Lee Shipper has challenged the thought expressed in today's feature article concerning the importance of finding ways to bring the sustainable transport agenda into higher much relief in the COP15 climate negotiations just about to get underway. His point -- maybe a better idea not to do this at all -- is one on which we would like to invite your comments here.
Schipper writes on this date: COP15: Getting transport into the climate agenda
AS one of the creators of this agenda, let me promote it by pointing out that the basic paradigm STARTS with sustainable transportation and reaps CO2 savings as a co-benefit.
The greatest problem for the COP is that there are few key transport system stakeholders there at any time. That, in my humble opinion, may be a reason NOT to put transport into the climate agenda.
Rather, put climate into the transport agenda and keep transport out of the reaches of the bitterly divided debate that is already apparent here in Copenhagen, where the police appear to be preparing for an onslaught.
We cannot solve long-term problems of transport and land use in the more narrow confines of an overheated debate over CO2, however important that CO2 problem is looming.
# # #
Comments invited either just below here (Comments) or to the New Mobility Cafe at NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Saturday, December 5, 2009
COP15: Getting transport into the climate agenda
Why get in the middle of a cat fight when you don't have to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I disagree with Lee Schipper, or have I misunderstood the posting ?
ReplyDeleteIt is common for many people talking about greenhouse gas reduction to assume that only technological measures such as electric cars have any chance of success in the transport sector. This has several disadvantages:
1. It perpetuates the hell that incessant road traffic and aircraft noise have imposed on many areas of our cities (and some rural locations too).
2. It perpetuates the idea that greenhouse gas reduction is expensive and unaffordable. If people spend less money on cars then there should be more money available to finance the things that make our life worthwhile.
3. It reduces the amount of reduction that will be politically feasible.
We therefore need to get our climate change negotiators to recognise that replacing cars and planes with more sustainable modes can help reduce emissions, save money and improve our quality of life all at once.
Simon Norton, Cambridge UK
I think you misunderstood. My point is that the carbon negotiators have no authority, political or otherwise, to change transport.
ReplyDeleteThat’s what’s wrong. The transport people who matter are not “delegates” here and don’t sit in the meetings and make policies.
That’s too bad. But I’m not sure they should be here.
They should be making sensible transport policies as Simon recommends INDEPENDENT of the swirl of hot air and debate that will arise in Copenhagen.
We can’t wait for a climate agreement to fix transport, and fixing transport will contribute to lower Co2 emissions without having to wait for the large economies to stop fighting!
Lee Schipper
Project Scientist, Global Met. Studies, UC Berkeley
Sen. Res Eng., Precourt Energy Eff Ctr, Stanford U.
The London Mayor's draft Transport Strategy is a good example of this debate between techno fix and reduced demand:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Mayor's own transport strategy, he has a 'policy gap' of reducing 2m tonnes of CO2 by 2025 in order to meet his overall targets. The draft Transport Strategy says that after he has done all the other things such as Crossrail, a 400% increase in cycling, hybrid buses and electric cars, there is still this major gap which can only be filled by either road pricing across London, or 50% of vehicles in London becoming electric.
The question for politicians is which is the more realistic option?
Ian Wingrove, TfL, London UK
I agree with Lee on this.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Carbon negotiators are doing a job that has more to do with creating a carbon market and supporting the mode-shift towards a sustainable development. They are creating a market, where trading is perhaps easily calculable. Transport sector, even though it vastly contributes to emissions, is very disjoint in nature when it comes to evaluation.
Secondly, Transportation is a design flaw, and not an operational mistake. It has to be fixed, regardless of the carbon content in our atmosphere. May it be 450 ppm, 350 ppm or even less? Reforming transformation is necessary for the overall societal development, and emissions (especially CO2) reduction is one amongst the many advantages that this reform would bring.
Thank you.
Best,
JT.
--
Jay Thakkar | Green Commute Coordinator
Greater Mercer TMA
Ph: 609.452.1491 | Ext: 237
Fx: 609.452.0028
Email: jthakkar@gmtma.org
Another worry I have is that the present framework encourages projects that may show a carbon savings BUT NOT NECESSARILY a transport improvement.
ReplyDeleteIf the demand side is pain free within the draft Transport Strategy the burden is shifted to additional unsustainable sources. Isn't the sustainable challenge to make do within the existing resource base rather than seeking new resource inputs? Lithium batteries for electric cars and charging time of use etc represent future conflicts and unsustainable pollution sinks. Rather than addressing present health and access concerns, electric cars for example still produce PM10 and 2.5 at the same problem rate, these other mechanism from COP15 only add unfair regulatory complications. If trading works fine- but if not we cede the right to clean air to our lungs for nothing.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Gladwyn d'Souza
Belmont, CA
Lee Schipper, I'm still not sure that I understand you, but let me try to restate my point of view more clearly so that you can see whether it accords with what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteMost of us recognise that a car based transport system is utterly dysfunctional, and the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is therefore a co-benefit of what needs to be done anyway.
However, there are those who believe that private motor transport is essential to civilisation. These people, assuming they are not climate change deniers, will therefore have their eye on technological means of reducing emissions, which are more costly and which will have a more limited scope.
Transport activists need to lobby climate change negotiators to ensure that they recognise that this is not so. Then they will be willing to contemplate a more sustainable transport system in addition to other means of reducing emissions, and, hopefully, confront the car lobbyists who currently pervade most of our governments.
We may be able to persuade them, further, that a better quality of life is possible in a low car society, but for them it will be the better quality of life that is the co-benefit of a policy that will, I hope, help to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions below the danger level.
Simon Norton, Cambridge UK
In reply to Ian, I think that what some of us would want in London (and
ReplyDeleteelsewhere in the UK) is both road pricing and mass rollout of electric vehicles.
This would enable London, and the UK, to strengthen its targets, and under an
emissions trading system the proceeds from the sale of the relevant permits would strengthen London's, and the UK's, economy.
Furthermore the cost of the rollout of electric vehicles would be reduced if transport policy meant that fewer vehicles were needed to service the needs of Londoners and other UK citizens. This would further benefit the economy and also cut the emissions involved in producing these vehicles.
The UK Government, knowing that it could strengthen its targets, would be able to support stronger world targets. If other countries followed suit this would raise the market price of emissions permits and thus further strengthen the incentive to reduce emissions.
This, I believe, is how an emissions trading system could be made to work. It also means that countries that believed that rapid reduction of their emissions would be economically disastrous would no longer be able to drag the rest of the world down; they would be told that they would have to buy permits from the rest of the world to maintain their emissions levels. Of course they would only
be able to do this if other countries had surplus permits they were willing to sell -- and in any case they would have every incentive to think again about the economic viability of a reduction strategy.
Simon Norton, Cambridge UK
Simon,
ReplyDeleteThe UK is already threatened with electricity shortages in the not-too-distant future (as are many other countries). How would the massive rollout of electric vehicles help resolve that?
The problem is not that we are addicted to 'mobility' per se, but rather that our economic system (culture and civilization) is predicated on the mass consumption of *energy*.. Emissions are a by-product of energy consumption, so pricing should be applied to the most basic input - energy.... Shifting people from petrol-powered vehicles to electirc-powered ones is just moving the problem from one place to another. And how do we factor in all of the energy inputs which go into goods production?
Cheers,
Zvi Leve, Montreal Canada
I thought that Copenhagen was about climate change and CO2 production - not energy production as Zvi suggests.
ReplyDeleteThere are a range of problems with mass mobility which have no direct connection with climate change, i.e. community severence, air pollution, mass death and injury. So i think that Simon's focus on mass mobility, rather than energy consumption is clearly the better choice.
Ian Wingrove, London TfL UK
These are excellent points. Improving vehicle technologies, such as more efficient or alternative fueled vehicles, tends to address one or two objectives (reduced energy dependence and pollution emission reductions) but does nothing to address other problems such as traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, consumer costs, accidents, inadequate mobility for non-drivers, inefficient land use development patterns, or inadequate physical fitness and health. In fact, increasing fuel efficiency tends to exacerbate these problems by reducing the per-mile cost of driving and therefore increasing total vehicle travel within a community. Policies that improve mobility options (better walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit, carsharing, telework and delivery services), incentives to use the most efficient mode for each trip (more efficient road, parking, insurance and fuel pricing) and more accessible land use development, tend to solve most or all of these problems and so are often most cost effective overall, considering all benefits and costs. Unfortunately, our current planning system is reductionist; it tends to consider a relatively small portion of total impacts and so tends to undervalue these "win-win" solutions.
ReplyDeleteFor more discussion of these issues see:
Todd Litman (2005), “Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies,” Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129; at www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf .
Todd Litman (2008), Smart Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf.
Todd Litman (2009), Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman, VTPI Victoria Canada
These are excellent points. Improving vehicle technologies, such as more efficient or alternative fueled vehicles, tends to address one or two objectives (reduced energy dependence and pollution emission reductions) but does nothing to address other problems such as traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, consumer costs, accidents, inadequate mobility for non-drivers, inefficient land use development patterns, or inadequate physical fitness and health. In fact, increasing fuel efficiency tends to exacerbate these problems by reducing the per-mile cost of driving and therefore increasing total vehicle travel within a community. Policies that improve mobility options (better walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit, carsharing, telework and delivery services), incentives to use the most efficient mode for each trip (more efficient road, parking, insurance and fuel pricing) and more accessible land use development, tend to solve most or all of these problems and so are often most cost effective overall, considering all benefits and costs. Unfortunately, our current planning system is reductionist; it tends to consider a relatively small portion of total impacts and so tends to undervalue these "win-win" solutions.
ReplyDeleteFor more discussion of these issues see:
Todd Litman (2005), “Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies,” Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129; at www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf .
Todd Litman (2008), Smart Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf.
Todd Litman (2009), Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman, VTPI Victoria Canada
Yes, let's allow transportation to NOT be a focus in Copenhagen.
ReplyDeleteSince transportation is a recognized as a major CO2-generation sector and due to the need for its energy source to be transportable, it should be allocated target CO2 reductions for 2020 and 2050.
Then the various transport sectors should begin a series of 'summits' to develop plans to reach those goals.
I suspect the synergies related to land use and the use of technologies to improve sharing in the personal transport sectors will naturally follow.
The social-equity and human health, and community-walkability connections will be find acceptance on the agenda.
The techno-fixes will fall to the wayside, as they tend not to reduce be effective over the long run, focusing as they do on the personal car, which itself needs to be questioned as to transport efficacy. Jeff Rubin's, _The World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller_ (2009) points this out quite nicely.
Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa
Transport is of course one of those technology rebound areas where improvements have lead to faster, heavier and further travelled vehicles that wipe out the gains. It is right that the transport sector look at itself and ask what is it really doing to contribute to climate issues, but transport is not a product of its own making. Without demand and unsustainable land use and living patterns, without materialisitic cultures and foreign holidays, without kiwis from New Zealand in Cardiff etc etc there would be no transport problem. Chris raises the point that transport should have summits alongside the climate change agenda and this makes me weep. Firstly all the European Union members have been in seemingly endless conference mode for around 20 years building up an enormous library of largely unread research on new mobility cultures and secondly putting transport in a box to solve removes it from the reality of travel which is about people and things being moved around.
ReplyDeleteSorry Chris - I know the conference scene is small here in Canada, but it is massive in Europe and other parts of the world and they aren't producing the goods - just the right ideas. What we need are community summits where all the factors of a changed approach to carbon, resource management and adaptation are placed in the context of the people affected not (just) professionals and politicians
Adrian Bell, Vancouver (ex-London, UK)
More than half and in some cities as many as 75% of trips are short, under 5 km, and yet high percentages are done by car. These should be converted to walking and cycling trips, through excellent facilities that attract users and guarantee their safety. This conversion also requires accessories – carts, tricycles, bike-taxis, child seats, and other components – and the physical space (existing road lanes) to acommodate them.
ReplyDeleteCycling should also be deliberately planned for and built into public transport – it provides the missing door-to-door component that current means that public transport does not provide the same comfort and conveniente as a private car. Moreover, when properly integrated cycling can serve a much larger percentage of the population. Children, older adults and many women, particularly immigrants do not have access to cars anyway, yet are the reason for many trips, whether to work, school, shopping, caregiving or other activities.
Cycling integrated into public transport should include not only facilities for cyclists to reach and park safely and securely, but also on-vehicle provisions (for days like today, in Toronto, when snow threatens). And both bike share and cycle taxi services to help people with parcels and other cargo, at a reasonable price to the environment and people’s pockets.
Just trying to find a fix to keep using private vehicles is an incredibly inefficient way to meet urban quality of life/environment and transport issues. Never mind the challenges regarding social justice and anti-poverty measures essential is developing countries. Public transport and cycles (bi- and tri-) were made for each other: one’s great for short and the other for longer trips. Together they rock!!!
Lake Sagaris, Santiago, Chile
MSc. Urban Planning and Community Development
Living City
Adrian Bell, Vancouver:
ReplyDelete< Chris raises the point that transport should have summits alongside the climate change agenda and this makes me weep. Firstly all the European Union members have been in seemingly endless conference mode for around 20 years building up an enormous library of largely unread research on new mobility cultures and secondly putting transport in a box to solve removes it from the reality of travel which is about people and things being moved around.
< Sorry Chris - I know the conference scene is small here in Canada, but it is massive in Europe and other parts of the world and they aren't producing the goods - just the right ideas. What we need are community summits where all the factors of a changed approach to carbon, resource management and adaptation are placed in the context of the people affected not (just) professionals and politicians
A local group had a "summit" (3i summit = imagine, interact, inspire) last weekend, and climate change was barely mentioned, although two electric-assist tricyle-cabs sat on either side of the theatre's entrance.
Their process was innovative, but the results were weak.
Perhaps neither the intertational nor the local scales will be able to get true innovation on the table. The car industry controls the international, but getting the world focusing on making the car more technologically advanced. But the local level only reaches for off-the-shelf ideas that qualify for little more than window-dressing and feel-good "actions."
We need to "solve the car -- as a problem". Why is it so dominant, and develop dependency at the individual, household, community, and global scale so quickly and completely? What element of its regime are we missing in our proposals for change?
I vote for private ownership being that element. The peer-to-peer concept of carsharing being introduced into Baltimore MA by Relay Rides is an example. They don't own the cars being shared. Instead, they link car owners with others living nearby who need periodic access to a car. The car owner identifies on-line when he needs his own car, and sets the price for others' use of it. Relay Rides buys insurance for the non-owners' uses at its own expense, and sets up the booking system, complete with collecting the revenues from users. It keeps 15% for its own costs.
This is not unlike cap-and-trade, in that it is establishing a market to link haves and have-nots. If not that many cars are offered relative to the local demand, the price for time and distance will be relatively high, but if the imbalance is the other way, prices will be really low. Just as cap-and-trade induces have-nots to relent and make the capital investments to reduce CO2 emissions by upgrading their machinery, a car-owner, faced with low use of his car (or low rates to get the use he seeks) will sell his car and join the have-nots (unless one defines not having a car being a "have", as in 'having a life').
Other personal adjustments to the market one can make include: changing one's residential location or one's car model, to improve their own market position, or the hours one sets aside to use one's own car (peak vs.
off-peak). Imagine people seeing their choice of car-ownership and use being influenced by a marketplace. . . .Hmmm.
Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa Canada