Climate Change Mitigation and Transport:g g pToo Late for a New Approach?
Lee SchipperPrecourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University
Global Metropolitan Studies, UC Berkeley
BAQ 2010November 8 2010
Latin America?
2
Knee-Jakarta Reaction to Mal-Asia?
Schipper PEEC Stanford
A Mode Not in the Survey?
Asia: lumbering into modernity
Schipper PEEC Stanford
Key Messages: Saving CO2 in Transport• Transport Matters A Lot for CO2; CO2 Matters Little for Transport
Transport fastest rising CO2 emissions source (24% global 2006, “50% urban”)
High CO2 symptom of poor urban transport in most developing citiesHigh CO2 symptom of poor urban transport in most developing cities
Technology improvements to LDV important, but VKT growth the major problem
Frame problem as a transport problem, not a CO2 problem
F k f I t ti CO2 i t T t I t ti• Framework for Integrating CO2 into Transport InterventionsScope and Scale – from region wide urban development to individual vehicles
CO2 (even at $85/tonne) not major determinant – take as cobenefit( ) j
Maximize welfare from transport for a given level of emissions
• CO2 In Urban Transport – Not by Tailpipe Alone (Further thoughts)A id S t i bl b d l t (C itib ) d b d t tAvoid – Sustainable urban development (Curitiba) served by good transport
Shift - Improve access with collective modes, NMT, with restraint on car use
Improve – Reduce carbon intensity of vehicles, travel and freight
Finance good transport, not just CO2 reductions
Today’s CO2/Transport ConcernToo much focus on CO2, not enough on Transport/ DevelopmentToo much focus on CO2, not enough on Transport/ Development
• Dealing with CO2 in Urban Transport Means Facing LDV– “Good Transport” (Mitric) means fewer vkt, probably fewer cars
– Transport measures (congestion pricing, vkt fees) and fuel economy
L CO2 t it hi l h i i t– Low CO2 transit vehicles per se have minor impact
• Following the Wrong MoneyCDM etc can’t succeed fuel minor concern and cost scale too small– CDM etc can t succeed – fuel minor concern and cost, scale too small
– Too much focus on a few fundable projects rather than good transport
– Trillions in transport investment ignoring CO2 concern - why ?p g g y
• “Negotiation” Mentality – Empowering the Wrong People– National authorities bargaining over CO2, not development
– Transport/development stakeholders not present at COP
– Clear anti-south taste and ‘sacrifice’ mentality
Needed: Strong Transport Actions Slowing Car VKT, Strong National Actions on fuel/CO2 Taxes, Fuel Economy
Pillars of Sustainable Transport:Serve not Sever DevelopmentServe, not Sever, Development
• Economic Sustainability– Affordable to users and authorities– Attractive as a business– Each mode bears social costsEach mode bears social costs
• Social Sustainability – Promotes access for all, not just a few, j– Removes Barriers– Avoids irreversible binds
E i t l S t i bilit• Environmental Sustainability– Leaves no burdens for future generations
Minimizes accidents damage to human health (air pollution etc)– Minimizes accidents, damage to human health (air pollution, etc)– Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
7
Governance - The Roof Over these PillarsMake and Keep the Rules, Protect the Weak
WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS: TRANSPORTDespite the Small Share of Latin America, p ,
CO2 a Problem because Transport a problem 30000
China non-TransportOECD Non Transport
25000
OECD Non TransportRest of World non TransportLat. Am incl Mexico non transportSea and Aviation Bunkers
20000
2
China TransportOECD Transport ex MexicoRest of World TransportLatin Am incl Mexico Transport
15000
on
nes
CO
2 Latin Am incl Mexico Transport
10000
MT
o
5000
0
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
“ASIF” Decomposition: First Approach to Understanding Energy Demand in TransportUnderstanding Energy Demand in Transport
Fuel Use: Biofuels? Emissions from Transport:
G = A Si Ii Fi,j * * *
T t l T t
Veh-km and pass km by mode
Emissions per unit of energy
or volume or km
Total Transport Activity
Occupancy/Load Factor
Technological energy
pass-km by mode
Modal Energy Intensity
Vehicle fuel intensity and fuelVehicle characteristics
Technological energy efficiency
Real drive cycles and routing; t l th f i t l
intensity and fuel per seat-km
Vehicle characteristics stage length for air travel
Understand links of each component to income, fuel pprices, fares, land uses, lifestyles, regulations
Transport- CO2 and Oil Links: Which Ones Flex The Most? The Least?Which Ones Flex The Most? The Least?
Avoid CO2 Intensive Development:Avoid CO2-Intensive Development:Singapore Land Use Planning,
Congestion Pricing
Shift and Strengthen:Mexico City Metrobus
Improve and Mitigate: Efficient Vehicles
Improve and Mitigate: True Low Carbon Fuels
CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in Latin America The Urban Share by Vehicle TypeThe Urban Share by Vehicle Type
160
180
140
160
es
Total Emissions
Urban Regions
100
120
etri
c T
on
ne Urban Regions
60
80
2, M
illi
on
Me
40
60
CO
2
0
20
LDV M t l Mi ib B LDV f i ht M d T k H
*Source: This study based on SMP/WBCSD and IEA/MOMO estimates by mode 2005
LDVPassenger
Motorcycles Minibuses Busses LDV freight Med Trucks HeavyTrucks
CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in MCMA –Similar Patterns for Bogota Santiago S Paulo*Similar Patterns for Bogota, Santiago, S Paulo
16
12
14
To
nn
es
Com pressed Natural Gas
10
on
Met
ric
T
LPG
6
8
sio
ns.
Mill
io
D iesel
Gasoline
4
CO
2 E
mis
s
-
2
C Pi k d T i B l ti VW B All T k
C
Cars, Pickups and Taxis Buses, colectivos, VW Buses All Trucks
*Source: MCMA Bottom-up Emissions InventoryS. Paulo has lower emissions from LDV because of alcohol, but still bad traffic
Light Duty Vehicles Dominate Urban Streets and CO2 EmissionsStreets and CO2 Emissions
• Global Estimate for All of Latin America– WBCSD Estimates for 2000- 75% of VKT, 43% of rd. trans. emissions
– If “Urban” 80% of LDV, minibus, 50% of bus, 10% of heavy freight –
U b LDV 80% f VKT d 55% f i i– Urban LDV are 80% of VKT and 55% of emissions
• Similar Results from Local Emissions InventoriesMexico City Bogota S Paolo and Santiago– Mexico City, Bogota, S Paolo and Santiago
– High car share means high congestion
– High congestion itself worsens fuel use, local pollutiong g , p
• High CO2 is Symptom of Poor Urban Transport– Light duty vehicles (and colectivos) clog streets
– LDV -> 55% of urban-centered road transport CO2 emissions
– Tough measures to address LDV required
Hard to Address CO2 without Improving Urban Transport
Framework for Integrating CO2 into Urban Transport: About Transport Not Climate ChangeAbout Transport, Not Climate Change
• Determine Scope and Scale of Intervention– Scope: Urban Development, Transport, or Vehicles
– Scale: Entire Country/Region, Subarea/corridor, or localized
F hi l (N ti l) t d ffi i td ifi hi l– For vehicles: (National) tax and efficiency stds, or specific vehicles
• Economics – CO2 Role In the Valuation of Other ChangesValues of key transport variables and other outcomes– Values of key transport variables and other outcomes
– Value of fuel and CO2
– Valuation of Other changesValuation of Other changes
• Time Frame/Evaluation: What Would’ve Happened Otherwise?– What counts in evaluation, for how long?What counts in evaluation, for how long?
– How to compare: before/after or with/without?
– Long-term monitoring and evaluation
Avoid High CO2 Emissions Through Development: Curitiba’s street street and land use systemCuritiba s street street and land use system
Scope and Scale: Shift and StrengthenLow CO2 Transport: Region wide or One Route?
Scope and Scale: Low Emission Vehicles and FuelsImportant but only the Tail of the Dog
Economics: Transport Externalities in US ContextEconomics: Transport Externalities in US ContextRange of Costs/Mile large- Which are Most Important?
Range External Costs in Cost-of-Driving Studies
Low High (JEL)Journal Of Economic Literature
Comments on Latin AM situation
Air Pollution 1 14 2.3 Values are probably higher for LDC cities because of higher levels of air pollution, even g p ,after adjusting for Quality-adjusted value of life. See Vergara et al 2002 and Harvard School of Public Health 2003
Climate Change 0.3 1.1 0.3-3.5 Value widely disputed (Nordhaus 2008; Stern ) d i l d d i l d2006) and certainly dependent on national and
local situation. 0.3 cents/mile = $10/tonne CO2; 3.5 cents/mile= $80/tonne CO2
Congestion 4 15 5-6.5 Does not apply to all travel. Depends on value of time (60% of wage rate?) and actual wagesof time (60% of wage rate?) and actual wages
Accidents 1 10 2-7 Depends on valuation of accidents and life. See INE 2006 for MC perspective
Energy Security 1.5 2.6 0-2.2 Values depend on local energy supply situation.
Range of academic national and local studies, official national studies (Canada):CO2 Externality (even at $85/tonne Stern’s value) small compared to othersCO2 Externality (even at $85/tonne, Stern s value) small compared to othersThis means CO2 should be a co-benefit of transport strategies
Bus Rapid Transit – Mexico’s 1st Metrobus Line260 000 people/day over 19km for US $80mn260,000 people/day over 19km for US $80mnLower emissions, CO2, reduced car traffic
Metrobus CO2 Changes by ComponentSavings roughly 1/3 mode shift, 1/3 parallel traffic, 1/3 bus switching)
H b id b ld h l dd d 6% t i t HIGH tHybrid buses would have only added 6% to savings at HIGH cost
550
600
450
500
350
400
CO2
A. 20 Extra Metrobus
250
300
nd Tonnes
B. Original 70 Metrobus on Route
C. Colectivos and RTP Buses Removed
150
200
Thousan
D. Car Users Shifting to Metrobus
E. Delays to vehicles crossing Insurgentes
50
100F. Additional Distance for Left turns
G. Savings from improved parallel traffic
H Remaining parallel traffic0
Before After
H. Remaining parallel traffic
Co-Benefits from Metrobus: Broader Than Just CO2Transport, Health Benefits >> CO2 Benefitsp ,
$25
CO2 d ti i ll l t ffi
$20
CO2 reduction in parallel traffic
CO2 reduction, mode shift car to bus
$15
S (20
05)
CO2 reduction from bus switch
Fuel savings to parallel traffic
$10
Million $
US
Fuel saving, mode switch car to bus
Fuel Savings from bus switch
$5
Air Pollution/Health Benefits fromlower air pollution
VKt external costs -- reduction in alltraffic
$0
Time Savings of Bus Riders
Low CO2 Value ($5/tonne) High CO2 Value($85/tonne)
Impact of Intervention: Difference BetweenImpact of Intervention: Difference BetweenBAU (no intervention) and Actual
Before & after
ctiv
ity
ns
OriginalBaseline
project
Difference between with & with-out
ansp
ort
Ac
Em
issi
on out
project
Tra
or
Revised Actual:
Time
Second Project?
Time
Application to Other Regions? Case of Asia
• Urban Transport and CO2: Gap Narrowing with L. America– CO2/$ or capita lower because of fewer cars (but more 2w)$ p ( )
– Streets clogged at 10% of car ownership levels of L.A. – partly 2w
– Urban transport systems vary from good to non existent
• The Framework for Integrating CO2 into Urban Transport– Similar issues about urban development and transport, just more urgent
M i i i il Diff l f f i ll i i– Monetization similar: Different values for safety, air pollution, congestion
– Asian cities growing much more rapidly – less time to act
• Bottom Line: Bigger Chance to Avoid the Worst• Bottom Line: Bigger Chance to Avoid the Worst – China, India, most of SE Asia headed for “Car Collapse”
– Viet Nam – the two wheeled way out?Viet Nam the two wheeled way out?
– Stronger policies, land use changes could head off the Collapse?
In Asia, Its Transport and Development, Stupid
Dilemma for the Developing World?Cheap Cars and Slow Costly Transportation
Cheap Two Wheelers, but No Sidewalks in Pune
Nano or Nono? The Peoples’ Car
Cheap Cars and Slow, Costly Transportation
but No Sidewalks in Pune1/3 of cities < 1mn in India Have no public transport
The Peoples’ Car
Nano is not Efficient Just SmallNano is not Efficient, Just SmallMillions Could Clog India’s Streets, Slow Economic Growth
Sustainable Transport? Yes
OR+ OROR OR
Additional Thoughts: De-Carbing Transportthe New ASIF
• Avoid – Saving Carbon Through Urban Development– Land Use: Building a city or differently (Singapore, Curitiba, Seoul)g y y ( g p , , )– Internalizing costs at an early stage of development– Shifting the balance away from high-carbon transport
S it h C b fit f T t D l t• Switch: Co-benefits of Transport, Development– Bus Rapid Transit and other improvements to transport system– Careful transition from smaller to larger, better managed transit vehiclesCareful transition from smaller to larger, better managed transit vehicles– Congestion pricing and other strategies to reduce externalities
• Improve by Operations, Technology– Lower fuel use/km with improved traffic flow– Higher vehicle occupancy– Efficient vehicles low carbon fuels – Mostly national initiatives count CEfficient vehicles, low carbon fuels Mostly national initiatives, count C
• Finance: Local Authorities, MDBs – NOT MAIN PROBLEM
The Key Ingredient is not Money Or TechnologyThe Key Ingredient is not Money Or TechnologyRather, Political Will to Clear the Streets
GOVERNANCE, REGULATIONREGULATION,
ENFORCEMENT
LAND USE
COLLECTIVE
TRANSPORT Non MOTORIZEDMOTORIZED
TECHNOLOGY/ FUELS
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
DRIVER BEHAVIOR
Financial and Institutional Under-pinnings:
L l N i l d T i lLocal. National, and Trans-national Authorities
Conclusions: Best Practices? Challenge is About Sustainable TransportChallenge is About Sustainable Transport
• A New Framing of the Issue: NOT “Climate Change”– CO2 not a leading transport issue but transport leading source of CO2– CO2 not a leading transport issue, but transport leading source of CO2
– Developing countries don’t need to reduce, they need to avoid
– Current CO2 emissions not the point; transport must be addressed
• Avoidance, Co Benefits, Direct Mitigation– Avoiding best long-term goal for developing countries
– Co-benefits important everywhere, but requires strong governance
– Mitigation important, but there is little to “mitigate”, much more to avoid
M i i W lf /t f CO2 t Mi i i CO2• Maximize Welfare/tonne of CO2, not Minimize CO2– Stronger urban development
Transport measures not focused on carbon (avoid the $/ton syndrome)– Transport measures not focused on carbon (avoid the $/ton syndrome)
– Mitigation of vehicles, fuels that do make economic sense w carbon tax
If Abundant CO2 free Fuel AppearedIf Abundant, CO2-free Fuel Appeared,What Would Happen to Transport?
The Research ChallengeHow to Achieve Sustainable TransportHow to Achieve Sustainable Transport
• First Steps: Where are Countries and Cities Headed?W t P bl b t t b t l ti it i t t– Worst Problems are urban transport, but rural connectivity important
– Why do things keep getting “worse”? Cheap fuel, cars, access
– What are development issues behind present trajectoryWhat are development issues behind present trajectory
• Where Does CO2 Fit In (Does it)?– Assess real travel and freight patterns, fuel efficienciesg p ,
– Examine who makes vehicles, how they are bought, used
– See where standards, pricing, etc fit in
• Putting it Together– Compare plausible and sustainable outcomes with present trajectory
B i f th t t t li i fi t– Bring forth strong transport policies first
– Tune up with fuel economy standards
Schipper’s Take: Key Challenge is Political WillSchipper s Take: Key Challenge is Political WillNot Money and International Negotiations
GraciasLee SchipperLee Schipper –
Car that absorbs its own carbon and needs no oil?A carbon-free car does not solve transport problems
30