Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (19)
- Part of a Book (18)
- Report (5)
- Conference Object (2)
- Contribution to Periodical (2)
- Book (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (49) (remove)
Division
Considering the role of transport for a 1.5 Degree stabilization pathway and the importance of light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency within that, it is important to understand the key elements of a policy package to shape the energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. This paper presents an analysis focusing on three types of policy measures: (1) CO2 emission standards for new vehicles, (2) vehicle taxation directly and indirectly based on CO2 emission levels, and (3) fuel taxation. The paper compares the policies in the G20 economies and estimates the financial impact of those policies using the example of a Ford Focus vehicle model. This analysis is a contribution to the assessment of the role of the transport sector in global decarbonisation efforts. The findings of this paper show that only an integrated approach of regulatory and fiscal policy measures can yield substantial efficiency gains in the vehicle fleet and can curb vehicle kilometres travelled by individual motorised transport. Using the illustrative example of one vehicle model, the case study analysis shows that isolated measures, e.g. fuel efficiency regulation without corresponding fuel and vehicle taxes only have minor CO2 emission reduction effects and that policy measures need to be combined in order to achieve substantial emission reduction gains over time. The analysis shows that the highest level of impact is achieved by a combination regulatory and fiscal policies rather than only one policy even if this policy is more aggressive. When estimating the quantitative effect of fuel efficiency standards, vehicle and fuel tax, the analysis shows that substantial gains with regard to CO2 emission are only achieved at a financial impact level above 500 Euros over a four year period.
What is necessary to reach net zero emissions in the transport sector on a global level? To keep limiting global warming to 1.5° C within reach, the world has to decarbonise by mid-century, with every sector contributing as much as possible as soon as possible. This paper identifies what has to be done in road transport, aviation, and shipping to achieve net zero emission in the transport sector.
For this purpose, it first sets the scene by providing an overview of the origins and impacts of the concept of net zero emissions in international climate policy as well as of the current state and future prospects of global transport emissions using currently available scenarios for low-emission and net zero transport.
While for staying below 1.5° C, the basic approach to reducing transport emissions remains unchanged from what has been suggested in the past, the set, intensity and pace of actions as to shift fundamentally. Without first drastically reducing traffic volume and shifting transport demand to low-emission modes, reaching net zero transport will not be feasible: the amount of additional electricity required to fully electrify the sector with renewable energy is otherwise just too huge.
After portraying key instruments for achieving net zero emissions in land transport, aviation, and shipping, this paper identifies key barriers for net zero transport. Based on this analysis, the authors recommend the following to be able to move transport to net zero:
1. Adapt Decarbonisation Strategies to Different Transport Sub-sectors
2. Prioritise and Significantly Increase Investment in Zero-/low-carbon Infrastructure
3. Massively Invest in the Development and Roll out of Zero-/low-emission Technologies
4. Focus on a Just Transition to Overcome Social and Political Barriers
5. Increase International Support and Cooperation
Cities around the globe are implementing innovative transport solutions as part of measures to address pertinent socio-economic and environmental challenges in urban areas and help drive the transition to low carbon development. Planning and implementing such solutions require an effective and collective approach that includes the needs and aspirations of all relevant stakeholders. In the planning and implementation of urban transport projects, capacity building components have assumed great significance but seem to be the most eluded activity for project implementers. The Living Lab concept, which allows for co-creation in innovation development, presents the opportunity to adopt innovative participatory approach in capacity building activities in transport projects; and is largely seen as a potential catalyst for rapid transformation to low carbon and sustainability transitions in cities. To this end, this paper highlights the usefulness of the Living Lab approach and provides some perspectives on how key elements of the approach are adapted in the process of assessing the capacity needs of nine (9) cities in planning and implementing e-mobility innovations. The cities are participating in an innovation research project. In the case studied, the project’s capacity needs assessment process was analyzed using an assessment framework built on four (4) key elements of the Living Lab approach, namely: extent of real-life contextualization, level of participation, diversity of stakeholders, and the time span of engagement. Insights from the assessment suggest that relevant project partners and city representatives with diverse expertise were actively involved from the onset and throughout the first 5 months of the project in defining and refining the capacity needs of partner cities based on local e-mobility conditions. This co-creative process helped determine priority areas where the need for capacity building mostly lied. Designing and operationalizing capacity building interventions tailored to the identified needs, as realized in the project, could therefore help build the necessary capacity and complement other measures aimed at developing e-mobility in the project’s partner cities.
Achieving a truly sustainable energy transition requires progress across multiple dimensions beyond climate change mitigation goals. This article reviews and synthesizes results from disparate strands of literature on the coeffects of mitigation to inform climate policy choices at different governance levels. The literature documents many potential cobenefits of mitigation for nonclimate objectives, such as human health and energy security, but little is known about their overall welfare implications. Integrated model studies highlight that climate policies as part of well-designed policy packages reduce the overall cost of achieving multiple sustainability objectives. The incommensurability and uncertainties around the quantification of coeffects become, however, increasingly pervasive the more the perspective shifts from sectoral and local to economy wide and global, the more objectives are analyzed, and the more the results are expressed in economic rather than nonmonetary terms. Different strings of evidence highlight the role and importance of energy efficiency for realizing synergies across multiple sustainability objectives.
Transport
(2014)
Investments in urban transport should deliver the maximum economic, social and environmental benefits; in times of constrained budgets, projects' economic viability is often the deciding factor. This paper discusses the current practices and challenges facing cities in assessing urban transport interventions. On this basis, it develops options for decision-makers to appraise small-scale, sustainable urban transport policy measures.
The analysis of current appraisal practice shows that data requirements and complexity are cities’ main obstacles appraising projects and comparing potential alternatives. Additionally, there is often a risk that project appraisal enters the planning process too late to play any meaningful role. Conducting a Cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) ex-ante is often only approved if the implementation of the measure in question is already likely. Often, a CBA is a means to access funds rather than a basis for decision-making. Project appraisal of small-scale and non-infrastructure-based measures is often simply too expensive.
On the basis of these findings, the paper discusses the following alternatives to comprehensive CBAs: 1) learn from others, 2) use a simplified assessment method, 3) rely on norms and values. All of these options aim to cope with the trade-off between effort and certitude. In practice, some policy-makers may already apply one or more of these options, but this has not been documented in a systematic manner. A systematic documentation of such practices could be a major step forward for implementation of sustainable and integrated urban transport projects, as it would shed some light on the reasoning behind decisions, from which conclusions could be drawn on the likely follow-on effects thereof and also possible improvements to the process.
How urban transport projects are appraised : current practice in the EU ; a common practice reader
(2014)
Decision-making in sustainable urban mobility planning : common practice and future directions
(2015)
The European Commission aims to foster sustainable local transport systems through the concept of "Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans" (SUMPs). This paper is intended as a think piece highlighting the challenges for cities in selecting sustainable and cost-effective transport and mobility measures. Not only does the paper convey an understanding of the challenges of determining a transport project's viability, but it also presents five case studies of sustainable urban mobility planning and the role of project appraisal in those policy-making processes.
Much mitigation-related governance activity is evident in a range of sectoral systems, and regarding particular governance functions. However, there is a tendency for this activity to relate to the easiest functions to address, such as "learning and knowledge building", or to take place in somewhat limited "niches". Across all sectoral systems examined, the gap between identified governance needs and what is currently supplied is most serious in terms of the critical function of setting rules to facilitate collective action. A lack of "guidance and signal" is also evident, particularly in the finance, extractive industries, energy-intensive industries, and buildings sectoral systems.
Of the sectoral systems examined, the power sector appears the most advanced in covering the main international governance functions required of it. Nevertheless, it still falls short in achieving critical governance functions necessary for sufficient decarbonisation. Significantly, while the signal is strong and clear for the phase-in of renewable energy, it is either vague or absent when it comes to the phase-out of fossil fuel-generated electricity. The same lack of signal that certain high-carbon activities need actively to be phased out is also evident in financial, fossil-fuel extractive industry and transport-related sectors.
More effective mitigation action will need greater co-ordination or orchestration effort, sometimes led by the UNFCCC, but also from the bodies such as the G20, as well as existing (or potentially new) sector-level institutions. The EU needs to re-consider what it means to provide climate leadership in an increasingly "polycentric" governance landscape.