CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

1

Non-Kyoto Options for Transportation:

Facing the Long Term

Steve Winkelman, CCAPSantiago, ChileAugust 27, 2004

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

2

Facing the Long Term• Major emissions reductions are required to stabilize atmospheric

concentrations of GHGs and prevent major ecological and economic disruptions– On the order of 50% -70%– Kyoto is just a small first step ( 5%)

• The transportation sector poses the most difficult challenge for all countries– The growth in driving (VKT) is the biggest problem

• Emissions trading approaches are a difficult fit for transport due to long time frames, multiple responsible parties and meth. issues (CCAP 2000)– car companies, oil companies, many government agencies, developers,

individuals

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

3

Efficiency Gains Overshadowed by Growth in Driving

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

180%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

2000

= 1

00%

Vehicle Miles Traveled

CO2 Emissions

Fuel Economy (f leet)

Source: US DOE, EIA "AEO 2004"

(US data)

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

4

TranSantiago Forecast (draft)Proyección de Emisiones para Buses y Vehículos

Livianos respecto a Linea Base

0

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CO

2 [to

n/añ

o]

Linea base livianos

Con proyecto livianos

Linea base buses

Transantiago

3% reduction…

… but 70% growth!

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

5

Medium Term Options• Up to 40% reduction possible for new vehicles

– E.g., Europe, China, Japan, California standards– Such policies can take 5-10 years for full implementation– Full fleet turn-over takes 20+ years

• Biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol) can perhaps contribute a 10% reduction

• Transit expansion and regional “smart growth” land use policies can save 3 – 20% in the US, more in developing countries

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

6

Potential Long Term Solutions• There are no “magic bullets”• In 30-50 years, low-GHG hydrogen fuel cells available?

– Faces many technical, economic and environmental challenges

• Cellulosic ethanol offers hope of long term reductions– Requires technical break-through and significant land area

• A fundamental question is to what extent can growth in driving be slowed (not stopped) via policies supporting:

– High quality public transportation– Sustainable land use patterns– Pedestrian oriented-development– Comprehensive bicycle networks

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

7

Policy Frameworks

• CDM & Future Carbon Market• GEF, ODA and other Direct Investments• Local Leadership, Planning and Investment• Technical Support and Capacity Building• Sectoral targets• Coordinated policies and measures• Other?

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

8

Role of the CDM?

• Useful in the short-term, but limited by market price of CO2

– CDM typically cover 1% to 6% of project costs• The future carbon market should be more attractive• The transport projects that fit best into CDM have a small

emissions impact• Projects that address fundamental structural changes

offer major reductions but are a more difficult fit for CDM– If we are true to the letter of the law of current CDM rules, we may

discount all of the benefits of the most important projects• If we focus only on what we can quantify with confidence,

we mill miss the most important emission reduction opportunities

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

9

Day 2 Project Summaries (approx.)Project Tons/year Project

$/TonTransaction Costs

CER % of Project Costs

LPG Bus(Indonesia)

3,000 (total?) ? $40,000 ?

Bikes (6%) 85,000 $76 ? 6%

Hybrid Bus 5,000 to 11,600

-$320 to +$760

? 2% to 8%

Bus Maintenance

15,000 $8.5 (negative?)

? NA?

TransMilenio 200,000 ? < $300,000 ?

TranSantiago 700,000 $38 (draft) $50,000 2% to 5%?

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

10

Role of the CDM (2)

• While we are busy debating additionality and perfecting conservative impact calculations for CDM projects, business-as-usual policies pump more and more GHGs into the atmosphere– Political decisions to spend more on new roads than

on transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure– Sprawling development patterns

• Let’s make sure to see the big picture and apply our zeal and expertise appropriately

• Sectoral targets could help

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

11

Role of the GEF?

City Key Elements GEF FundingLima Transit, NMT $9.6 million

Mexico City Air Quality, Planning

$5.8 million

Santiago Bus, Bike, Land Use

$5.0 million

Dar es Salam, Dhaka, Cartagena

Bus Rapid Transit

$0.08 million

• In most cases the GEF investment appears to be greater than the value of the CERs ($5/t)

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

12

CDM and GEF: Good First Steps

• CDM and GEF help advance sustainable transportation projects that reduce GHGs

• Development Bank support very important• More Official Development Assistance for

sustainable transport is crucial• How else can the international climate

policy community help?

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

13

How to Foster Major Changes in Transportation

Technology improvements require• Policies to increase vehicle efficiency• Long-term research and development

Slowing growth in travel demand requires• Metropolitan Visioning (20-30 years)

– Assess and communicate long-term impacts and risks of business-as-usual policies, and the benefits of more integrated transportation and land use

– Could feed into a Metro-area sectoral baseline• Political leadership to ensure implementation

– Investments in transit, sidewalks, bikeways– Sustainable land use policies and incentives

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

14

Fostering Local Leadership

• International assistance can help get things started but obviously cannot force local change– Especially since most “industrialized” countries do not

have long-term sustainability plans for transportation• Political leaders (in any country) will only pursue

long-term sustainability solutions if the following conditions hold true– They have an appreciation of the GHG impacts and

economic risks of current policies and trends– They are aware of policy solutions with tangible short-

term benefits (e.g., health, congestion relief)

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

15

Infrastructure Policy = Climate Policy

• Do we decide to continue to build new roads and subsidize sprawling development patterns with supportive infrastructure (roads, schools, utilities)?

• Or do we decide to focus development in efficient locations and provide people with high quality, affordable alternatives to driving?

• Unless we seriously consider GHG impacts of infrastructure decisions we are unlikely to be able to slow rapid growth in transport emissions

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

16

What Kind of “Capacity Building” will be most Constructive?

• Support for regional visioning efforts (UT, CA)– Assess GHG impacts of multiple TLU scenarios

• Current trends & business as usual policies• “Smart growth” (centralized development, increased transit, bike

and walk infrastructure)

• Technical support for exploring sectoral targets(vehicle emission rates, VKT growth rates, mode split)– Cooperative approach applying industrialized country

experiences with sectoral policies– Cooperative ‘South-South’ (‘South-North’?) approach,

sharing methodological and analytical experiences– Consider how to incorporate economic growth– Assess potential revenue stream from selling excess

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

17

Other International Policy Options

• Coordinated policies and measures– Vehicle standards (Europe, China, Japan, California)– Research & Development (hydrogen, celulosic ethanol)– Transit, walk, bike infrastructure funding + integrated

land use planning– Inter-modal freight alternatives (rail, marine)– High passenger speed rail networks

• International air and marine transportation– Not seriously addressed in Kyoto Protocol– ICAO and WMO studies may provide some solutions– National management of international emissions?

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

18

Summary• Kyoto is a small but very important first step• CDM and GEF help move in the right direction• The GHG problem can only be solved (minimized?) as

part of broader sustainability strategies

(Partial) Solutions• Long-term planning to understand risks & find solutions• Capacity building and cooperative efforts hold promise• Metropolitan sectoral targets could be important• More investment in low-GHG modes necessary from both

international community and developing countries• Political leadership – in industrialized and developing

countries –perhaps most important and most uncertain

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

19

Options for COP-10

John Drexhage, IISDSantiago, ChileAugust 27, 2004

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

20

CoP 10 Options• Methodological Panel analysis on methodologies for

transportation and the CDM (including identifying data and capacity needs.)

• Methodological Panel analysis of urban land use initiatives and the CDM.

• UNFCCC formal workshop on issues related to transportation and the CDM. (Eg., Integrating CDM as suite of tools to promote transportation.)

• UNFCCC Workshop: Status of the CDM regime in meeting development and business priorities.

• UNFCCC Workshop addressing issues related to transportation: how to go forward? (CDM would only be a part of the discussion.)

CCAP, IISD, CC&D August 27, 2004

21

CoP10 Options

• “Panel to analyze methodology for urban land use planning and transportation issues in the light of the CDM tool” Pincas Jawetz