additional benefits for our commercial trade balance. Furthermore the existing distribution channels could be gradually upgraded to a more diversified energy offer without great business or employment downsides. This is certainly an area where much work should be done in future, if we want to really change our footprint for the better. Such a more would also help road freight transport, where a shift towards electricity is more difficult, if not impossible, at least in the near future. It is very unlikely that the freight sector can go the same way, probably hybrid solutions will be the best in road freight. If the railways were able to accept more freight and deliver better quality, this would be a great help in containing the surge of freight on the road, but for one reason or another the results we have at this point in time are still not very encouraging.
As regards Clecat, the Sustainable Logistics Advisory Body endorsed today a booklet of simple guidance toward more sustainable and more efficient solutions in logistics which we have assembled and collated from various sources and from our own Members. This will shortly be made available on our website and we hope other stakeholders will take this opportunity to submit their comments and suggestions.
In conclusion: the transport industry is already making huge efforts to decrease emissions and its environmental impact. The results – albeit insufficient – are before everyone’s eyes and cannot be underestimated, unfortunately, freight transport is often seen as the easy target of restrictive measures, which would be unthinkable in passenger transport, despite the obvious larger positive
impact. Freight forwarders and logistics service providers are in most cases doing what they can and they even managed to implement “green” measures that actually allow economic savings besides being environmentally advantageous. However our industry heavily depends on technology innovations and policy incentives to further optimise its production. For this reasons this year’s Freight Forwarding Conference in Brussels on Dec 3rd is entirely devoted to innovation and technology.
Architect
Landscape Architecture in East Sussex
said: On 28/10/2009
It is becoming clearer year by year that not only is the cost of oil certain to continue rising but the reserves on which the economy depends are surely and steadily diminishing. New oil fields will of course help but the best estimates chart a worrying and widening shortfall between supply and demand. Pipelines will not run dry overnight but as China and India claim their fair cut we are all being forced to review our use of oil and how we can manage on less. Much less.
In terms of overall oil consumption transport takes a considerable share. More than this however, oil-based transport and its extensive road infrastructure deeply affects every aspect of our lives. Throughout the 20th century oil has made it possible to travel ever greater distances and, almost unseen, has given us the world we now live in – socially, economically, and culturally. So to the extent that oil-fuelled transport has established the shape of society today I believe it is to transport we should look to find the ‘post-oil society’ of tomorrow. The suggestion offered is simple though it may not appear easy; that we use road speed as a tool for social change, and cut the national maximum road speed to 30mph. Such a drastic change will require phasing in over a number of years, with speed limits decreasing from 50 to 40 to 30mph. Its implementation will probably also require the use of speed limiters fitted to road vehicles, while government will need to set a framework in which the slowing down of road travel is coordinated with an expansion in rail facilities and the restructuring of towns and cities.
So what might be the implications of such a general and overall ‘slowing down’?
As we go about our daily lives, shopping, working and spending time with our families, a reasonable journey generally takes up to around an hour. While a car journey of an hour currently takes us 50 to 60 miles, if our speed is only 20-30mph the radius of regular activity would be reduced to about 25 miles. In effect a smaller and more localised area in which we live.
Since in travel as in many things time is money, an increase in journey time will increase the price of goods carried over longer distances. Goods and services sourced locally would therefore become relatively cheaper and so would compete favourably with those carried long distance without the need for further price regulation. Food especially is a case in point, and as the transport of food from the other side of the world is no longer viable it will be replaced with goods that are home grown or ‘near grown’. The recent rise in the cost of fuel means cheap transport is already a thing of the past, and is now causing a general rise in food prices. A proper adjustment to diet that truly takes food miles into account is of course the best way forward.
With a smaller travelling radius the trend toward ‘remote working’ via the internet would be extended, and long daily commuting will become the exception rather than the norm. Alongside the growth in wireless networks, increased journey times will see many people needing to live closer to their places of work. As businesses relocate to supply daily and weekly needs within a 25 mile radius, towns and cities will once more develop a more integrated residential and commercial mix, and so stimulate urban re-integration across the country.
There is a logic we currently live under which says that because we can travel great distances, we must travel great distances. Oil is the glue which joins together the dislocated places of our lives such that we currently have no choice but to drive miles to superstores, hospitals, schools and for entertainment. In a ’25 mile environment’ this trend will be reversed and local schools, community hospitals and shopping will return to our blighted small towns. As the reasons why we travel are gradually removed there will simply be less need to travel and less journeys taken.
In so many ways our lives will adapt to fit the local scale and we will take far more interest in ensuring our home areas are pleasant, safe and are suitable to be called ‘home’. We’ll become more aware of people living nearby and a greater level of social cohesion will develop, taking a real step toward a more caring society. Local politics will become much more important as local discussions result in local decisions.
Where 30 years ago corner shops disappeared, in the age of wireless communication they may come to be at the forefront of a new way of commercial interaction. Supported by internet ordering small neighbourhood shops, ‘mini-distribution depots’ at the end of every street, will be the means by which goods move from supplier to consumer. Place an order on-line in the evening and next morning simply walk to the end of the road to pick up your internet shopping in a couple of carrier bags. A network something akin to the Post Office we used to have, with a few vans doing the work of car parks full of private cars.
Across the board however, the transportation of all goods is certain to cost more. Durable goods will need to be designed for a longer lifespan and will be repaired rather than replaced – with clear and real benefit to the environment.
Though ’25 mile radius living’ may appear to be challenging, people are resourceful and society as we know it will not come to an end. Changed for sure, but the life of city, town and country will all remain viable. There are some things we do now and take for granted that will no longer be quite so possible. Regular foreign holidays, green beans from Africa, or travelling 50 miles each way to work, Monday to Friday, sitting in traffic dreaming of moving to the foothills of the Pyrenees. Indeed, much of the slower way of life many seek in rural Spain or Croatia will be found right here at home as the bustle and stress of urban living become a thing of the past and life shifts down a notch to a more manageable pace. A new ‘work-life balance’ means we may all be a little ‘cash poorer’ but so much richer in other ways.
At the national scale railways will provide travel beyond the local environment. They will certainly require a high level of public investment but the money continually being spent on extending the road system, or a new runway for Heathrow would go a long way to providing the funds. We may also envisage a new form of rolling-stock being designed to carry some yet to be developed small vehicles, using trains in a ‘roll-on roll-off’ manner: compact versions of the Channel Tunnel rail link operating on high speed tracks up and down the country.
As for air travel, aviation fuel is already expensive and surcharges on fuel will by themselves bring to an end the age of cheap flights. If environmental taxes are applied the aviation industry is sure to face contraction on a massive scale.
Government has always used laws as a means to encourage and discourage behaviour, whether it be taxation and age restrictions on the sale of cigarettes, or the low to zero taxing of renewable energy. The control of road speed would be one such use of law as an instrument of social change. While many legal discriminations are financial, however the 30mph limit would apply equally to rich and poor alike.
Across the world countless cities are now using reduced speed as a tool in the fight against pollution, traffic gridlock and road casualties, and as an encouragement to use public transport. Ireland has already implemented a 20mph policy in Dublin and is planning to roll this out to other cities across the Republic. It appears however that the policy is not designed as a tool to reduce oil consumption and so speed has not yet been viewed as an instrument for social change.
The big question remaining in all this is just how are we to get around on the roads?
A new national speed limit of 30mph and below will render the private car industry’s fixation with status, speed and glamour rather irrelevant, and the utility value of many vehicles will be cut drastically – as is already happening with larger fuel-hungry cars. Instead manufacturers will design and produce a whole new range of minimal-energy vehicles. These could be in showrooms almost immediately, as cars developed for 30mph are so much more efficient both in terms of cost and environmental impact than a product striving to achieve 60-70mph. People will also choose to walk more, and maybe use other ‘slow-transports’, such as a cycle fitted with a small fuel efficient engine for uphill climbs. Slower forms of road transport in general would overnight become viable: cycling at 15mph is much safer and more realistic prospect amongst vehicles travelling at 25mph as against a death defying 55mph.
A slower travelling speed is not a recipe for the end of civilization as we know it. On the contrary, the rising price of oil is already reshaping our lives whether we like it or not, but setting in place a controlled approach to the inevitable will enable us to move forward at a pace of our own choosing.
It is impossible to guess the future developments to be made in the area of super-efficient or ‘alternative-fuel’ vehicles, but if we insist on them achieving 60mph their cost to the pocket and the environment will leave them quite unsuited as a replacement for today’s vehicles. As already mentioned, the real need is to engineer a shift toward a low oil-use economy and for this there can be no sustainable answer to enable us to continue the transportation patterns of today. We simply need to restructure society to require less movement, while on the plus side, this is also where real social benefits will be found.
The planet is overheating and oil is becoming scarce – two good reasons to think about how we want our future to look. It’s quite simple: if we remain dependent on oil, when oil runs out everything stops. As we see the first signs of the world’s economy shifting from readily available to very expensive oil a strategy in which we accept a partial reduction in the way we travel might actually be a realistic option.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Glenn Lowcock studied architecture and the built environment at the Architectural Association in London and currently works in Landscape Architecture in East Sussex. He is a member of the Secular Franciscan Order.
Chair
Fund for the Environment and Urban Life
said: On 28/10/2009
As long as road-based transport subsidies by government, employers, retailers and others are the norm worldwide, other efforts to reduce transport-based carbon emissions may not meet their goals. Schemes like London’s congestion charge are the exception and, while vital, can never affect more than a small share of vehicle trips or overall commute patterns. What can have broader impact?
An answer comes from car-clogged America where “tax-free transit benefits” are widely used. The idea began in the 1970s when transit operators in some cities devised informal programmes for employers to give monthly passes to employees. The benefit was formally established in 1984 legislation with employers allowed to provide employee fare subsidies up to $15 per month, for any level of use (i.e., not limited to passes), and was a start at offsetting widespread provision of tax-free parking by US employers. Expanded ten times, current legislation allows a monthly maximum of $230, the same as tax-free parking.
Parking is a key to auto use decisions. Tax-free parking is allowed in the US, recognizing how hard it is to establish its value or compliance with regulations. Especially outside central areas, who can say what parking’s real value is, or determine that employees use or don’t use spaces intended for customer or visitor use? Canadian experience confirms these difficulties. While parking is a taxable benefit, Revenue Canada rules stipulate it is taxable only if a specific space is assigned; otherwise there’s no evidence that an employee receives the benefit. To avoid the tax, spaces are simply not assigned. A Revenue Canada official stated fewer than 5% of employees are taxed for parking.
In 1998, an employee-paid option was added to the US legislation, and became very popular. Americans call this pre-tax salary deduction; it’s generally the same as UK salary sacrifice schemes. About 3 million employees now receive transit benefits in the US. In some cities it’s very popular; a 2006 survey by San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit District found 62% of employed peak-period riders receiving transit benefits. All types and sizes of employers in the public, private and non-profit sectors participate.
This success resulted from development of “transit voucher” script that employers purchase and give to employees, which are then redeemed at any pass/ticket sales location. Importantly, vouchers are used for any ticket type: single or multi-ride tickets, weekly or monthly passes, annual travel cards, etc., of any transit operator.
Vouchers worked because in adopting fringe benefits, employers are keenly interested in perks serving most employees, and uninterested in those serving few. As regular, irregular and even infrequent riders use vouchers, they appeal to a many and sometimes virtually all employees for at least some level of use. Equally important is administrative ease; employers purchase one instrument for all employees. That the vouchers don’t expire for over a year is another plus. The vouchers are actually bank cheques; sales outlets redeem them simply by depositing them to banks.
Vouchers appeal especially to smaller employers, who first stimulated broad use of the benefit. Large plans began with vouchers and variations evolved. One mails passes, tickets or vouchers to employee homes, further reducing employer burden. Debit card plans also emerged for use with electronic fare collection. Used with smart cards, “virtual vouchers” are a purely electronic transit benefit service.
Many employers give full subsidy; the US Government does for hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide. “Fare share” plans offer vouchers or passes at 50% off, for example. The more popular employee-paid pre-tax option saves employees 20-35% by avoiding federal and local income tax, plus 8-10% from payroll taxes, which employers also save.
Detailed studies found tax-free public transport yields more increase in public transport use than a normal fare reduction would. This reflects added tangible and intangible support for transit use from employers. Peak period congestion and pollution underscore the public policy merit and justify foregone tax revenue. As an important solution for traffic congestion, it sustains political support.
Reflecting and furthering the success, private businesses began providing transit benefit services, based on small fees happily paid by employers. Transit operators thus have minimal cost and simply gain rides and revenue. The first transit benefit business, Commuter Check Services Corp., was formed in 1990 to provide voucher, at-home and other services nationwide. Commuter Check was purchased in 2006 by Accor Services, a benefits administration specialist serving 34 countries worldwide, including the UK.
Many countries allow transit benefits in different ways; Brazil, France and Hungary have large programmes, for example. Public transport salary sacrifice provisions also exist in Ireland, but have limited use because purchase of annual passes is required. This contrasts with the US’s use of vouchers, entailing no frequency restriction and easier administration. The UK also has public transport salary sacrifice provisions, which recently emerged as a reinterpretation of “works bus” provisions of the 1985 Transport Act. Beyond the annual travel card requirement, participation is further limited to buses. Employers prefer unrestricted plans but the UK scheme has gained some use. For London, as bus service can expand since the congestion charge freed road space, the provisions could help divert some Underground users to buses.
Perhaps the best evidence of the popularity and success of this idea is that ordinances requiring employers to offer pre-tax transit benefits have been adopted by four municipalities in California, including the City of San Francisco, the City of Berkeley, and the San Francisco Airport Authority (effectively the second largest city in Northern California).
Economists speak of “the theory of the second best” which says if one subsidy can’t be removed, it may justify another. Widespread auto subsidies won’t disappear, whether direct like company-paid parking, indirect like road subsidies, or external like congestion and pollution. Road pricing is a “first best solution” but cannot apply widely enough even if political hurdles are overcome. Tax-free public transport enlists business support, avoids public resistance, and focuses incentives where environmental, economic and other auto subsidy impacts are worst. It’s an effective traffic reduction tool for any area served by transit, and a “door opener” with the private sector. It has gained increasing attention worldwide, and deserves more.
Researcher
Institute of Physics Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
said: On 29/10/2009
No, unfortunately! We must wide use biofuels, hydrogen engines, solar sells and electrical engines in transport system. But we have once more problem – aircrafts cocurrent flow; there are more 200 chemical dangerous agents in noxious exhaust gases behind aircrafts. There are tens thousands aircrafts in the sky every day; we have considerable contribution to pollution of surface air. We must use alternative fuel in air engines too.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 01/11/2010
The European Commission and Parliament have done an admirable job tackling the very complex and diverse alternative fuels issues in the transport sector. Different alternatives have been addressed in various directives – liquid biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, electricity, and to a much lesser degree natural gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG). But the policy approach has been disjointed, incremental, and imbalanced, with some ‘fuel favorites’ and some ‘fuels forgotten’ or, if not omitted, relatively ill-addressed. Thus, with the current EU review of sustainable transportation fuels into the future, the time is right for European policy makers to look more holistically and systematically at a single European Alternative Fuels Policy Directive that provides improved balance in supporting the various fuel and technology alternatives. The policy also must recognize which fuels are available today – such as natural gas and LPG – to provide a pathway that lead to tomorrow’s fuels and technologies that today are not economically competitive alternatives.
To be successful, the right policy balance must be employed. Government policies in countries worldwide, including Europe, are littered with examples of failures, mostly due to biases toward one fuel or another. While policy makers’ intentions generally are good – energy security, environmental protection, renewable, and energy efficiency – too often the fuel solutions created and selected to solve problems have instead created problems due to the solutions chosen.
This strikes at the heart of the alternative fuel policy debate: can fuel neutrality be maintained and sustained, or should policy makers select a few ‘winners.’ Alternative fuel stakeholders generally advocate including everyone’s fuel favorites, otherwise they run the risk of exclusion. Policy makers stress the need to develop a limited number of fuel infrastructures and fear that supporting too many fuels might dilute this objective.
Matthias Reute, European Commission Director General for Energy and Transport addressed this dichotomy during his presentation at the Sustainable Transport Policy conference in Brussels on 20 November 2009.
He said to the audience of transportation stakeholders, “Following the current hype a lot of you are supporting electric (vehicles). Three years ago you might have supported biofuels; four years ago maybe hydrogen. We need a strong reflection of alternative modes of transport. Will we say goodbye to the internal combustion engine or to different fuels depending on the modes of transport? Hydrogen or electric in the city; heavy goods vehicles based on biofuels? We need to find answers to these issues and find an answer to the question as to how technology neutral we have to be. The worst thing would be to make the wrong decision. At the same time we need to make sure we get right the mix between market instruments, financial incentives and regulatory instruments. This was the element we did not grapple with as much as we should have.”
Dr. Reute continued, “We need to get the transport policy for the next 10 years right. We need a vision to 2050 and from there look back at what we can do today. We have to look where we have been reacting only incrementally. We must be innovative, imaginative, and courageous, so transport policy makers make policy, not energy ministers, environment ministers or finance ministers.”
The broad focus of an alternative fuels policy must address and embrace three key elements involved in commercializing clean fuels:
• Motivating demand by customers, all of whom are most concerned about economics (cheap fuel, reasonably priced vehicles) and the availability of reliable technology;
• Supporting vehicle manufacturers to build and sell commercially viable alternatives but who, by and large, continue to embrace the status quo liquid fuels;
• Alternative fuel infrastructures, which must be developed simultaneously with the vehicle technology to overcome the ‘chicken and egg’ problem faced by all the alternative fuels. This includes incorporating municipal and agricultural waste management strategies into the renewable fuel supply chain; today with biogas and in future with improved, more energy efficient (and locally produced) bio-liquids.
Fuel neutrality is fundamental since each fuel and technology has its benefits and challenges. But it is critical to recognize which ones, and at what level of market penetration, best fulfill the objectives of sustainability, energy security, and environmental balance while still optimizing mobility for the public. Ultimately, if government policy works as it should, the consumer will determine which of the fuel alternatives find their way in the marketplace and which ones remain in niche markets. A well-balanced, comprehensive European alternative fuels policy will help set the right pathways today that lead us to the desired goals in 2050 and beyond.