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 –

schipper@berkeley.edu

Car that absorbs its own carbon and needs no oil?A carbon-free car does not solve transport problems

30