Guest Speaker: Oliver Inderwildi
Oliver Inderwildi is an expert in emission control and energy supply, specializing in the transport sector. He is a theoretical chemist who works on the means to reduce greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions without affecting mobility. His interests range from synthesis of alternative fuels to managing resource s... Profile
Discussion - March 2010
As well as seeking alternative fuels, should we be changing our entire transportation culture?
34 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Policy Director
Sustrans
said: On 01/03/2010
As well as seeking alternative fuels, should we be changing our entire transportation culture?
How, and how far, will we travel if we make the changes we need to in order to thrive in a carbon constrained society? For a range of interlocking reasons, the conclusion of this paper is that we will be happier, healthier and more resilient if we change our entire transportation culture to one that fits into a relocalised world. In that world we will travel far less far and fast, overwhelmingly walking, cycling and using public transport.
What are the results of our current travel infrastructure and choices?
The climate change implications of our travel choices are clear. In the UK car use alone accounts for 13% of our total CO2 emissions and the forecast around the world is for transport emissions (even ignoring aviation) to continue increasing. This stands in very stark contrast to the emerging scientific view that targets for safe levels of greenhouse gases must be lower even than becoming carbon neutral – we need to lower existing concentrations of these gases from the atmosphere.
Climate change emissions resulting from actually moving people and goods come overwhelmingly from oil. As well as these, if we examine the entire manufacturing chain for transport, from building and maintaining roads, through to mining raw materials for making cars, and the running of factories and everything else along the supply chain, we find that coal is a another significant contributor to climate change emissions in the sector in addition to oil.
Are there technological solutions?
Dramatically cutting emissions while still continuing to travel as far and as fast as we currently do demands a technological fix. When the International Energy Agency (“Energy Technologies for a Sustainable Future: transport”) reviewed this subject, it concluded that such a fix would have to be one or a mix of:
“… there are only 3 basic approaches to achieving a transport system with very low emissions of greenhouse gases and low reliance on fossil fuels:
… a hydrogen fuel-cell system,
… a purely electric vehicle system, or
… relying on liquid fuels … derived from biomass”
Any system based on one or a mix of these measures would take time to implement, when the need for very significant reductions is urgent. In addition, technical solutions may create new, even worse problems. For example, demand for agrofuels as the substitute for oil based fuels plummeted as it became clear how they compete with food production. In 2006, the first year in which the US turned more of its corn into ethanol than it exported, tortilla prices in Mexico tripled, and food riots followed. Similarly, the switch to agrofuels led to a rush to establish palm plantations for purportedly “climate friendly” palm oil. The result was very significant rainforest destruction, and all that implies for biodiversity, and enormously increased (up to 15 times) overall climate change emissions from the clearing and burning of the forests.
Similarly visions of enormous fleets of “clean” electric or hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cell powered cars raise a range of questions, such as just how much extra energy will be needed to construct the necessary new infrastructure? A truly clean car would require all stages of its life to have been powered by renewable energy from the mining of raw materials, through its manufacture, shipping, sale and disposal, as well as for each and every electric charge used to power it. In an energy constrained world would we really choose to power cars over hospitals and homes?
All of these questions ignore another crucial issue – investment and purchase of all new technologies will inevitably include a front-load of fossil fuels. Do we know whether this could actually just be the final straw which pushes us over the edge of a climate tipping point?
Underpinning it all: energy and money
If we are to build new zero carbon transport infrastructures then we need to be sure that we have sufficient energy and money to do so.
As North Sea oil and gas are rapidly depleted, the UK will move, in about a decade, from importing about 20% of our total energy to about 80%. How will we afford to pay for this? As international fossil-fuel energy supplies become increasingly expensive and scarce and have to be sourced from either currently or potentially hostile geographic and political environments, how will the UK fund a rapidly growing deficit in its energy balance of payments? Until recently the Government argued that it did not matter that the UK economy has lost much of its manufacturing export base that once enabled it to pay its way, as our financial services sector would earn sufficient to balance the nation’s books. Developments in the financial services sector make that look like a particularly unrealistic and, frankly, dangerous position.
Energy literacy
Understanding national energy security issues and taking into account the total embodied energy in any system as well as its running costs is only a first step towards the energy literacy we need to acquire if we’re to make truly informed decisions about our future. We also need to become literate regarding energy returned on energy invested (“EROEI”).
EROEI is a simple equation. If it takes one barrel of oil in energy to produce 100 barrels (because all you need to do is drill a hole in the ground for the oil to gush out), then the EROEI is 100:1. Historically we’ve worked our way through easy to access or high grade supplies first, and, as you would expect, as we move to the less easy and lower grade supplies, the EROEI on fossil fuels is falling. For example, the EROI of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. has decreased from 100:1 in the 1930’s to 30:1 in the 1970’s to roughly 11:1 as of 2000.
This has serious implications, well beyond just understanding that we’ll be using ever increasing amounts of the energy we produce to get more energy, trapping ourselves in a cycle of using more and more energy to produce an ever lower energy surplus. Applying this to the classic peak oil Hubbert curve [http://www.energybulletin.net/primer] yields interesting results:
The Hubbert curve represents the total gross quantity of energy available, and, as it is calculated, there are equal quantities of energy available on the left and right side of the peak. This, however, is only true in a gross sense. The net energy available (i.e. discretionary energy) is less. In other words, declining EROEI means that there will be much less net energy extracted post-peak than pre-peak on the Hubbert curve. … Due to declining EROI, by the time peak production is reached, 73% of the net energy available is already used. netenergy.theoildrum.com
Relocalisation
Around the world, on average people make about 1000 trips (eg from home to work – that’s one trip) per person per year. Travel behaviour research from across Europe, the United States and Australia consistently shows that 10% of people’s car trips are shorter than 1km, 30% are shorter than 3km and 50% are shorter than 5km. This large number of small trips means that, even before relocalisation really starts to take hold, we have the potential to immediately intervene to support more cycling and walking trips – much more quickly than for any technological development and at a fraction of the cost. In fact, even under current conditions about half of the car trips we make could we switched immediately to sustainable modes. http://www.sustrans.org.uk
A transformation moment for transport
There are simple and transformational decisions which we could take. We could decide to invest in local sustainable transport and improve the physical infrastructure of our environments to make walking, cycling and local public transport the obvious, easy and safe choice.
If however, we are to consider technology based solutions, we need to learn to ask ourselves far harder questions than we’ve managed so far, including:
• what is the full energy cost of this transport intervention, including all of the embodied energy in the infrastructure needed as well as that from running the system?
• how long will it take to implement; could carbon reductions be achieved any faster with a different intervention?
• do we, as a society, have enough energy overall to carry through our decision?
• similarly, do we have enough money to carry out our decision?
Applying such an analysis might result in a transformed UK, in which we’ve maximised the use of our existing infrastructure and:
• nearly all urban trips are on foot, by bike or by bio-gas fuelled public transport
• rural trips which can’t be done on foot or by bike are mainly by community owned demand responsive vehicles, again bio-gas fuelled
• longer trips are mainly on an electrified rail network or by coach.
We don’t know whether humanity’s climate change emissions so far have caused a soluble problem or an insoluble predicament. We may already have pumped sufficient carbon into the atmosphere to have triggered feedback loops which will lead us well beyond a 2 degree temperature increase – and even a 2 degree increase could turn out to be far more dangerous than mainstream climate literature predicts.
Accordingly, applying the precautionary principle and minimising unquantified risks, we should be seeking urgently to move to zero carbon travel, which could happen fastest in a relocalised world. Does this mean forgoing the attempt to somehow find a technological fix through which we could continue travelling as far, and as fast, as we want? While that might seem hard to contemplate, we probably don’t have the choice – and in addition, we’d also address the fact that a result of current travel patterns is that we’re rapidly getting less healthy and less, rather than more, happy.
Director
MCRIT SL
said: On 01/03/2010
Sure there are aspects of the transportation habits inherited from the 20th century to be changed, but “changing our entire transport culture” seems not much realistic, and hopefully there will be no need to be overimposed to people if technologic solutions and right regulatory estrategies are adopted, as it seems. It is mostly the transport system who will change first, since it is highly unefficient nowadays, not sustainable, mostly due to the massive use of oil and obsolete market regulations. The increasing importance of environmental awarness makes these changes more likely to happens, but the specific decisions that people and companies have when moving and trading, to send or receive information, goods and resources, or energy, to visit friends, family relatives, customers, are already mostly rational and optimised and are not likely to change dramatically, because “time” (not just money) is the most scarce and valuable resource for human beings, and therefore we always try to use it wisely whenever possible. Under certain natural constrains (10-15% available income, no more that 1 hour in average, most people feel that is travelling “too much”). Cheapest and fastest transportation means allow us to travel far a way, most often, but these overall constraints are not likely to change. If transport services become efficient and sustainable, due to new technologies and better regulations, if prices reflect in the best possible way the total socioeconomic and environmental costs involved in transport, I tend to believe people and companies will self-organisate their activities to make use of the most convenient alternative. Many technological changes ahead (e.g. on-line pricing, on-line traffic information, new emerging hybrid modes like carsharing, electric podcars… ICT like telepresence, etc.) will give more choices to people and companies to make rational choices, of course if the market is well regulated. Different “transport cultures” will likely emerge in the future, I guess, from un-plugged, relatively isolated small and slow communities to always-on, very large and dynamic cosmopolitan metropolis. Both extreme cultures may represent two alterantive equilibrium situations, efficient and sustainable. Which one is better? I am not sure there is only one solution for all human beings, all over their lives
Chief Consultant
Not Disclosed
said: On 01/03/2010
Climate change or no climate change, I believe, the transportation has to change. In essence, our mode of mass transport almost always relies on fossil fuel. This is a finite resource (please note I am not raising a peak-oil suggestion here) and it just isn’t efficient enough.
Conservatively speaking, I think that electricity is the most reliable source of kinetic energy in the near future. How we produce electricity will remain our challenge but in order to minimise the cost impact on the existing infrastructure, electrification is the obvious way. This, as we know is also not such an efficient use of energy as a) around half of electricity generated is lost during transmission and b) in order to electrify the entire global transportation (let’s exclude aviation and shipping for now), the construction of the infrastructure will require far more energy than it saves.
As for air transport, it will depend on fossil fuel a lot longer than land transport will. I think that super fast land based transportation will eventually become fast and cheap enough to replace some of the flights but I think flying will be a key mode of transport for a long while to come. The connection of the continents will remain a formidable barrier for land-based transport.
I don’t necessarily think that Climate Change arguments should be the sole driver for further innovation. It is in human nature to always improve and seek a better solution. During the next decades, I am quite sure that similar oversight would be made and the human race will suffer the consequences of our own innovation. When we have made this commitment to base our livelihood on fossil fuel based energy in early part of the last century, the consequences were not understood and hence the effect we see are inevitable.
I think, technologically, we can already implement a huge number of innovative solutions to power ourselves which are kinder to the environment. One of the biggest obstacles I see is the international borders and the protection of the interest of the nations. Since the unification of Europe, the train transport has achieved remarkable efficiencies in long distance travelling. If I can help it, I will never fly to Paris from London again. Like many, I take the path of the least resistance and train, by far, for me, poses least amount of resistance for this route. During this decision making process, personally, climate change consideration does not come into consideration.
Government policies are major component. As many would argue, so much of the government policies are actually corporate policies, we have to think this with business hat on. Through trial and error, survival of the fittest etc, I am sure, contracts will be written to benefit the parties involved and the project with the most significant backing will pave the way for new ways to move people and goods.
The dependency on fossil fuel is not easily cured. It is so comprehensively sewn into the fabrics of our society and this is the reason why the mode of transportation has not changed much in the last several decades. As with anything else, the demand has to be there first. Is the demand for a faster transport greater than environmentally sound transport? Or is the cost per kilometer the biggest concern?
Managing Director
Newmark Knight Frank
said: On 01/03/2010
It’s not a matter of changing the transportation culture necessarily, it’s a matter of understanding the infrastructure issue facing us.
During the Industrial Revolution, manufacturing was local and small-scale because there were no convenient ways to move goods long distances. Over time transportation became less and less of an issue leading toward consolidation of manufacturing and higher levels of transportation per good produced. In the 90s, transportation finally became convenient enough to fully “support” the global economy and enable manufacturing at any point across the globe for final-destinations at any point across the globe.
What we have seen over the last 5 years is that transportation is becoming less and less convenient (some would argue that it is now simply “less certain” which amounts to the same thing) again. And as transportation becomes less convenient, manufacturing is less and less likely to be performed simply anywhere, it needs to shift closer to the point of consumption.
The impact of less convenient transportation will be two-fold: 1) innovations to improve the convenience of transportation (hybrids, high-speed rail, more efficient/larger capacity air, etc) and 2) a realignment of manufacturing back toward point of consumption. For the next 5 to 10 years we’re going to have a bit of a pendulum effect to see which of these 2 items “wins out.” If transportation innovations win then the global economy will continue as is and we’ll see a net benefit. If companies are forced to realign then we’ll see a rise of the local/regional manufacturing sites again.
Climate change is the conduit that will cause (is causing) the uncertainty in transportation markets and therefore it is the ultimate factor that must be optimized against since it will drive cost (whether through fuel prices, carbon taxes or consumer behavior and desire).
Lecturer Department of Geography
University of Exeter
said: On 01/03/2010
When faced with a crisis of an existing system the instinctive approach is to try to fix the most apparent component of the system that is not working. From where we stand it looks to many that the transport system has a crisis and that crisis is the imminent redundancy of the petroleum products that run it.
Therefore we try desperately to look for different kinds of fuels we can replace oil with. The only place this leads us is to fuels from current bio growth. This has led to a very dangerous experiment with virgin biofuels. Although there is great hope in the form of second generation biofuels such as algae, we cannot foresee all the ecological and social consequences if one technology such as this is implemented at scale. It may work out – but can we afford to take that risk and leave our entire food and social system reliant on cheap transport over long distances?
We must accept that if we are going to create environmentally sound, fair, locally relevant and globally implementable transport innovations in the short timescales left, we must focus that innovation on redesigning the underlying system to match spare environmental resources (which daily show themselves to be more abused than previously thought) and not try to force the environment to provide for the inefficient system we currently have – just because it happens to be there. Of course the valuable embodied energy in our current transport system cannot just be discarded, and of course we will need to time transition to a new system, so second generation biofuels are still important.
Specifically, we must realise that our human need is not planes or cars or even physical movement per se, our underlying need is to interact with others, to explore new ideas and cultures, to ‘get away from it all’. It is not our needs that are unsustainable but our ways of satisfying them. One thing humans have in abundance is imagination, we must now harness that to design new ways of needs satisfaction and effectively implement old ideas: video-conferencing; reconnecting with local communities; decentralised food systems; seasonal diets; deep rather than surface cultural learning; buying products for life; working from home.
To provide for our needs in innovative ways is as much about changing the socio-cultural systems that provide legitimacy and support to these ways of operating, as about the technologies or systems themselves. This will be the most difficult bit as cultural change is never easy or quick – so we had better start soon!
Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
said: On 01/03/2010
The technologies and institutions of today’s modes–plus the ways they are used–bear a legacy stamp. They have been shaped by decades of evolution along development paths–paths that were locked-in by early conditions and constrained by modal competition. Achieving safer, bigger, and faster–and adjusting to changing environmental and energy conditions– are pretty much the options folks seek.
But a long view of the transportation experience says that new systems and services do emerge–transportation revolutions have finessed old problems and offered new opportunities.. Today’s highway system built from roads, vehicles, and institutions already available plus new fuels and motors; container shipping added new institutions and ideas to old building blocks; and railroads and other modes had similar stories.
Look around. We are suffocated by legacy systems that occupy the competitive turf. They limit innovation to marginal, fit-the-system tools, and they limit our imagination. At best, they promise a future that is the polished present. Looking back says that the old and new building blocks could yield new futures.
Polish and adjust or achieve new futures?
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 01/03/2010
The old adage of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle apply equally well to transportation as to any other aspect of attempts at sustainable consumption behaviour.
Reduce
I spend 2 hours travelling each way to my place of work at considerable personal expense and discomfort. This behaviour isn’t that different from that of any overcrowded urban/suburban oriented community developed or developing. Our connection to local geography has been long broken.
However, my travel needs are based on the assumption that I need to be at a stated place of work at specified times to add value to my employers organisation.
Assuming I must continue this behaviour I need to be supported by transport workers, office cleaners, coffee makers, caterers and other support workers who must all travel to the support of me and my colleagues.
However, with my Reduce hat on, I question the need to be at my desk to carry out my work. Could I travel into work 3 days a week and work from home for 15 or 16 hours of my choosing? Could I travel at off-peak times to avoid congestion and discomfort? At the moment the answer is no, my employer and colleagues can’t manage the concept of arm’s length working, ITC systems struggle to support it, my travel costs would go up since pricing is based on previous travel assumptions of rail season tickets etc. I would also have to adjust my work ethic and organisation skills to successfully adapt.
Similar issues apply to trips to the doctor, my lawyer, accountant etc although I must say that where I benefit from convenience and my supplier saves money, it does seem we can change our approach to life e.g. on-line shopping, information sources, interacting with government.
My opinion is that high speed broadband should be considered as an integral part of our transport/’not transport’ infrastructure.
Reuse
Some parts of industry already make very effective use of transport resource but fail to use their example as a driver to others. Shipping companies, container operations and other logistics operators have developed very effective methods of ensuring assets are seldom idle. Ships rarely sail empty, containers are re-filled for return journeys, pallets are collected and reused and spoke and hub networks used with GPS planning and tracking to minimise ‘unit transport miles’. This is seldom talked about, seldom seen efficiency. On the other hand, many of us drive to the station, school and shops in sequence with little planning, post analysis or learning. We moan about the cost of fuel but dissociate its consumption from the controllable aspects of our activities.
Commercial organisations can teach consumers how they have/are becoming more efficient.
Recycle
The concept of recycling transport is a strange one and I could be accused of bending the maxim. But, I would argue we can find new ways of using our transport miles to fulfill multiple functions. How could I select my groceries at my desk, have them packed at my railway station and take them home with me on the train? Railways used to carry milk into urban areas, post and parcels in both directions as well as people (and even the dead in my local area). I believe we can develop new methods of using the materials of transport to serve multiple ends.
I may have stretched the maxim and barely scratched the surface of transport culture transformation. However, I believe the source of our salvation lies in examining the fundamental drivers of our behaviour and learning to adapt both how we behave and how we manage our response to these drivers.
Evolution is natural, we just need to hurry things up a bit…
Executive Director
RE Sources for Sustainable Communities
said: On 01/03/2010
Absolutely. Alternative fuels are a stop-gap measure and do not encourage the type of re-engineering that we need to do as a global society. We have to retool cities and rethink suburbs. We also have to be economical in the way we look at working and product delivery systems. In short, if we are far away from what we need, we need to move. Distance can no longer be an acceptable excuse for waste and pollution.
Author
Divine Primates: Hope For Our Stressed-Out Species
said: On 01/03/2010
One related aspect of transportation shift is that increases in poverty and shrinking of the economic power of working and middle classes may change transportation culture more than concern (or eventual policy shifts) about climate change. This is because of dramatic re-allocation of resources to wealthy segments from working and middle classes around the world. I continue to see climate change as a symptom of a vast hyper-capitalist/aristocratic mania that has swept across the US and has infected the rest of the world. Overpopulation, overconsolidation, oversimplification of markets and general lack of discipline and responsibility for being sustainable are have created more and more bubbles and market distortions that must eventually cycle. Of course, this larger mania bubble is in the process of collapsing, in stages. Commercial real estate is probably next, peppered with increasing natural disasters, famine and war. However, the benefactors of this cycle of excess are not likely to yield their newly gained eminence and may continue grasping more and more wealth as the system continues to dysfunction.
To the extent that markets become increasingly chaotic, companies are unable to develop and execute reasonable plans for sustainable futures. Therefore, it is in the interests of business to restore order and predictability to markets that have been infected with dysfunctional hyper-capitalist ideologies and cultures of immense greed. I assume this is part of why this discussion is going on.
Supervisor
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
said: On 01/03/2010
I am inclined to think we are at a crossroads in terms of population size vs. transportation infrastructure. Alternative fuels are being sought out of fear that the supply of current fuel sources may run dry. It appears that this fear is at least partially unfounded.
Fortunately, we are discovering more efficient ways to generate alternative energy on an almost daily basis. For the current population numbers, I believe we should focus on safety as well as reducing environmental consequences of our chosen fuel source for transportation. A combination of mass transit and individual modes of transportation is likely to coexist in the foreseeable future.
As long as we continue make progress in terms of recycling the vehicles used for both as soon as they become obsolete/too inefficient compared to current models, we should be able to bridge the gap between today’s fuel sources and tomorrow’s likely to be highly advanced (compressed air, anti-gravity, nuclear?) sources.
I think it boils down to a good old mathematical equation – if we add up the logistics and costs of individual transit solutions as they exist today, and compare them to what is realistically possible tomorrow considering the technologies we have at our disposal that may be implemented at a large scale, we would still opt (politically) to devote a large amount of resources to mass transit. The basic structure of cities lends itself to mass transit much more economically than individual transit. As some suggest, we will certainly continue to make individual transit more viable, comfortable and economically attractive, but the cost/benefit analysis still, for the next 10 years at least IMHO, comes out in favor of mass transit.
Chairman & Managing Director
Tormacon Limited
said: On 01/03/2010
The way our modern society’s abuse of the ecosystem has grown in the last several decades, with population growth out of control. The transport system that was supposed to be involved only in necessary movement of goods and persons is becoming an ecological disaster. Going somewhere has become more important than being somewhere. The old-timers used to say “where you going?” and “what’s your hurry”? Every pretext has been used for going: better career opportunities, better prices, more options, and even friction with the neighbours. As a result, we have paid a heavy price. Today the earth is being turned upside down for the going: developing countries are installing interstate highway systems where only effective train infrastructure existed, effectively cutting off endangered species migratory routes forever; low-income, non-car owners are suffering the indignity and peril of walking across five-lane highways with their babies in tow; our children and elderly are languishing from a loss of freedom, mobility and true community.
Underlying our choices about how to travel is why we choose to travel at all. Although some of us on occasion travel for its own sake, in fact the majority of the trips we make are to access something we need (schools, shops, workplaces, parks etc). A quick trawl of travel data from the National Travel Survey reveals that we are not going anywhere different from where we used to 50 years ago, but we are travelling further to get there. A case in point is the school journey; as the government extends our choice as to which school is attended, we end up with less choice on how to get there – the average school journey has increased from 2.9 to 3.3 miles in the last few years.
This means that if we want to move to a world in which sustainable modes of transport dominate, we have to ensure that the locations we all need to access in order to prosper and thrive are within reach by foot, bike or public transport. At the same time we have to think very hard about the kinds of physical infrastructure we create, as the environment we create impacts enormously on the choices we then (feel able to) make. And, of course, we need governments to have coherent, joined up policies that address people’s needs rather than just national budgets.
If the cities have become ecological dumps, the oceans are no better. The very composition of the oceans has altered for the worse — with the plastic plague and acidification that will remain with us for perhaps thousands of years — we can only hope that humans will be around to sail on. It is in light of our plight, and because the historic advent of peak oil means society must begin alternatives to oil-based transport now.
Three main influences are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel as this feedstock becomes less affordable and reliable, provide a local transportation system that can give our young people hope for the future, and to provide a more natural transportation system. Geography matters. The clipper ships were the backbone of globalization of their day. On a more local level every coastline will have its own solutions
No band aid solution exists. Transport modelling depends on geography. Very steep hills make straight pedal power for loads problematic. Using a very small amount of electricity we can overcome these issues. We are about to use some of the most efficient electric vehicles ever built and we can do this by building electric vehicles that aren’t trying to pretend they are automobiles. Well, if you transport food that’s just been picked and get it to market in a day in the hull of a boat that’s sitting in 45 degree water you don’t need refrigeration. If you transport produce in steel containers thousands of miles overland in baking heat, well of course you need refrigeration. There is a huge amount of romanticism that is attached to transportation by sail. Maybe even more than there is with organic farming.
In the last 60 years we have gone from people-centric communities to car-centric lifestyles. We no longer thrive in community-wise American cities, towns and farms, but rather commute to a series of single use destinations via roads and highway systems, fragmenting community and ecology. We are displaced to malls, office parks, big box stores and suburbs, to the top of a mountain, or across the country. We have surrounded ourselves with a landscape of “going” with no place left “to be”.
The negative impacts of car-centric planning are immeasurable. Americans spend more on cars than third-world citizens spend on their entire budgets. The average American household expends 30-50% of its energy on car trips, and approximately 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year, with a disproportionate number of them being teenagers. Children and the elderly are stranded and lonely without access to our car-dominated culture, while “family” has become an insular experience, and now usually means only immediate family members. Roads and highways have not only fragmented the delicate balance of the eco-system of our planet, but are responsible for the elimination of 90% of historic American pedestrian connectivity.
Cars are ultimately extremely inefficient. They are designed to drive across the country at a blurring speed not allowing the occupants to appreciate or explore the area they travel – they are shut off from community from the point of departure until they reach their destination. It has been suggested that the solution to making cars “ecological” is running them on renewable energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The impact of cars (high speed personal mobility) on our already fragmented communities and natural spaces would be exponentially increased.
Car-reduced and car-free community planning can be applied to new or existing communities at any scale, from neighbourhood, hamlet and village, to town and city. It will be a slow conversion, but it will increase quality of life significantly each step of the way, as the use of cars is reduced.
Planning for car-free communities at every scale will allow us to set up smart development (growth) opportunities for downtown conversions, infill neighbourhoods, and convert existing neighbourhoods. It will also enable our auto industries to shift focus to producing efficient electric micro-vehicles (possibly powered by photovoltaic arrays – a collection of cells that convert solar energy into electricity), and away from producing cars that are incompatible with community interaction and open space preservation.
If, in addition to having a long way to go to reach our destination, we encounter a hostile environment when we step out of our front doors, we’ll tend to react defensively, often retreating into what seems to be a safe refuge of a car. On the other hand if we emerge into a space which welcomes people generally (not just travelling but also for example socializing and playing) then we’ll tend to react expansively, feeling able to walk or cycle. But of course it won’t help if that welcoming environment comes to an abrupt stop at the end of our street – so it needs to continue all the way to our destination.
Are there technological solutions?
In case we desire to dramatically reduce emissions while still continuing to travel further and faster, then we need a technological fix. When the International Energy Agency (“Energy Technologies for a Sustainable Future: transport”) reviewed this subject, it concluded that such a fix would have to be one or a mix of:
• a hydrogen fuel-cell system,
• a purely electric vehicle system, or
• relying on liquid fuels … derived from biomass”
Any system based on one or a mix of these measures would take time to implement, when the need for very significant reductions is urgent. In addition, technical solutions may create new, even worse problems. For example, demand for agro fuels as the substitute for oil based fuels plummeted as it became clear how they compete with food production. In 2006, the first year in which the US turned more of its corn into ethanol than it exported, tortilla prices in Mexico tripled, and food riots followed.
Similarly, the switch to agro fuels led to a rush to establish palm plantations for purportedly “climate friendly” palm oil. The result was very significant rainforest destruction, and all that implies for biodiversity, and enormously increased (up to 15 times) overall climate change emissions from the clearing and burning of the forests.
We need to relocalize. Around the world, on average people make about 1000 trips (eg from home to work – that’s one trip) per person per year. Travel behaviour research from across Europe, the United States and Australia consistently shows that 10% of people’s car trips are shorter than 1km, 30% are shorter than 3km and 50% are shorter than 5km. This large number of small trips means that, even before relocalisation really starts to take hold, we have the potential to immediately intervene to support more cycling and walking trips – much more quickly than for any technological development and at a fraction of the cost. In fact, even under current conditions about half of the car trips we make could we switched immediately to sustainable modes If however, we are to consider technology based solutions, we need to learn to ask ourselves far harder questions than we’ve managed so far, including:
• What is the full energy cost of this transport intervention, including all of the embodied energy in the infrastructure needed as well as that from running the system?
• How long will it take to implement; could carbon reductions be achieved any faster with a different intervention?
• Do we, as a society, have enough energy overall to carry through our decision?
• Do we have enough money to carry out our decision?
The altered transportation culture, I envisage shall ensure that nearly all urban trips are on foot, by bike or by bio-gas fuelled public transport; all rural trips which can’t be done on foot or by bike are mainly by community owned demand responsive vehicles, again bio-gas fuelled and longer trips are mainly on an electrified rail network or by coach. A drastically altered transport culture is only salvation.
Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences
Cornell University
said: On 01/03/2010
My perspective is:
1) Like Europe, with smaller efficient cars and have gasoline at $10 per gallon to encourage conservation and use of mass transit.
2) Eliminate the use of food crops being used for biofuels.
3) Increase the research on cellulosic ethanol and algae biodiesel.
The diminishing supply of oil and high prices is encouraging the conversion of grain or other biomass into ethanol fuel. Using corn or any other biomass for ethanol requires large land areas of fertile soil, and sunlight for green plant production plus significant quantities of water. Total green plants in the U.S., including all crops, forest, and grasses, combined collect only about 32 quads (32 x 1015 BTU) of sunlight energy per year. Meanwhile, the American population uses slightly more than 3 times that amount of energy each year as fossil fuels!
Enthusiasts suggest ethanol produced from corn grain and cellulosic biomass, like grasses, could replace much of the oil used in U.S. Consider that 33% of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 12 billion gal of ethanol in 2009, but that amount replaced only 1.4% of U.S. oil consumption. If the entire corn crop were used, it would replace a mere 4% of oil consumption–and not make the U.S. independent of foreign oil!
Several up-to-date analyses report that 14 energy inputs typically are required for corn production, then 9 more energy inputs are invested in fermentation and distillation operations, confirming that more than 147% more energy (mostly high value oil and natural gas) is expended to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than is in the ethanol gallon itself. Some investigators omit several of the energy inputs required in corn production and processing, such as energy for farm labor, farm machinery, energy production of hybrid corn-seed, irrigation, and processing equipment. Omitting several fossil energy inputs suggests that a corn ethanol production system provides a positive energy return. Investigators also differ about the energy value of the byproducts from making corn ethanol. In any event, corn ethanol is an inefficient choice from an energy cost and transport standpoint.
Cellulosic ethanol is touted as the replacement for corn ethanol. Unfortunately, cellulosis biomass contains less than 1/3rd the amount of starches and sugars in corn and requires major fossil energy inputs to release the tightly bound starches and sugars for ethanol conversion. About 170% more energy (oil and gas) is required to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than the ethanol produced.
The production of corn ethanol is highly subsidized by state and federal governments by more than $6 to $7 billion per year according to a 2008 report, “Subsidies to Ethanol in the United States” published in book by Springer Press on biofuels. These subsidies for a gallon of ethanol are more than 60 times those for a gallon of gasoline. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office reports that corn ethanol is costing U.S. families between $6 and $9 billion per year in higher grocery bills.
The environmental impacts of corn ethanol are serious and diverse. These include severe soil erosion of valuable cropland, plus the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides that pollute rivers. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are produced and released into the atmosphere because significant amounts of fossil fuel energy are used in ethanol production. Then during the fermentation process, about 25% of the carbon from the sugars and starches is released as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These two major releases of carbon dioxide significantly contribute to global warming.
Each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water (mostly to grow the corn) and releases 12 gallons of noxious sewage effluent from the fermentation process into the environment.
Using food crops, such as corn grain, to produce ethanol also raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the world now are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water, and energy resources vital for the production of food for people. The President of the World Bank reported that biofuels have increased world food prices 75%. Jacques Diouf, Director General of the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization reports biofuels increasing world human starvation.
The world population is currently at 6.7 billion with a quarter million additional people added daily. Energy specialists project that peak oil has already been reached and there are only about 40 years of oil remaining. Slowly oil supplies will decline until the supply is exhausted. This will create a critical situation for food production because all food supply currently depends primarily on oil and gas to maintain a highly productive agriculture. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that cereal grain production per capita has been declining for the past 24 years. This is critical because grains make up 80% of world food.
Transport Planning Officer
Falkirk Council
said: On 01/03/2010
The western press and popular mainstream (as opposed to specialist) media maintains a somewhat confused approach to the issues of the day – on the one hand we have a need for a narrative underpinned by a culture of rampant consumerism, soundbites and quick fixes, a love of simplicity, and by implication a problem with complexity.
On the other hand, as evidenced by the recent “Climategate” reportage, the popular press delights in reporting any complexity or debate as conflict or “scandal”. This too is incorporated into the narrative as a Climate Conspiracy, aimed at driving international policy to curtail personal freedom as part of a controlling agenda.
This fixation with portraying a simple message arises presumably because the popular media paternalistically believes that the recipients of their messages are intellectually incapable of dealing with a complex message. It leads however to a gross oversimplification of the issues around a problem and the same process is applied to the proposed solutions.
This can be termed the “magic bullet” approach to reporting. It may simply be lazy, it may be driven by a consumerist, economic, or political agenda. The result however is the same – a simple problem requires a simple solution (no matter how complex the reality) and once the solution is found, we can all get back to doing what we were before. The approach to reporting complexity, where it is agreed it exists, again pares this down to two or more opposing arguments, none of which actually addresses the issue at hand.
A case in point is the current debate over alternative fuels – be they electricity, biofuels, fuel cells or hybrids of these. The central issue seems to be largely ignored (see complexity above), in that business as usual is an implied, unquestioned good. The “right” to personal travel is paramount, and any proposed solution to the impacts of transport must make allowance for the desire (note not need) for anyone who can afford it to travel as they wish, when they wish by the most convenient method they wish regardless not only of financial, but social and environmental cost. The sop of “Green” fuels could be seen merely as a salve to the conscience of those who profess an environmental ethic but lack the means or ability to make fundamental changes. The narrative tells us that freedom of choice drives economic growth, (again an implied good) and without growth, we will (the accepted wisdom goes) perish. To argue counter to this makes one part of the Climate Conspiracy.
The need to generate a narrative (and a good story sells) leads to debate within the field involving proponents of alternative fuels and the advocates of a robust, systematic and multi layered approach which addresses a wider perspective of changing behaviour, being reported as conflict. The wider arguments of requiring societal and structural change such as changes to land use planning to reduce the need to travel, are widely ignored as they do not fit the personal choice/growth is good agenda.
The irony is that many of those engage in the “conflict” are actually the same people working in similar fields, debating aspects of the same issues. Healthy, respectful debate however does not sell newspapers or generate viewing figures.
As professionals in the field then, we find ourselves forced into reducing the irreducible in order to fit our messages to the agenda of the popular media.
This, I would argue, does nobody involved any favours, and leads us into the same errors – as an answer, “it depends” is not what the soundbite culture wants. Are alternative fuels a good idea? If they are carbon neutral, do not mean that agricultural land is sacrificed to provide space to grow fuel, do not create greater emissions at their source generation (e.g. electricity from fossil fuels), and can be tied into the sorts of changes outlined above then they may be.
If they are a “magic bullet” then their value is considerably less than the popular media will have us believe.
Partner, Alternative Energy and Transportation
Serrada LLC
said: On 01/03/2010
Should the world focus on alternative fuels or a new transportation culture? After years of working to provide a cleaner more sustainable form of the automobile, I have come to one specific conclusion. A cleaner power source for our vehicles is only part of the solution; we also must address how vehicles are used in our society. With over 600 million automobiles on the road, a plan for their transition and daily use is required.
Mobility is the goal for all transportation and it can be clean and sustainable, but it must also be scalable. The world needs various transportation options to meet its goals.
Accessible and robust mass transit must be part of the solution, along with electric-drive vehicles and sustainable infrastructure. This new model of transportation is obtainable if we pursue it. People must ask for alternatives, vote to fund them, purchase them, and embrace them for the world to make the transition.
President
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
said: On 01/03/2010
The most important thing we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation is to transform existing high carbon fuels fleets to low or no-carbon ones. In contrast, efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by “changing our entire transportation culture” are not only doomed to failure, but the costs imposed on travelers and consumers would be extremely high.
First, even if advanced nations were to be able to shift trips away from high carbon trips now (single family vehicles, trucks for freight and air travel for long distance), the rest of the world will dramatically increase the number of these trips as they develop and get richer. Moreover, in virtually all developed nations the opportunities for high carbon trip reduction is quite limited. In the United States, despite modest increases in mass transit investment over the last two decades, transit trips as a share of overall trip miles increased from around 5.8 percent to 6.2 percent. Does anyone really think that the transit mode share can increase significantly? Some advocates claim that it’s just a question of changing land use to so-called “smart growth.” But changing land use takes decades at best. It’s not as if we are going to tear down all the newly built suburban homes and replace them with urban apartment buildings. And even if we could the results would be disappointing. Even if highly congested metropolitan areas (e.g., Chicago, New York, and Boston) where if transit is going to be viable anywhere it will be here, most people drive. For most people cars are much more convenient.
Second, it is precisely the fact that people choose to drive or fly or have goods delivered by trucks that suggests that policies to try to shift this mode split dramatically will be able make progress in only two ways, massive subsidies for alternatives or massive restrictions or taxes for current modes. Either path would impose significant costs on society, not to mention significant inconvenience. This is not to say that “smart” smart growth strategies should not be adopted (e.g., things like transit oriented development, expansion of rapid bus transit systems, more bike path infrastructure), but the extreme “smart growth” vision that many advocates have of fundamentally changing the car-oriented, suburban society to a transit-oriented urban one is not the path to take.
However, at the margin there are some win-win strategies that can be employed. The most important one is to bring technology to our transportation system. For example, shifting to a system of vehicle miles traveled charges (as the Dutch and the Danes are doing) and raising the charges trucks and cars pay to use highway infrastructure to more accurately reflect their true costs of using the system could produce modest reductions in travel, in part due to mode shift (to bus, train, car pooling, telecommuting). Implementing congestion pricing on freeways will also lead to more free flow traffic conditions which could have modest benefits for fuel consumption. Increasing deployment of smart, adaptive traffic signals results in less stop and go traffic and more efficient use of the roadway system. In short, if the environmental community wants to reduce the impact of the transportation system on the environment in ways on top of changing the fleet, they should be focusing on making the system smart through intelligent transportation systems, not “smart” through the restrictions, regulations and high costs implied by some of the more extreme smart growth visions.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 01/03/2010
The search for alternatives to liquid petroleum – gasoline and diesel – already represents a paradigm change of the status quo ‘transportation culture.’ Changing the ‘transportation culture’ involves a different combination of fuels, technologies, and consumer behavior, both in purchasing and selecting appropriate transport modes for different applications in different regions. Ultimately, in the long term, undoubtedly there will be modal shifts in transport use, new concepts and technologies that might be ‘game changers’ in transport, but at this time, a shift toward alternative fuels as part of the overall fuel mix is quite enough of a paradigm change.
Policy makers, technology and fuel stakeholders, and the public are struggling today to make sensible, achievable and transitory choices. The options selected should maintain (and increase) the quality of human mobility but simultaneously maintain (and improve) environment quality, motivate renewable options without creating additional negative effects, and provide reliable, sustainable and secure sources of energy.
Understanding the basic ‘rules of engagement’
In the quest to change the transportation culture, there are some fundamental ‘realities’ that should guide the choices we make.
• Future fuels and technologies. Petroleum fuels and internal combustion engines, with continual improvements in quality and efficiency, will continue to dominate at least 50% of transportation mobility for the rest of the 21st century.
• Alternatives. All the alternative fuels have their positive attributes as well as technological and/or cost issues that remain a challenge to their commercialization. There are no ‘fuel panaceas’, which infers that a fundamental balance must be achieved in the development of policies that encourage the commercial growth of the various fuel alternatives.
• Consumer choice. Ultimately, the private and public sector customers can make the best, informed decision possible about which of these fuels and technologies to adopt.
• Integrated, transparent policies. Policy makers’ approach should be oriented toward policies and actions that tend to be take an ‘integrated’ and systemic (or holistic) view in helping to create a sustainable future for existing and new transport modes and fuels. This means creating policies and market opportunities that often may require the integration and balancing of economic, tax, environmental, energy, security, and transportation policies. It also will include consideration of agricultural policies, urban development, and management of various urban and rural waste management activities that are intended to capitalize opportunities for energy efficiency, energy conservation, and increased use of renewable resources.
• Partners in politics. In ‘politics’ the different alternative fuel stakeholders should be partners in striving for the best, most transparent policies that advance the group of alternative fuels. This more-or-less ‘transparent’ approach is one that also must be consistent among government policy makers at all levels.
The time is right to achieve a balanced, European Alternative Fuel Vehicle Policy
The motivations for a European policy focused on clean alternative transportation fuels – and cleaner traditional fuels – have been based on overriding concerns about energy security, environmental protection, climate change mitigation, energy efficiency. The EU wants to rely less on imported petroleum and more on sustainable, renewable transportation fuels. Increasingly strict emissions regulations and other policies are driving down vehicle exhaust pollution. Concerns about global warming have resulted in CO2 becoming a regulated emission. But transportation policy making since the 1980s has been based upon finding the ‘silver bullet’ solution. As such, attempts at ‘changing the transportation culture’ have been dominated by disjointed policies that jump from option to option; all electric in the 1980s; hydrogen fuel cells in the 1990s; then hybrids in 2000; to renewable liquid biofuels and now, 2010, back again to all electric battery vehicles. Meanwhile, other options like natural gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) frequently have been marginalized due to enthusiasm for ‘sexier’ alternatives.
The key question is: Can the EU develop a balanced, sustainable, and effective alternative fuels policy (with measureable results) that fulfills the objectives of energy security and commitment to environmental protection?
Creating a balanced approach to changing the transportation culture is possible.
A successful alternative fuels policy must first be balanced and transparent in order to address the key concerns of each of the main groups of stakeholders: the consumers who will buy and drive the vehicles; the fuel suppliers who will help to build the fuelling infrastructure; and the OEMs who must find an economically viable pathway to develop and sell clean fuel vehicles that can be embraced by consumers who can easily find adequate fuelling stations on a European scale. Additionally, concerns must be addressed to take into consideration other important societal priorities such as: reducing the negative impacts of climate change; reducing environmental impacts of vehicle pollution; addressing the need to move more to renewable resources; and reducing reliance on nearly 100% petroleum in the transportation sector. Incorporating concerns of other integrated urban problems such as waste and water quality management adds another benefit to a well-conceived alternative fuels policy.
The transportation culture, indeed, must change but it will be done incrementally over a long transition. There are no ‘bridges’ to the future; there are only pathways. Identifying where we want to be, what route to take, and following a visionary, sustainable plan is an obtainable goal. The future is a big place and it will take a long time to get there.
These comments are based upon and adapted from Clean Fuels Consulting contribution to the European Commission’s Public Consultation on the Communication on a Sustainable Future for Transport,
30 September 2009. Visit: http://www.cleanfuelsconsulting.org
Director
Kevin Leydon and Associates
said: On 01/03/2010
Changing our entire transportation culture should be one of our top priorities. This is a long term objective requiring a broad political consensus. Greater mobility for every citizen has been one of the major dividends from the growing posterity experienced since 1945. The demand for transportation, whether for passenger or freight, is derived from our social, professional and industrial activities. It is constrained within a given land use configuration, a myriad of administrative and legal obligations and an inheritance of past technological achievements including cleaning up tail pipe emissions.
Under current policies transportation activity is set to continue growing. For road passenger transport, reversing a relative decrease in the use of public transport is important. Efficiency improvements in passenger cars have not been sufficient to counteract this growth in traffic. Over the period 1996 to 2007 the stock of registered vehicles in the 27 Member States rose from 163 million to 230 million while cars passenger kilometres driven in the E.U. increased by 21%. From the Commission’s own analysis we may expect these requirements will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. Meeting the need for sustainable transport will require new long term policy.
Moving to a new paradigm requires changes not only in land use and economic organisation but perhaps more importantly in our social and political value systems. To facilitate this process we need substantial technological innovations requiring a commitment to greater R and D expenditure. In an era of reduced public revenue and expenditure both central and local government will look to new charges e.g. carbon taxes, congestion and parking charging, to balance their budgetary deficits, support public transport and meet their national CO2 emissions targets agreed in E.U. legislation last year.
Of themselves these “sticks” will not be sufficient to achieve the long term objective of changing our transportation culture. Political and civil society leadership will be needed. The private car is the “Elephant in the room”!
Associate Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering Washington State University
said: On 05/03/2010
In order to develop a more sustainable transportation infrastructure and network we will need to do more than simply seek alternative fuels. We will also need to focus on the interface of transportation modes and transportation needs, particularly as related to the length of travel. This means becoming bi-modal or bi-fuel. For instance, at the interface of airplane travel is the need for the passengers to then connect with short trips to their final destinations. An example of an effective bi-modal interface is the Reagan National airport in Washington DC and the D.C. Metro system. How can we perform this type of interface for motor vehicle travel? Frequently travel trip lengths are short for commuting and local errands, and then on occasion motor vehicle trips are lengthened for vacation and business travel. Focusing solely on plug-in electric options or other commuter optimizations may be the solution for many circumstances, but most people will need the option to do both with the same vehicle. This means expanding the options for hybrid type vehicles, with one fuel and/or drive train for the more frequent shorter trips and then an option with a liquid fuel for the longer trips. Liquid fuels are one of the best options for storing energy in a relatively small volume in an effective and safe manner, with limited fuel losses over time.
Sustainability is not solely dependent on the energy consumed while driving. It is also a function of full lifecycle analyses and costs for building, parking, housing and eventually disposing of the materials in the vehicle. Thus, for fulfilling travel needs, minimizing environmental impact concerns, and for economic reasons, enhanced hybrid options may be the most promising alternatives in the near future for many people.
Director - State and Local Policy Program Center for Transportation Studies
University of Minnesota
said: On 05/03/2010
The experience with congestion pricing projects in recent years has demonstrated the importance of investing in alternatives, particularly transit, when implementing congestion pricing in an area or corridor. Congestion pricing addresses the problem of congestion by charging a price or toll for use of a road based on demand. The most successful congestion pricing projects have been in Singapore, London, and Stockholm. Each of these places have implemented congestion pricing with significant investments in transit, either in conjunction with congestion pricing projects or as parallel priorities The combination of congestion pricing with transit improvements has lead to a modal shift from cars to transit in each of these places.
In the U.S. there are significant policy opportunities to enhance livability and sustainability by encouraging state and local innovation in integrating congestion pricing and transit. In Minneapolis highway and transit planners have combined transit improvements with dynamically-priced high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to offer transit riders a quicker trip while offering solo drivers the same trip for a price.
U.S. policy makers and state and local transportation leaders should take a serious look at the experience and case for linking congestion pricing with transit as a means to achieving livability and sustainability goals.
Owner
DuntonTinnus consulting
said: On 05/03/2010
The answer has to be YES.
An improvement in supply chain practices – such as adjusting transportation culture, means, volume and distance – does not only support greening the environment through decreasing fuel usage hence transportation emissions but also increases the efficiencies and effectiveness of a company’s logistical framework.
This does although require skilled personnel in logistics and supply chain to work closely with a company’s supply chain partners throughout the complete global logistics network.
Mobility is key to an organization’s ability to effectively and immediately react to a growing competitive global environment, market expansions and expended network management. Corporate Travel is therefore a primary driver and presents a critical support process to a company’s core business.
Governments have to increase their investment in alternative transportation systems, increase the frequency of service, longer service hours, and expanding routes and destinations served. Companies should incentivize employees to bike to work or use public transportation.
The necessity of a business trip must undergo an evaluation as part of a pre-approval process by implementing thresholds confirming the actual need to conduct a face-to face meeting and alternatives such as the use of videoconferencing should be considered.
The increasing importance of web collaboration and video conferencing is confirmed by a global survey which was conducted by DuntonTinnus consulting in collaboration with ACTE (the Association of Corporate Travel Executives) amongst 2,500 Executives in 50 countries including several Fortune 500 companies (www.duntontinnus.com) . 80% of the respondents confirmed an increase in popularity.
Chairman - Country Representatives Committee
NGVA Europe (Natural Gas Vehicle Association), Madrid, Spain
said: On 09/03/2010
Cars used in stop and go traffic consume twice as much fuel as cars running smoothly along the highway. Most people reside in cities, and most cars are driven in stop and go traffic. New traffic systems removing bottle-necks in congested areas might reduce overall fuel consumption by some 25 %.
It would be interesting to transfer some of the responsibility for reduction of car fuel use from the automakers to various authorities responsible for the road traffic infrastructure. The average speeds reached in the urban road networks might be a good indicator of the efficiency.
Principal Ecological Consultant
Marquis and Lord Ltd.
said: On 09/03/2010
Alternative fuels are only one ingredient in the future of how we travel, alternative fuels may have less of a carbon footprint than current fossil fuels, but they also have many draw backs; they might be an “alternative” to current fuel but they still rely on the exploitation of diminishing resources, for example the resources needed for construction of that wind turbine or solar PV cell to make electricity to power the vehicle, in the future will that electric be prioritised for another use? Alternative fuels are high tech and will have a long lead time; when the practicalities of their use are revealed.
The vehicles we drive, and any new replacements brought which uses alternative fuels, have embodied carbon; the full life cycle analysis of the vehicles production, use, and disposal, should be in the frame; not just what makes the fuel source. More cars powered by alternative fuel; replacing the current fossil fueled fleet, will mean more congestion, and demand for more roads to support this means of travel, how sustainable is this?
As peak oil starts to impact on us we need to think and behave differently, so; can I afford to fuel this vehicle? can I afford to maintain a two (or three) car household? do I need to travel by car for all trips? Can I work from the community resource centre/village hall twice a week to avoid the commute? How long does it take me to walk to the train/bus/metro stop? Will become more common decisions that we will have to make.
So looking at the bigger picture change needs to come not just in our transport culture, but change in our life styles and this includes the way we work and how we use our leisure time; we need to be starting to change in incremental steps to a lower carbon lifestyle, rather than a panic change when peak oil starts to really impact on how we live our lives. So current development planning needs to be engineering our live/work environment so that we have far less distance to travel to work, for leisure, to shop, and instead we are focused on living and working in our local community. This does not have to wait until local and central government planning imposes change on us (we tend to make any excuse to blame the authorities for our personal inactions), in fact its easier to start the change now rather than joining the mass stampede later.
We can take such personal initiatives as supporting the Transition Town’s movement; relying more on, and being a part of, our local community, this can bring not just economic benefits but social and environmental benefits too. By taking a good critical look at our personal lifestyle, and asking ourselves (and those we trust), Why do I do x? What is most valuable to me? What happens when I Google “low carbon living”?, and what if I changed y? This may mean a change in our values, and a change in our focus; this is a big challenge both personally, and as a society; as we are all swept along by the media hype of consumerism; buy more, upgrade, buy the best, buy more stuff, keep up with fashion. But something has to give, and in the long run its going to be easier to change ourselves, at a local level, than export the entire population to another planet so that we can continue business as usual.
Director of the Advanced Energy and Materials Systems Lab
University of Canterbury
said: On 09/03/2010
“Seeking” does not guarantee finding. I prefer a pragmatic approach – accurate problem definition, hard facts, developing plans and design decisions without hype and hot air. The “transportation culture” is an artifact of the past 70 years of boom and expansion in oil and mineral extraction. The pragmatic approach to using all that resource was to expand the transport infrastructure and mobility patterns. The problem is that the rate of expansion is going through an inflection, and the boom is turning to bust. If we confuse our transport infrastructure and mobility patterns with culture, we don’t have much of a future.
What we should do is develop new transport engineering and land use planning tools that include modeling of fuel demand reduction. As the oil production capacity declines over the next 70 years, alternative fuels will be sought, but they will not change the hard facts that oil is the only transport fuel that supports the high mobility transport patterns western culture has adapted to. As the oil production capacity declines, price will rise and the demand to carry out activities and moving goods while using less fuel will grow.
The transport infrastructure, technology and mobility patterns will undergo re-development to meet this growth in demand for using less fuel. What we should be doing is expecting our transport engineers, urban planners and land use developers to start adapting their product to meet our demands for access while using less fuel.
Director
AWBriefing
said: On 09/03/2010
We live in a world of increasing interconnectivity, freedom and personal expression. There will certainly be no “silver bullet” in overcoming the challenge of low carbon transport. Alternative fuels will have a place in the future of greener transport, yet their role is seen as increasingly limited as newer technology overshadows them. In overcoming the immense challenge of sustainable transport, we first have to look much deeper to the roots of where our notions of transport stem from: our culture. However, changing a culture that has been acclimated to the ease and freedom of personal transport will be no small task.
It is not hard to look around and see how the important role transport plays in everything that we do. It has become intrinsically woven into the DNA of our global culture. We are given access to the use of vehicles from a very early age. As a consumer, we are emotionally connected to our vehicles. It is one of the biggest purchases in many people’s lives. Owning a vehicle implies freedom, wealth and personal expression. Our vehicle represents conscious or non-conscious signals to society and others about our personality traits and values. Owning a hybrid expresses that you are green, advanced and forward thinking member of society – Owning a sports car shows the your level of wealth and extroversion. Society glamorises vehicles and teaches us to always aspire to have nicer, faster and more advanced vehicles throughout our lifetime. A quick glance of a television, newspaper or website will have a reference to a newer, better vehicle on the market. Consumers go so far as to buy personalised plates, accessories and even naming our own vehicles. Society’s love affair with transport is truly intertwined with our lives.
Societal culture will remain the biggest barrier towards the growth of sustainable transport. Manufacturers can build millions of electric vehicles. Energy providers can place charging outlets in every car park and retail shop. Governments can subsidise vehicles for years to come. But if consumers don’t see how it will fit their personal life style, electric and alternative vehicles will remain on the sales lot. It will be impossible for us to separate the emotional connection we have to our vehicles. As a society, need to work towards the fundamental change of how we can shift that emotion without damaging it. We also mustn’t forget the importance of the society’s next generations. These will be the people who can carry this challenge. The key to the success of sustainable mobility will be putting in place the cultural seeds for the next generation.
Sr. Transportation Engineer
DOWL HKM
said: On 10/03/2010
The original question appears to be whether we should change our current transportation culture in order to reduce climate change. I’m assuming this means away from single occupant vehicles (SOV) to transit or non-motorized options.
As a provider of transportation systems in the US, I regularly have people suggest that we increase transit ridership or non-motorized options in lieu of building new roadways. Yet of those doing the requests, less than 5% avail themselves of the existing transit facilities. Everybody seems to want to get the other drivers off the road so they can have it for themselves.
Part of the challenge truly is the car culture that has grown in the industrialized countries and been exported worldwide. China is rapidly becoming the largest purchaser of new automobiles as they attempt to emulate the more prosperous nations of the west. In most countries, car ownership is more than just a mode of transport, it is a symbol of wealth and status.
Achieving a significant reduction in SOV use would require a major change in the culture. But this has proven extremely difficult to do in the US. The only US cities that have made real progress in this are those that have moved the cost of vehicle ownership beyond what can be afforded by the average citizen. A parking space in Manhattan can cost more then a house in the Midwest.
Vice President
Transport 2000 Atlantic
said: On 12/03/2010
Speaking from a North American context, transportation culture affects many critical economic, social and environmental factors beyond issues associated with greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and peak oil. For example, automobile dependence, along with electronic entertainment and communications, encourages sedentary lifestyles which have long-term effects on cardiovascular health. Many people seem to have forgotten how to walk, and in many locations public infrastructure and transportation policies do little to encourage it. There are some hopeful signs, however, through the growing Active Transportation movement and the development of multi-use trails.
More importantly, an automobile dependent culture creates a two-class society: those with easy access to a car and/or driver, and those without. Almost the entire North American economy has adapted to a presumption that everyone can drive and has access to a personal vehicle. Except in larger urban areas with good public transport, those without a car have very limited shopping choice, difficulties obtaining groceries, poor access to medical services and education, and often suffer social isolation which can lead to depression and other emotional illness. This is especially true in rural areas. As a result, rural communities are unable to retain population levels, especially young people.
Automobile dependence also leads to the consumption of large areas of land for freeways, interchanges and parking lots. Without a clear market pricing signal for using these facilities, each improvement attracts more car travel and also spurs outlying residential development which in turn generates more traffic with political pressure for further improvements. There is no end to this cycle, unless and until motorists are faced with a pricing signal each time they decide to travel. Furthermore, as housing becomes increasingly dispersed in response to extended and expanded freeways, it becomes increasingly inefficient to serve with public transport.
The same also occurs with dispersed employment locations. While some argue that this brings jobs closer to outlying residents, in North America it is common to cross-commute from one outlying residential bedroom community to an outlying employment tract on the opposite side of a metro area. The resulting settlement pattern sprawls in all directions, converting more and more green space to impermeable surfaces and car storage, and further widening the gap between the two social classes – the “car and driver” class and the “car deficient” class.
In short, then, I am certainly in favour of new fuels for cars, and I believe cars will always be important elements in our transportation system. But it would be a grave mistake to stop there. We must also change our transportation culture by adding GPS-based road tolls which vary according to location, distance and time of day to optimize the use of our limited road and parking infrastructure. That is simple economics. And we must invest heavily in good quality public transportation linking strategic growth centres selected through comprehensive regional planning. Many of these links can be at least partially financed through Land Value Capture if appropriate policies are in place beforehand.
Within these strategic centres we need to change our zoning from the “TV Dinner”-style segregation which isolates different land uses in separate “pods”, to an integrated, multi-use model more akin to traditional town centres – a model that I like to compare to a “pizza” with the synergy of interlayered ingredients all within a walkable radius of a bus, rail or ferry terminal (the centre of the “pizza”). That does not mean eliminating other options – many North Americans like the suburban, car-oriented lifestyle of the last century. But a growing minority of us do not, and wish there were many more alternatives to being forced into the costs of car ownership, the stress of traffic-choked streets and the visual monotony of endless parking and banal tilt-up big-box stores. This housing and retail market is being ignored by many North American retailers and developers, though there are some early hopeful signs. But unless North America rectifies the legacy of the past fifty years, eventually we will be left far behind Europe and Asia in terms of livable cities, social equity and economic competitiveness.
Vice-Director
The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (ICCR)
said: On 16/03/2010
The brief answer to the question is a clear yes. Of course we should be changing our transportation culture and not alone rely on technology to get us out of the environmental mess.
But: ‘what’ culture is to be changed? It is not enough to call for a shift away from the over-reliance on car or air transportation – and the support, instead, of related policy measures such as more and equitable pricing, greater investment in railways or better environmental impact assessments. It is also not enough to insist on the need to re-think lifestyles, norms or values. Changing the transportation culture means first and foremost adopting a different approach to transport planning and, in conjunction, housing and urban planning as well as spatial planning and innovation policy. So long as transport policy continues to be driven by transport conceptual models that operate on the simplistic appreciation of supply and demand with no appreciation of network effects or the unintended consequences on policy domains other than transport, it will not be possible to change this ‘black box’ of transportation culture. In turn, for this to be achieved it will be important to enlarge the transport policy community to include social scientists (besides engineers and economists) as well as organizations representing interests other than those of key industrial stakeholders.
MEP, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
European Parliament
said: On 31/03/2010
The latest IPCC report (2007) shows that industrialized countries need to achieve emission reductions of 85% to 95% by 2050, compared to the year 2000 in order to ensure atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 450 ppm. If we assume that the transport sector should take comparable efforts to other sectors and also reduce its emissions by 85-95%, then the answer is definitely: YES! In business as usual scenarios transport volume is expected to double between 2000 and 2050. Improving conventional technology can only lead to stabilization of transport emissions. So a change in our current transportation culture is needed, including a substantial reduction of transport volume.
For passenger car transport, technological solutions (electric, hydrogen) can achieve significant CO2 reductions if we combine these solutions with a drastic shift to renewable energy simultaneously. But this will also require radical changes to our current way of driving. Driving electric or hydrogen powered cars is quite different from conventional cars, for example in terms of the driving radius and longer & different refueling options. Public acceptance and the willingness of people to alter their mobility behavior are perquisites to a wide-scale use of these cars. Moreover, the ever increasing congestion of European roads makes the debate on public transport and car sharing unavoidable.
For road freight transport, aviation and shipping, no technological solutions are available that will bring about the necessary greenhouse gas reductions. These transport modes can partly reduce emissions through biofuels, but behavioral changes like reduced air travel are also indispensable.
The task of decarbonizing the transport sector is difficult, because it will require a decoupling of transport growth from economic growth. Over the last decades, transport demand has been closely linked to economic growth. Higher incomes have led to more private car ownerships and increasing trade volumes have resulted in more goods being moved. A structural break is needed with the past, where European transport emissions have grown by almost 40% since 1990.
All in all, in order to decarbonize the transport sector we do not only need alternative fuels, but also new technologies, behavioral changes and public acceptance. The future transport system will see electric cars, car sharing & pooling, shops being closer to consumers, advanced transport modes, people living closer to their work, telecommuting, biofuels for shipping and higher quality public transport including fast electric trains throughout Europe. Only seeking alternative fuels will simply not do.
Member
European Parliament
said: On 31/03/2010
Mobility is the right of every human being in order to fully participate in society. Since transport needs are constantly raising worldwide we absolutely need to convey old established transport solutions into modern and sustainable ones in order to protect our environment. Our current transportation culture in the Western world is mainly based on the economic benefit of our car industry. But this is neither ecologically friendly nor does it include all parts of the society. More effective than only pumping money into the research for e-cars would be the investment in other – already developed (!) – electronic transport means e.g. trams, trains and e-bikes. Especially in cities where the transport sector is responsible for 70% of the total green house gas emissions a well-thought mobility behaviour will create less noise, better air quality and more social integration.
Director
Holland Innovation Team
said: On 24/03/2010
Fuelling global transport can change, from fossil diesel and gasoline to: 1) Electricity, 2) Hydrogen, 3) Bio fuels or 4) a mix of LNG and bio-LNG.
Electric cars would be an opportunity for local zero emission but when electricity is generated by polluting coal power plants, for which the coal is transported by ships sailing upon polluting sulphurous marine diesel, questions should arise about the overall impact. And what about electricity for heavy trucks and ships? Hydrogen will take more time to evolve and needs a huge investment in infrastructure and adaption of cars. I am open for alternatives like solar energy and hope to hear some of these in this discussion, even changing the present concept of mobility which would be a real innovation; I would like to hear about!
Bio fuels will always have to deal with the discussion of food versus fuel. Whether it is justified or not, it still remains an ethical issue. Bio fuels of the second generation nowadays do not compete with food directly but are expensive and not very clean. We should be frightened when we look at the energy it takes to produce second generation bio fuels. As the director of an aspiring bio-ethanol producer in Rotterdam and as a geologist, it took several years of thinking before I was able to combine concepts and benefits. I concluded that we should struggle against wasting our natural resources; we should imitate nature and try to combine existing and new technologies to improve the results.
We should use liquid natural gas and liquid bio-methane for transport. Natural gas is nothing else than biogas of millions of years ago. Biogas is even produced when we forget to close our refrigerator on a hot day: let the bugs do the work and simply catch this cheap biogas. There are already millions of cars driving on natural gas in countries that have developed an infrastructure. According to Friends of the Earth, flaring of natural gas in Nigeria emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as is emitted by 18 million cars. So use it, catch the gas and let those 18 million cars drive on it. Catch all bio-methane – being one of the worst greenhouse gasses – which now flows into the air because we are too lazy to catch it. Natural gas, stranded gas, swamp gas, methane that leaks from coal (mines), gas from sewage sludge, landfills and controlled anaerobic digestion of food and agricultural waste can all provide methane for transport.
Use the progress made in small scale liquefaction technology (SSL) to distribute the (bio-)methane in liquid form, which means high energy density. 1 kilo of (bio-)LNG is 50 Mega Joule, compared to 42 Mega Joule for one kilo of diesel. Heavy trucks and ships and even planes can use bio-LNG. LNG is the cleanest fossil fuel. Bio-LNG (or liquid bio-methane) is the cleanest and cheapest bio fuel. In Europe we can replace 20% of the transport fuel (two times the EU obligation) by bio-LNG in 2020 without competition with food. Producing clean LNG from small gas fields and coal deposits can provide local and regional LNG as well as CNG (converting LNG into CNG at the station is cheap and easy) for the remaining 80% mostly private cars.
Senior Research Associate
Stockholm Environment Institute
said: On 09/09/2010
Increasing global mobility and the over-dependence on motorized transport poses the greatest challenge to achieving a low carbon future. It is also critical to achieving a good quality of life. Whether it is traffic congestion, road crashes, noise, urban air pollution, landscape destruction or greenhouse gas emissions, the damage and the costs of our current transport culture are dangerously high and rising. We therefore urgently need to change the way we travel. We know the technical solutions to achieving a sustainable transport system – these are simple. The challenge is political will. Do politicians dare to create a transport model that is different? For example, one that gives priority to the poor majority rather than the car-owning minority. Transport brings in sharp focus the issues around sustainability, environmental and social impacts and citizen participation. If we get the right transport culture we can deliver huge reductions in greenhouse gases and social justice and achieve a better quality of life that is equitable for all.
Senior Consultant
Asset Management & Sustainability Assessment
said: On 09/09/2010
The answer comes back to the more fundamental question of our collective sustainability vision for our community and how large our collective community is. Much of the world’s population today lives in cities and the trend is accelerating. Cities in particular have a complex relationship between urban form and transport. These aspects need to be considered as a whole. Sustainability over the past 20 years has been focused on increasing density and bringing work and other opportunities nearer to where people live. The idea is to compact cities and minimise the need to travel far from where we live and in the process minimise trip lengths. Variations on this are the polycentric cities with multiple centres and more localised trips. These are good strategies, but people also like to have choice in opportunities, for example to work at a distance from where they live if the opportunity suits them better. In western cities since the 1950’s, the mode with the flexibility to cater for this has been the car which can reach most anywhere in a city. We should continue to encourage the shorter trip making approaches but we also need to cater for the longer trip choices people invariably make, but to do so with more sustainable transport. The provision of fast, limited stop public transport corridors that are well connected to existing short distance transport modes and structured in both orbital and radial patterns to create a city web of PT is I believe a key. When connected with transit oriented development, sustainability will move a step further than it is at the moment. A transport culture that enables us to shift away from the high use of cars, even environmentally efficient ones, adds to the liveability of larger cities which are clogging with congestion of private vehicles whether they are low emission or not. To change the culture and break the trend requires government to provide lead infrastructure and other policies to enable communities to make the behavioural changes.
Director General
CLECAT
said: On 09/09/2010
I was asked to comment on the above question in my role as director of Clecat. CLECAT is a non-profit international association based in Brussels. The range of interests of the vast majority of EU enterprises which offer logistics, freight forwarding and Customs services both within and outside Europe are taken care of by the CLECAT structures.
Freight forwarders and logistic service providers, in providing supply chain services, utilise all transport services with an attitude that is unprejudiced by asset related interests as well as being committed to best practices in energy savings, environment protection compliance and climate change awareness.
Let me try to briefly analyse all the recent transport related policy items Clecat has dealt with and make clear how well these proposals fit with the idea of changing our transportation culture. In view of the nature of Clecat’s remit, I shall limit myself to freight, even though the recent developments in the area of electric vehicles (Nissan devoting an entire structure in the UK to this) make this single development probably the most promising in terms of its potential impact. Clecat stated reasonably early that the one-to-one relationship between transport and petroleum can no longer be as exclusive as it has been in the past; these recent developments seem to confirm what we have been saying for some time now.
Similarly our Members are also taking an encouraging look at the initiatives taken in the field of bio-fuels that are environmentally and socially sustainable; these may provide reasonable solutions where electricity will not be able to resolve the problem of emissions generated by transport. Other than in private car traffic, this may in fact quite often be the case.
Managing Director
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ - German Technical Cooperation)
said: On 12/11/2010
We do need a paradigm shift. Globally, the transport sector is a main culprit of climate change by contributing 23 percent of energy related CO2 emissions. Changing the transportation culture is key for sustainable development and prevention of dangerous climate change. Alternative fuels alone cannot achieve ambitious reduction targets. We do need a shift to truly sustainable approaches – that includes priority for walking, cycling and public transport, dense cities and appropriate taxation of fossil fuels. A change in the transportation culture not only helps to achieve climate targets, but also results into various co-benefits like better air quality, energy security and reduced congestion.
Transportation culture is therefore closely related to the development of sustainable infrastructure and towards the creation of livable cities. Individual decisions are always influenced by available opportunities, e.g. a high quality bus or metro system makes low carbon transport an attractive alternative.
Commissioned by the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, GTZ supports several developing countries in the design of low carbon and energy efficient transportation systems. For instance, a train-the-trainer programme on sustainable transport educated more than 1100 planners in about 24 countries (www.sutp.org). Furthermore, a recently launched Bus-Rapid Transit System – jointly planned and implemented by the City of Johannesburg, German Development Bank KfW and GTZ – demonstrates impressively that changing transportation culture increases individual mobility and, at the same time, reduces carbon emissions