International Transport Forum Debates / Debates / Transport & Climate Change: your questions to the experts / The Transport Sector and Climate Change / Latest Posts

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Charles Raux — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:10:05 GMT

A few remarks before leaving for Leipzig (and contributing to our CO2 atmospheric stock!)1) Transport sector should bear the same GHG emissions burden as other sectors, no more, not less. The efficiency rule is well known, it means the same “price” for each ton of CO2-e emitted whatever the source. This involves avoiding specific modal or fuel share (e.g. biofuels) targets. The consequence would probably be that transport as a whole would incur less reductions than other sectors, but some least cost CO2 savings would be made within the transport sector: regarding potential behavioural adaptations this is not a monolithic sector. This efficiency rule can be dismissed in the transport sector for political purposes but policy makers should be made aware of this efficiency loss, meaning that the other sectors would have to make supplementary efforts.2) Fuel prices do have an impact on fuel consumption and distances travelled. If not, how to explain such a difference in fleet fuel efficiency and urban sprawl between e.g. US/Canada and Europe? The literature is definite at least on the recent past behaviours: reviews of hundred of studies confirm short-term price-elasticities of fuel consumption between –0.2 and –0.3 and long-term (> 1 year) elasticities between –0.6 and –0.8 (Graham and Glaister, 2000; Brons et al, 2006). Recent US studies point at decreasing short-term elasticities: there is a possible short-term “lock-in” in car dependency and mileage in the US but does it preclude effective reductions in the long term?3) So market instruments like tax do work. They have an impact on consumer choices and therefore on industrial decisions of carmakers. The issue is to fine-tune and balance the incentives between carmakers and end-users as decision makers in their personal travel. The lack of incentive on consumers is indirectly a lack of incentive for carmakers: how could they offer high efficiency vehicles if nobody want to buy them and prefer SUV?4) Regarding the incentives on consumers we should not rely on oil price. Such a current high level could give way to new fossil sources (e.g. unconventional oils, coal to liquid), with ever increasing CO2 emissions.5) Increasing fuel taxes encounters obvious social opposition. There is also a reluctance from countries to harmonise their fiscal policy. This is why integrating transport in emission trading schemes (ETS in EU or possible akin system in the US) could be effective. Combined with mechanisms of compensation through free allocations of quotas to households this could gain some acceptability.

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Martin Kroon — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:12:31 GMT

Paul,Thanks for addressing the weight issue. Lee Schipper did so too. My point is that - according to the 1991 Resolution - today's extreme average power and performance levels are the real malefactor behind fuel spilling and 120 grams not being achievable at low costs. I study car trends and performances since the 60s. My first car, a SAAB 96, driven by Eric Carlsson has won in those days the toughest rallies with 60 HP. Nowadays, it is hard to buy cars with 60 HP, >100 HP is the minimum though all cars can easily run 120 km/h with 25 HP. So, ACEA naturally comes up with huge cost estimates for 120 grams supposing as rule of law that ever growing performances are left unrestricted. Thus to propell 1500 kg within 10 seconds to 100 km/h at 120 grams CO2 indeed brings about a lot of add-on technology. This is the real taboo&barrier to 120 grams - or even better as needed post Kyoto. ECMT Ministers in 1991 had the courage to point at this dilemma, contributing the task of restricting power and speed not to the market but to the EU and governments. Markets and suppliers need an equal level playing field, and limiting power/performance levels through EU regulation is crucial to liberate the car manufacturers from their HP captivity [out of their rat race]. Only so 120 grams (and even less if dimensions and weight drop) are achievable. Selling speed must become out-of-date!In my view weight is secondary. Current weight reductions are primarily dedicated to improving performance. Society is not served by high speeds and "sporty" accelerations. Current high dynamics are equally risk enhancing despite all technical tricks to compensate driver's failures. German Autobahn culture and practice is the real culprit in sustained daily over-dynamics - compelling manufacturers to offer at least 100HP/1000 kg ratios. Society can afford one offer: less fun for a few drivers who are speed-addict. The supply side must in the end learn to live with fair performance restrictions as long as they can market the same numbers of cars, which indeed must compete for market share with all fancy features other than performance.

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Nieuwenhuis — Mon, 26 May 2008 17:37:47 GMT

Martin,You are right about the weight and specification arms race in the car industry. I believe it was Ettore Bugatti, or possibly Gabriel Voisin, who said: "Le poids; voici l'ennemi". Not much has changed. Many argue you don't need to reduce weight, you can do much by improved powertrains, but those changes are even more effective if we reduce weight at the same time. Amory Lovins has pointed to the factor 4 (or more) improvement achievable by reducing weight, as you can reduce the weight of all other components and remove some (e.g. power steering) altogether. You also get cars that are better to drive, but how many drivers are true driving enthusiasts today? Too many seem to prefer moving around in mobile offices or mobile boudoirs, all at the expense of true driving experience. We probably need a 'campaign for real cars', that are fun and rewarding to drive. These will also, perhaps to the surprise of many, be more environmentally optimised. It is interesting in this context that an environmental rating system for vehicles we have developed with consultancy Clifford-Thames (and available as an interactive tool from their website: www.clifford-thames.com under 'ERV'), and which has a strong weight element (as it has such a crucial impact on the environmental impact of cars), brings up the smallest Morgan sportscar as on a par with a Toyota Prius, Lotus also does well, while Smarts tend to come out on top (Bentley at the bottom).This suggests weight-based regulation, or taxation as is currently in use in some countries (e.g. Dutch road tax for many years). Alternatively we could just set standards for CO2 emissions (e.g. 130 g/km) and allow car makers to decide how they achieve that. Many small cars already comply in any case - so it is clearly not beyond the car industry to achieve this - and if you want to offer large cars, you just have to make them significantly lighter. Seems fairly straight-forward, really.Paul

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Martin Kroon — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:55:04 GMT

Implementing ECMT 1991 Resolution on Power and Speed of Vehicles key to achieving post-Kyoto and 120 g/km CO2 ambitions.

Past and current market trends towards ever bigger, heavier and more powerful cars - in all size classes - have offset most technological improvements towards energy efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. Today's family cars with an average 140 HP/1400 kg and >200 km/h top speed outperform classic sports cars. In 3 decades (2 for diesel) average power levels have doubled. Not consumer demand but supply side marketing priorities (competition based on "more = better") made all size classes upgrade at least two grades. Today's "small cars" (A/B segment) equal the 1991 “Golf”(C) class and "medium sized" (D) cars equal former upper class cars in interior space, power and performance. Reducing dimensions, weight and power levels is most cost-effective in reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, manufacturers must follow sustaining upgrading trends in an overcrowded car market, serving never satisfied consumers - who blame industry and politics for inefficient cars and high casualty rates.... This is the real reason why 120 and 130 grams CO2/km are hardly achievable. This dead end street (manufacturers and consumers captive in marketing trends) must be opened; ITF can show the way-out.

What must change? This crazy rat race for power, speed and dimensions must end to achieve 120 grams CO2/km (and less) in an economical way, without wasting money in add-on technology for continuing upgrading. Downsizing power and performance levels and vehicle dimensions must be lifted from today’s taboo and put back on ITF’s policy agenda. Implementing ECMT's 1991/ 66 resolution on reducing power and speed, i.e. through regulatory limiting specific HP/kg ratings, top speeds and body size/weight, is most urgent. Returning to performance levels and vehicle dimensions of the 70s is most cost-effective in reducing traffic energy consumption, CO2 emissions, traffic dynamics and road casualties.
ITF and Member States must support and renew the principles as adopted in ECMT’s 1991 Resolution and take real steps towards implementing such policies.

Martin Kroon, mc.kroon@hetnet.nl

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Nieuwenhuis — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:55:22 GMT

Dear Jack,I have read your background document and must admit I am always somewhat puzzled by this concept of 'costs' of abatement. In general, what are costs to one are benefits to another. To give an example, the introduction of the catalytic converter was regarded by car makers and regulators as an additional cost. However, if you look at this carefully you find that for suppliers of precious metals, of catalysts, of electronic control systems, these were not costs at all, but benefits. Firms like Johnson Matthey, Bosch and Engelhardt did rather nicely out of these 'costs', meaning they recruited a lot of engineers, who did a lot of R&D and created a lot of IPR, and generally added value, rather than cost.It is already quite clear that attempts to reduce CO2 emissions from cars will have similar benefits. We should be very careful therefore, to unravel the true meaning of what the car assemblers (as represented by ACEA in the EU) present as 'costs'. We should take a broader, macroeconomic view of these issues and may well find that it is merely a reallocation of resources to other sectors of the economy, or even of the automotive sector (suppliers), which in the process add value in various ways. Indirectly, this also benefits the vehicle assemblers in the longer term, as the higher engineering content of their products can in various ways be translated into benefits for which the consumer is willing to pay. The rising electronics content of cars, has allowed the addition of a number of features that can be sold to customers.I welcome any comments on this.Paul Nieuwenhuis

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

John Stevens — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:12:11 GMT

May I pose a different kind of question: how should Ministers and policy makers respond to this debate? I think they might quickly conclude that they are right:* to act on several planes at once, such as vehicle technology, alternative fuels, land use policy, and consumer behaviour; and* employ a variety of instruments in combination, like pricing policy (even if consumer response is inelastic), performance standards (Dan Sperling’s point - eg for vehicle emissions), quantitative targets (despite the distortions that follow), monitoring schemes (like certification of biofuels).Can we help them to achieve new thinking? There are many interesting ideas in the debate so far (personally I noted Svenn Jensen on encouraging new social norms through regulation; Todd Litman on pay-as-you-drive to convert some of the fixed costs of driving into variable costs). But perhaps we can suggest some broad, underlying messages. My candidates might be:* First, avoid measures that turn around and bite: for example reject quantitative targets for biofuels, or pricing policies that depend upon hitting consumers hard, or technological standards that encourage sub-optimal developments, or fiscal measures that hypothecate revenues to unsustainable investment.* Second, work out how to spread similar measures to developing economies before their economic growth undoes the good effects of policies in the developed world; the tough challenge here might be post-Kyoto agreement, but there are also softer possibilities through co-operation, technology transfer, demonstration projects etc.Are there other candidates?

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Litman — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:49:46 GMT

If we apply a reductionist model, which considers climate change emission reduction objectives alone, then technical solutions that focus on increasing fuel efficiency or promoting alternative fuels may seem most cost effective (measured as cost per unit of emission reduction). However, if we use a more comprehensive model which considers other impacts, then mobility management strategies that reduce total vehicle travel often turn out to be more cost effective because this helps achieve many other planning objectives, including congestion reduction, road and parking cost savings, consumer cost savings, accident reductions, improved mobility options for nondrivers, improved public fitness and health (if they increase per capita walking and cycling activity) and support for strategic land use planning objectives (such as increasing land use accessibility and reducing sprawl).These cobenefits are often more significant in value, so ignoring them can lead to emission reduction policies that make society worse off overall, and tends to undervalue strategies that provide multiple benefits. For example, a policy that reduces climate change emissions by 20% would not be cost effective if it increased traffic accidents by 10% because per mile accident costs tend to be several times larger than per mile climate change emission costs. In fact, strategies that increase vehicle fuel efficiency or shift to cheaper alternative fuels tend to stimulate more driving (a rebound effect), exacerbating problems such as traffic congestion, accidents and sprawl (see Todd Litman, "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies," [i]Transport Policy[/i], Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129; at www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf ). We have identified more than a dozen "Win-Win" emission reduction strategies (http://www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf ), which are reforms that correct existing market distortions that result in economically excessive vehicle travel. These include strategies such as:* Pay-As-You-Drive vehicle insurance and registration fees, which convert fixed costs into variable costs.* Parking pricing and cash out.* Improved walking and cycling conditions.* Improved public transit service quality.* Smart growth land use policies.Although individually these strategies have modest impacts, typically affecting just a few percent of total vehicle travel, their impacts are cumulative and synergistic, resulting in large total effects. If fully implemented to the degree justify on economic grounds they are predicted to reduce emissions by 25-35% (http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).Some people question the effectiveness of these strategies, particularly those involving pricing, on grounds that motorists are no longer sensitive to fuel prices, based on studies such as those citied by Dan Sperling. However, some recent analysis indicates that motorists are now becoming more responsive to fuel prices (see my recent Planetizen blog at http://www.planetizen.com/node/31111 ), now that price increases have been durable and are causing fuel costs to represent an increasing portion of household budgets.I'm not suggesting that we should rely only on pricing to achieve emission reduction targets, but cost-effective win-win emission reduction strategies exist which provide significant benefits, and so should be deployed quickly as no-regrets policies. My key point is that liter of fuel conserved by reduced vehicle travel tends to provide an order of magnitude more benefits than the same liter conserved by increasing vehicle efficiency or shifting to alternative fuels, because reduced vehicle travel also achieves other important objectives such as congestion reduction, facility cost savings, increased traffic safety, and consumer savings. Only by applying more comprehensive analysis that considers all of these impacts can we identify the truly optimal emission reduction strategies.Todd Litman (litman@vtpi.org)Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Dan Sperling — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:10:40 GMT

Market instruments do not work well in improving fuel efficiency and GHGs of vehicles and fuels. The problem is that consumers are inelastic in response to fuel prices, and fuel suppliers are inelastic on supply side (2 studies in US show short term fuel price elasticity to be far less than 10% (-0.10), a dramatic drop from what it was in the past). The problem on the fuel side is lack of choices and options, and the problem on the demand side, especially in the US, is exactly the same -- lack of alternatives to the car. And thus performance standards, such as EU GHG stds, US CAFE stds, and California low carbon fuel standards, are far more effective than carbon/fuel taxes and cap and trade. Of course really large taxes will have a big effect, but it doesn't appear that either US or EU is willing to significantly increase fuel taxes. Complement the performance standards with some more modest marekt instruments such as feebates, coupled with rules to jumpstart some technologies (such as California's ZEV rules), and then we have a real climate/energy policy for vehicles and fuels.

Dan Sperling, UC Davis

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

mrmeter — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:25:20 GMT

Agree completely with Svenn Jensens' broadening of what we mean by utility? If society's individuals feel they derive utility from 2 1/2 tonne utility vehicles (nice puns), I think we're in big trouble with climate. Will even $100/tonne of CO2 change that utility? Well, $100/tonne Co2 is 88 US Cents/gallon, well under the price increases in gasoline since 2002. Let's see in the coming months how much the demand for SUV's changes with higher fuel prices -- the increase in US SUV standards ordered in 2002 was small and now dwarfed by the recently passed standards. So we have a chance to see how much prices alone will affect the sales of different kinds of vehicles as the manufacture prepare (hopefully) to both improve technologies in the short run and respond to the higher fuel economy standards in the US, Europe and Japan in the longer run.Lee SchipperBerkeley

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Svenn Jensen — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:38:05 GMT

The economic mantra is “getting the prices right” – and of course I agree; but only to a certain extent.Firstly, a textbook insight: the “simple” GHG based gasoline tax (Lou Thompson above) only has no distortionary effects if it is matched by a GHG tax for all other GHG producing activities. Otherwise the distortions created may outweigh the gains. As an example, let me name a typical short run – long run incentive problem: reacting on the fuel tax by buying a new car that emits less might be much worse for the climate than “using up” the old one first – since it produces massive GHG during production (life cycle perspective). So only if car production is also “taxed adequately”, the incentive scheme works. Secondly, since the entire sensible main stream economic arguments I could come up with are posted, let me roll out a little unorthodox critique:“Getting the prices right” suffices only if we suppose the ever-present rational individual maximising utility over consumption goods – good old homo oeconomicus. But let’s be honest – you wouldn’t tell a psychologist about that friend of yours. Utility maximisation is a thin construct – what’s utility? We can put into it what we want – so why not something psychologists would support?People are context-dependent. Two arguments:One, the social context: The “utility” from a 2.5 tonne SUV is certainly not derived in isolation from a society with billions of dollars spent advertisement for such SUVs and (hence?) a social status is derived from such gigantic steel constructions. People’s preferences are formed by different actors of society and social norms exist which people adhere to (if you want, to “maximise utility from social approval”). One norm might be “driving a 2.5 tonne SUV is great” (and it might be someone has worked on establishing it...) So the idea is that one can change preferences/attitudes and create new social norms (if one ethically speaking may change them is another question. But remember, Daimler and BMW do it all the time…). How? I wouldn’t know how to use the price mechanism here… Information may neither be sufficient. Try to match the experts and their budgets on “the other side” (GM and their marketing experts specialized in changing preferences). But regulation might help. An example: In Norway the state prohibited smoking in public buildings (work places etc.) in the 1980s. This led to a change in attitudes towards smoking – smoking is socially much less acceptable today than it was then. So while earlier, it was ok to smoke in the presence of others also in private places, it nowadays isn’t. People now maximise “utility” by gaining social acceptance from not smoking, trading it off against the “utility” from smoking. Economically speaking this is some multiple equilibrium model with one socially bad and one good equilibrium where a shift was provoked by regulation (to be found in: Nyborg and Rege, 2003: “On social norms: the evolution of considerate smoking behaviour”). So why not find a politically acceptable regulation that does the same to all sorts of socially undesirable (climate unfriendly) behaviour such as “driving 2.5 tonne SUVs”, “not using public transport” and all the other stuff which might be “bad equilibrium outcomes” of changeable social norms? Two, the time-context: People are context dependent in the sense that they have habits. You may do things because you’re used to doing them; because you have refined your particular “consumption technique” and/or because you have no experience with and hence an erroneous perception of your alternatives. “Utility” is a function of what you’ve gotten used to. So policies intended to make people change habits might have some success as well. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t want to take the sovereignty from the consumer. She or he may prefer large cars, the convenience of door – to door, privacy or whatever a car offers. I just suggest that each consumer might not be so sovereign to start with…

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Graham — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:43:32 GMT

The individual element is that of choice. There is no law of nature that says Americans need 2.5 tonne personal vehicles, nor that we can only drive here and there. Since 1981 the fuel needed to move one tonne of a new car a km has fallen by nearly 50%, but the tonnes of car (and the power) have increased so much that the energy to move a a new car has been almost constant. And choices on how to move "progressed" towards cars until the present fuel price escalation in 2002. How -- and how much -- we move is very important to how much GHG we emit. Cheap fuel and mobility, particularly if it is artificially cheap is in the US means we move far more than we need to.QuoteIf all Americans changed to diesel power they could reduce there dependency on oil by as much as 40%, and increase the mileage per gallon by 60%Take a typical New York taxi for example, they do around 14 miles per gallon on petrol sorry gas.If they changed to diesel they would get around 45 to 50 miles per gallon.I have a Skoda Superb 1.9 turbo diesel and 130 BHP as a taxi and get over 50 miles per gallon and best of all 650 to 850 miles per tank from 13.5 gallons, its the same shape and size as the Audi A6 or the VW passatSo even though its a large vehicle you do not need a tanker to follow you around

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

A Jansson — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:23:42 GMT

The link between GHG emissions and fuel use efficiency is obvious, but the link between improving fuel use efficiency and reducing these emissions is not.Until now, improvements in fuel use efficiency have been swallowed by increased transport mileage or, as Lee Schipper notes, by increased vehicle size. It is difficult to see any substantial change in this trend. That leaves two other possibilities: either we develop a true 0 GHG emission fuel into actual global use, or we succeed in reducing mileage where it is already high and checking the increase where it is as yet low.At the recent TRA Conference, a car manufacturer expressed his opinion that the only answer is hydrogen, but he may have had some interests of his own behind that answer. A similar response has been heard from Iceland.As yet, fuel price and the taxes and market movements in the price have been the only strong influence on mileage development and even that has been mainly a matter of a few years' dip in the curve. Tolls and vignettes to some extent redirect and locally reduce traffic, but their overall impacts on fuel use are also minor. Good public transport service levels can help staunch a developing demand for private cars, but if the car already has the upper hand, mileage reductions are not very big even if service levels are really good.One can expect that at some stage no sector of the economy will or can be allowed to increase its GHG emissions, regardless of whether it explains such an increase with growing demand or ensuring prosperity or whatever. It is then up to the sector to find out how it can cope with such a limit. Transport is a service that depends for demand on what happens in other sectors, in land use, in population development &c, but there are examples of service sectors where the sector itself is made responsible for if it allows the demand to be expressed or not - typically Scandinavian alcohol sales. Perhaps we need to set transport's future in such a framework?Anders HH JanssonFinnra

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Efried — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:46:45 GMT

Dear Sirs,from my perspective there are many non technical problems.- Politicians have to react to raising fuel (and also food) costs- Politicians have to protect their own industry producing gas guzzlersTaking that into consideration we need an integrated policy- reducing the fuel demand with incentives for regenerating braking energy and procuring smaller vehicles- supporting research for more efficient bio fuel production (bio gas from waste, bio ethanol from hemi zellulosis etc.) and usage (more efficient biofuel engines)- support for the build up of alternative vehicle industry comprising eco-modding (fuel saving aftermarket equipment) , velocabs (ultra light pedal electric vehicles), microcars (from narrow tilting two seaters to four seaters) etc. giving support for homologenisation and market introductionbest regards[url]http://www.greenfleet.info[/url][url]http://www.recodrive.eu[/url]

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

mrmeter — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:06:15 GMT

I have to agree with my one-time mentor Lou Thompson about his framing of the problem. But increasingly there are two elements of behavior -- one individual and one collective -- that have a big sway here.The individual element is that of choice. There is no law of nature that says Americans need 2.5 tonne personal vehicles, nor that we can only drive here and there. Since 1981 the fuel needed to move one tonne of a new car a km has fallen by nearly 50%, but the tonnes of car (and the power) have increased so much that the energy to move a a new car has been almost constant. And choices on how to move "progressed" towards cars until the present fuel price escalation in 2002. How -- and how much -- we move is very important to how much GHG we emit. Cheap fuel and mobility, particularly if it is artificially cheap is in the US means we move far more than we need to.The collective element is that of management. As my experience with EMBARQ in Mexico City has shown, creating a fuel saving, emissions saving, and time savings BRT corridor on Insurgentes was mostly an act of management, of changing how both private and public actors managed the Mexico City transport system. That almost 10% of Metrobus nearly 300 000 daily riders used to make the same trip in cars attests to what a change can be wrought when a system is managed differently. Bogota and other cities with strong BRT systems have the same experience.So while technology is important, technology did NOT lead to savings in US GHG emissions -- it let us have our cake and eat it, or rather, vent it, too. And technology was not the key figure in Metrobus, in fact the original 80 buses were standard articulated buses. It was the will to run the system differentlyLee Schipper

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

louthompson — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:02:46 GMT

Three questions are posed: 1) What should be the aims and objectives for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction for the transport sector; 2) What is the role of technology in reducing CO2 and how should it be introduced; and, 3) What transport measures can make a real difference.Transport is a derived demand, and objectives for GHG reduction for the transport sector cannot be developed in isolation. Rather, transport should be encouraged and assisted to function efficiently and responsively to market demand, with shippers and passengers left to deal with the underlying aims and objectives. The best way to do this is simply to let fuel prices reflect costs, including the cost of GHG emissions, and let passengers or shippers decide how much, and what quality, transport to use. Put another way, any solution other than effective pricing will not yield an efficient and sustainable result.GHG emissions are almost wholly a function of energy consumption, so the basic lever for reducing GHG emissions is improved fuel efficiency. To some extent, fuel composition (more hydrogen, less carbon) is also significant, so some fuel substitution can be helpful. Battery power, or overhead electric traction, can also be helpful, but only to the extent that the electric power is either generated efficiently from fossil fuels (usually the case) or is generated from non-fossil fuels such as hydro or nuclear. In this regard, it is worthwhile emphasizing that most existing bio fuels have essentially zero (at best marginal, but possibly even negative) value in reducing GHG emissions, though they might arguably have some value for other objectives such as reduced dependency on imports.Policies to introduce technology should include focused and clearly justified support for R&D (such as battery technology) that can fundamentally reduce the cost or increase the availability of alternatives and, in some cases, regulation to encourage, or direct funding to support, developing economies of scale for a technology that will be self supporting afterwards (photovoltaics might be an example). Actual production subsidies, or tax rebates for production, or import protections, all of which are true of ethanol and some other bio fuels (especially in the U.S.), are almost always a bad idea because they distort markets and create interest groups that tend to become self-perpetuating well after the initial good intentions have been achieved (if they ever are).The key transport policy initiatives that would make a real difference are two-fold. First, energy consumption by transport modes should never be subsidized and should, instead, reflect the full cost of GHG emissions. A good and direct way to do this is to tax all fuel use based on GHG impact (though, of course, other taxes on fuel can be added to achieve additional objectives). Arguably the E.U. is already doing this though the U.S. clearly is not. Command and control measures, such as automotive or truck fuel economy standards, are generally not successful because they do not provide incentives and flexibility to reach the most efficient technical solutions, and automobile manufacturers have always been successful in subverting them (U.S. and German experience being good examples).Second, and more important, Ministers should ensure that transport providers are allowed, and encouraged, to offer competitive services at competitive prices so that the users of transport will be able to make effective choices. As a pointed example in the E.U., goals to shift freight traffic from highway to rail, which could have positive externalities of many kinds including GHG reduction, will never be achievable if the rail freight operators are not market-driven, if they face unnecessarily high infrastructure access charges or discrimination from national operators, or if infrastructure capacity is reserved for uneconomic (and sometimes energy wasting) passenger services. Commission policies are in place that would, if effectively implemented (a significant "if"), ameliorate some of the infrastructure access issues but there is, as yet, no clearly articulated approach to ensuring adequate competition in the rail freight market.

RE: The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Graham — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:37:06 GMT

Dear MR Short, As you may know there is now equipment on the market that people can buy, that enables them to run there vehicles on an type of waterhttp://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=nuch11this is one of many sites some have videos of how to convertWhy is this not being researched as a viable alternative, as all the tests have proved positive, and have worked without any problems, could it be that governments would loose billions in tax revenues.As you know our government in the Uk is keen to promote co2 reductions, there is one form of transport that would change almost immediately and that is the taxi market in London.There is only one thing holding back development and that is the insistence by the PCO that all taxis must have a turning circle, if this was removed taxi owners in London would change there cabs for the more environmentally friendly E7.that is already meeting euro 5 emissions 3 above the LTI present bestLondon is the only place in the UK where the turning circle is a requirement as its been abolished everywhere else.The incentive to convert vehicles to run on LPG needs to be reinstated by way of 80% grant and there must be a supply on every forecourt, at the moment there are many being put off due to the cost of converting and the availability of LPGThe use of bio fuels only leads to poor countries starving as they are starting to do now.The best thing would be to stop petrol production altogether and only use diesel for all vehicles, as diesel cost 50% less to refine and you get more MPG from every gallon so the dependency on oil would drop by over a 3rd.Diesel engines are also more efficient and at the rate of design are becoming cleaner than any petrol ones

The Transport Sector and Climate Change

Jack Short — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:04:11 GMT

The transport sector is responsible for a significant and growing share of CO₂ emissions. Most indications are that transport activity and emissions will double or more in the next 30 years.

Transport Ministers from upwards of 50 countries around the world will gather with industry leaders and top researchers on 28-30 May in Leipzig at the International Transport Forum on “Transport and Energy: the Challenge of Climate Change”. Over 2.5 days, Forum participants will discuss the technological and policy mechanisms for bringing about an energy-efficient, low-carbon future for transport.

In advance of our Forum, we would like to hear from you.

Attached here I have prepared a few thoughts to stimulate some debate. (The Transport Sector and Climate Change) Please read, and then let me know:

In your opinion,

What aims and objectives should Ministers have for the transport sector?
What is the role of technology in reducing transport CO₂ emissions? How can best technology be introduced?
What transport policy measures should Ministers support so as to make a real difference?

The best suggestions and comments will be brought to the attention of delegates and Ministers at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig 28-30 May.

Thanks very much in advance for your participation. I look forward to receiving your input.

With best regards,
Jack Short
Secretary General