putting transport into climate change agenda - need to translate between two “languages”...
TRANSCRIPT
Putting transport into climate change agenda
- need to translate between two “languages” transport sector and climate change negotiation –
Yoshitsugu HayashiInternational Center for Sustainable Transport and Cities (SUSTRAC) Nagoya University
Sino-France / WCTRS Shanghai Forum11-13 September 2010, Tongji University
Translation between Transport and Climate Change
●Transport currently not recognised in “climate regime language”
●Climate not recognised in “transport language” 2Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Upgrading Transport to a Key Sector
- Can Developing Countries Take Leap-frog Pathway? -
3Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Bottleneckfor
Development
Local/GlobalProblems
Emission Rate
CO,NOX,PM; CO2
Higher Cost ofInfrastructure
Supply
Sprawl
Higher EnergyConsumption
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMYHigher
Car-Ownership
Urbanization
Severe TrafficCongestion
Longer Trips
EconomicDevelopment
IncomeGrowth
Modal Shift to Car
Excess Car DemandLack of Rail
Lack of Road
Mechanism of Urban Transport Improvement and its Negative Impacts on Economy & Environment
4Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Car Ownership
GDP per Capita US$ (1995)
Cars
per
1,0
00 in
habi
tant
s
London
TokyoBangkok
Seoul
Hong kong
Singapore (CA)
‘95
‘95
‘90
‘90‘90
‘95‘00
‘85
‘85‘80
‘80
‘95
‘95‘00
‘70
‘60
Nagoya
Shanghai
‘95
‘02
Beijing
Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Road Infrastructure Supply vs. Motorization Level vs. Peak Hour Speed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0246810
Bangkok
Tokyo
London
Nagoya
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Bangkok
Tokyo
London
Nagoya
1972
1986
1993
1971
1988
1972
1987
1993
1972
1988
1972
1986
1993
1972
1993
1971
1988
Road length per car(m/car)
Car ownership(car/1,000 inhabitants)Speed (min/km)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Leng
th (p
erce
nt fr
om20
05 le
vels
)
GDP per capita
Tokyo
Road
Rail
20052000
19851980
1975197019651960
18721960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1990
2000
Paved Road
Rail
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Leng
th (p
erce
nt fr
om20
08 le
vels
)
GDP per capita
Beijing
Road
Rail
20092006
2005
1997
1978
19781986-1991
1992-1998
2002
Paved Road
Rail
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Leng
th (p
erce
nt fr
om20
05 le
vels
)
GDP per capita
Shanghai
road
rail
Paved Road
Rail
2007
2006
2006
2003
2003
2000
1997
20001993
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Leng
th (p
erce
nt fr
om20
05 le
vels
)
GDP per capita
Singapore
road
rail
Paved Road
Rail
2009
1990
19902003
2001
1992
1995
Which is more priority, Rail or Road ?
Cartraveltime
Road construction&operationcost
Roadtrafficvolume Rail
passengervolume
Railtraveltime
Rail construction &operationcost
SRo1
SRo1
SRo2
SRo2
SRa1
SRa1
SRa2
SRa2
DRo1
DRo1
DRo2*
DRo2*
DRa1
DRa1
tRo1
tRo2
tRo2*
CRo2*
CRo1
CRo2 CRa
2
CRa1
Demand level
Supply level
VRa1 VRa
2
Construction cost
Construction cost
Widening cost
Policy A Road widening
Policy B Track widening
ERo2*
VRo2* VRo
1* VRo2
ERo2
ERo1
ERa1
ERa2
Cartraveltime
Road construction&operationcost
Roadtrafficvolume Rail
passengervolume
Railtraveltime
Rail construction &operationcost
SRo1
SRo1
SRo2
SRo2
SRa1
SRa1
SRa2
SRa2
DRo1
DRo1
DRo2*
DRo2*
DRa1
DRa1
tRo1
tRo2
tRo2*
CRo2*
CRo1
CRo2 CRa
2
CRa1
Demand level
Supply level
VRa1 VRa
2
Construction cost
Construction cost
Widening cost
Policy A Road widening
Policy B Track widening
ERo2*
VRo2* VRo
1* VRo2
ERo2
ERo1
ERa1
ERa2
Hayashi Optimal Rail-Road Balance Chart
Yoshitsugu Hayashi, Nagoya University
Transport Strategies
Supportive Mechanisms
CO2 Targets
Sharp Reduction
Avoid
Shift
Improve
Developed Countries
Developing Countries
Leap-frog
•Fund shortage•Imperfect institutional practice•Lack of motivation•Unsustainable international aid
•Outdated technology•Uncontrolled land use•High dependence on car use•High carbon transport mode
Obstacles
Institutional
Financial
Overcoming Obstacles- Leap-frog in Developing Countries are Required -
9Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Leap-frog (1): Green Transport Systems- CO2 reduction by railway improvement scenarios (Shanghai) -
Alternative scenariosof railway
construction
CO2
emission
O: road improvement only
B: road + rail (delay) improvement
A: road + rail (early) improvement
BA
10Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
0 2 4 6 8 10 120
2
4
6
8
10
12
year
No
. of
Sta
tio
n p
er
inh
ab
-it
ab
le a
rea
[s
ta./k
m2
]
0 2 4 6 8 10 120
2
4
6
8
10
12
year
CO
2[M
t-C
O2
/yr]
O
25% reduction
The level of Tokyo Metropolitan Area (2005)
Leap-frog (2): Innovative Technologies- CO2 reduction by passenger car
high technology diffusion Scenarios (China) -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
year
CO
2 em
issi
on f
rom
pas
seng
er c
ar[M
t-C
O2/
yr]
CCS: Carbon Capture & Storage
11Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Importance of long-term integrated policy roadmap
- CUTE Matrix: liaisoning comprehensive strategiesand individual instruments -
Consistency of low carbon society and economic growth is achieved by the sustainable socio-economic framework and land use-transport infrastructure, which are constructed by long-term policy roadmap.
Individual instruments, which sometimes bring conflicts each other, should be positioned in an integrated roadmap.
Key factors of leap-frog in developing countries are earlier diffusion of both 1) innovative technologies and 2) green transport systems. They are mainly leaded and supported by regulatory, informational and economic instruments.
12Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Transport Strategy - Techno/Policy Instruments
13
Strategy
Avoid Shift Improve
Reduce traffic demand Reduce emissions per unit transported
Reduce emissions per kilometer
Instruments
Tech nology
•Pedestrian Ort Dev’t
•Bicycle Ort Dev’t
•Transit Ort Dev’t
•Integrated Public Transport System
•Highly Competitive Railway
•LEV, EV
•Alternative Energy
•Advanced Infra- Tech
•Logistic Efficiency
Regulation
•TDM
•Parking Regulation
•Compact/Mix Land Use
•Bus/Tram Priorities
•Non-MT
•Smarter Modal Evolution
•Emission Standard
•Top Runner Program
•Eco-Drive
Information
•ICT
•Telework
•Smart Choices for Workplace and Schools
•Awareness Campaign •Knowledgebase
•ITS
•Labeling of Vehicle Performance
Economic
•Fuel Tax
•Road Pricing
•Car Charge / Fee
•Location Subsidy
•Fuel Tax
•Road Pricing
•Car Charge / Fee
•Fuel Tax
•LEV Preferential TaxYoshitsugu Hayashi, Nagoya University
CUTE Matrix
Realising Mitigation in Transport Sector
14Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Cliquez pour éditer le format du plan de texte
Second niveau de plan
Troisième niveau de plan
Quatrième niveau de plan
Cinquième niveau de plan
Sixième niveau de plan
Septième niveau de plan
Huitième niveau de plan
Neuvième niveau de plan マスタ テキストの書式設定
Why CDM does not like “Transport Projects”?
2010/7/14 Yoshitsugu HAYASHI, Nagoya University, Japan
2270 CDM Projects
(Source: UNFCCC, 2010)
Energy industries
(renewable - / non-renewable
sources) 62.07%Energy
distribution 0.00%Energy demand
1.00%
Manufacturing industries 4.79%
Chemical industries 2.47%
Construction 0.00%
Transport
0.11%
Mining/mineral production 0.96%
Metal production 0.29%
Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) 5.01%
Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and
sulphur hexafluoride
0.81%
Solvent use 0.00%
Waste handling and disposal
17.36%
Afforestation and reforestation
0.55%
Agriculture 4.57%
2270 CDM Projects
The Programmatic CDM is not an option but a new scheme to realize a project which consists of a bundle of similar projects. Compared with traditional project CDM, Programmatic CDM can absorb the risks of each individual CDM project due to uncertainty in reaching the emission targets proposed for the transport sector.
From Project CDM to Programmatic CDM
2010
2012
2016
20182014
Program
CDM joined later
16Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
The Risk Hedge Fund avoids the risk for investors (firms in developed countries) to miss the emission credit due to uncertainty of achieving the expected CO2 reductions. To avoid the risk, the Fund should be established to reserve a certain percent of emission rights from each CDM projects in transport sector.
Country A-- $Country B-- ¥Country C--€
Transport Projects
Risk Hedge Fund
X%
X%X%
17Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
The “Green ODA” contributes low carbon transport system as
Long-term impact: The volume of transport projects by ODA is huge among internationally transferred budget. Road construction is dominant compared to railways, which induce further automobile demand and more CO2 emission in long term. To avoid carbon-dependent transport requires the SHIFT of ODA to green mode.
Designing the market for the future reduction: CO2 reduction effect of green transport continues for a long time. However, the current carbon market treats only short period’s emissions and therefore does not adapt such long term effects as generated by transport projects. Financial commodities that the expectation to the future CO2 reduction is considered should be financial products; e.g. carbon stock option and carbon futures.
18Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Realising Mitigation in Transport Sector
19Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Transport Improvement Projectsare Essential Choices in NAMAs(Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions)
Earlier Actions for AVOID: Progress of motorization and urbanization is irreversible. Construction of low carbon transport network and land-use pattern requires a long period. Developing countries does not allow waste of time.
Methodology of MRV(Measurement/Report/Verification): Rich technologies and knowledge should be integrated as practical methodologies and be transferred to developing countries.
Co-benefit: Low carbon transport systems bring various positive effects to developing countries; convenient & comfortable trips, economic growth without bottleneck by traffic congestion, mitigation of mobility divide and local pollutions, and compact & smart landscape.
Value capture: Self-sustaining finance system for NAMAs should be established. Value capture is one of the most promising methods under growing economy by means of collecting wind-fall benefit.
20Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
What WCTRS Can Contribute ?
Politicians cannot imagine about the catastrophic future of transport
No opportunity for politicians to learn about the reality of transport and its risk.
High attention of politicians on WCTRS with more than 1,500 members from 64 countries.
WCTRS could play a much bigger role in the world society.
“Yes we can help ! ” UNFCCC and IPCC
We need a well designed road map for in-advance activities to COPs.
23
Where Are We ?
Environment( Climate Change )
Society( Vulnerable
)
Economic( No
Growth )
Potential of Growth Decrease
MitigationDecreased
Investment CapabilityLand UseAdaptation
Switch ofLifestyle
ReducingDamages, Burdens
Shifting Strategy of Urban
Configuration
IncreasedRisk
0 2 4 6 8 10 120
2
4
6
8
10
12
year
Nu
mb
er
of
sta
tion
s p
er
inh
ab
itab
le a
rea
[sta
./km
2]
0 2 4 6 8 10 120
2
4
6
8
10
12
year
CO
2 e
mis
sio
n [
Mt-
CO
2/y
r]
Leap-frog (2): Green Transport Systems- CO2 reduction by railway improvement scenarios (Shanghai) -
Alternative scenariosof railway
construction
CO2
emission
Same level of Tokyo Ward Area (2005)
O: road improvement only
B: road + rail (delay) improvement
A: road + rail (early) improvement
O
B
A50% reduction
24Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Approach Steps
Supportive Mechanisms
Translation between Transport and Climate Change
Political Will – Upgrade Transport Sector as A Key Sector in Climate Change Negotiation
Sector Target
Mitigation-Adaptation-Actions in Transport Sector
Technology/Knowledge Transfer Capacity Building
Financing Mechanism
An programmatic CDMODA , domestic public funding and private fundingMitigation Fund, Capacity-building Fund, Climate Fund, Risk hedge fund
25Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Financial flows for “transport”
Financial flows for“climate mitigation”
Domestic public funding
(trillions)Private funding
(trillions)
GEF
MitigationFund
Climate Funds
(millions)
ODA
(billions)
Financial flows for “sustainable low carbon transport” ?
CDM
26Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010 Source: Ko Sakamoto
Sector ApproachSector approach aims to allocate emission reduction target for each sector inside the country. The approach may encourage developing countries to reduce emissions particular in transport sector through joint implementation with other sectors even if they do not have national target emission yet.
Developing Country (0%) Developed Country (n%)
Sectoral CDM
Transport
Transport
Sector B Sector B
Sector A
Sector A
Em
issi
on R
edu
ctio
n
Tar
get
Actual Emission
・・・
・・・
Emission Reduction
Emission Target
27Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010
Mitigation Options: CUTE Matrix
28Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010