« GM Invests $69M In Ohio Diesel Engine Plant to Build T2B5 6.6-Liter Engine | Main | New Material Could Significantly Increase Stationary Source CO2 Capture Capacity »
EEA Report: EU Fails to Curb Transport GHG Emissions; Focus on Vehicle and Fuel Technologies is Not Enough, Demand Must Be Constrained
3 March 2008
 |
| Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the EU-27 increased by more than 26% between 1990 and 2005 in EEA member countries. EU-15 Member States are responsible for 83% of the total (not including international aviation and maritime transport). This increase in emissions has occurred even though vehicle fleets are more efficient. Click to enlarge. |
The current focus on vehicle and fuel technologies as a mechanism to reduce transport GHG is insufficient to offset the steady increase in passenger volumes and growth in freight transport, according to a new report published by the European Environment Agency (EEA). Emissions from the transport sector in the EU-27 have risen by 26% from 1990 to 2005, as opposed to decreasing 7.9% as did total EU-27 emissions over that period.
The report—Climate for a transport change—is the annual publication from the EEA’s Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM), which monitors the progress and effectiveness of attempts to integrate transport and environment strategies.
Achieving ambitious targets in line with the Bali roadmap would require that transport volume growth is limited to + 4 to – 2% over the period 2010–2020, compared to a growth of 15% in a business-as-usual scenario. In doing so, ancillary benefits related to reduction of noise and air pollution, and protection of biodiversity will be achieved. If demand constraint is not achieved technology measures of hitherto unseen magnitude will be needed.
To address transport demand, measures and policy instruments must go beyond the transport sector itself and be introduced into sectors of the economy such as households, industry and service, within which the demand for transport actually originates.
Setting a realistic but still challenging sectoral target for limiting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport would encourage stakeholders and policy-makers to develop and implement necessary measures and policy instruments, and facilitate the monitoring of improvements in the sector’s environmental performance.
The report, presented today in Brussels to the European Parliaments’ Committee on Climate Change, goes well beyond the provision of emissions data from the transport sector and urges integration of land use and transport in urban planning. Across the EU-15, cities account for roughly 80% of traffic congestion costs, including loss of working hours.
The EU-wide study reveals that voluntary commitments by car manufacturers to improve efficiency in vehicles have not resulted in sufficient gains. In addition, the occupancy rates of private vehicles have gradually been going down. Approximately 12% of the overall EU emissions of CO2 come from fuel burnt by passenger cars.
The production of vehicles with low emissions is not the problem, in fact manufacturers are offering an ever larger range of low-emitting vehicles producing less than 120 g/km, but too few of them are being sold to balance the sale of high-emitting cars. Tax differentiations that factor in CO2 emissions are an option to address this issue.
...Technology still has a lot to offer to make road transport more efficient, but consumer preference is presently pulling in the opposite direction. Initiatives such as car labelling have not induced large-scale changes. Nevertheless, influencing users via eco-driving campaigns holds the potential for significant savings, as does tele-commuting or ride-sharing. Such schemes are more effective, however, if backed up via adjustments in the fiscal treatment of transport so that the incentive to behave in a more environmentally friendly manner is stronger.
Car size is also an important consideration. The present trend is towards heavier vehicles, which require more engine power. This in turn leads to increasing emissions or to a reduction that is smaller than it would otherwise have been.
Key messages from indicator-based assessments presented in the report include:
Freight transport growth is outpacing economic growth, and as a consequence, emissions of CO2 from this sector are growing quickly. The report suggests that better internalization of external costs can help reduce market distortions and emission growth.
Passenger transport continues to increase, particularly in aviation and cars. Increased car usage and a reduced number of passengers per car negate the improvements gained from improvements in vehicle efficiency.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector continue to increase steadily. Although improvements have been made in the energy efficiency of various transport modes and non-fossil fuels have been introduced, increased transport demand is outweighing these benefits.
Transport, in particular road transport, is generally becoming less polluting due to increasingly strict air pollutant emission standards. Nevertheless, people in European cities continue to be exposed to significant health threats due to air pollution.
Biofuels in transport. Growing doubt about the real ability of first generation biofuels (agrofuels) to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions and growing awareness of negative impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity, water and soil, both directly and through indirect land-use change at the global level, point to the need for great caution in promoting agrofuels further. Using available biomass to replace coal in electricity and heat production gives greater reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases at lower cost.
Second generation biofuels can lead to more substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions and reduce the adverse effects referred to above. However, more analysis is required as to whether they will be generally available in time to contribute to meeting the target of 10 % biofuels in 2020, and further analysis on other aspects of second generation biofuels and cropping of advanced feedstock on poorer soils and degraded lands is needed, the report says.
Better knowledge of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from all energy uses of biomass, and strong sustainability criteria (in Europe and third countries) for biomass production, addressing also knock-on effects due to indirect land-use change, are needed to fully judge the benefits and limitations of biomass use.
The report suggests that a transport sector-specific target for limiting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions could act as driver for a more efficient climate change strategy.
Such a target might mainly be used to assess the progress within the sector rather than being a legally binding target. Even so, it would put pressure on different stakeholders and highlight the need to analyse a wide range of measures, including a discussion on transport demand when formulating action plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector.
The report aims to cover all EEA member countries. Members of the EU-27 are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
EEA member countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Resources
March 3, 2008 in Climate Change, Emissions, Europe, Policy | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26729380
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EEA Report: EU Fails to Curb Transport GHG Emissions; Focus on Vehicle and Fuel Technologies is Not Enough, Demand Must Be Constrained:
Comments
Environmental fascism for no good reason.
Adopt reasonable (i.e modern & doable) standards for genuine toxic emissions and wait for the substitution of petroleum by the by the Electrification of the auto.
End of story.
Posted by: stan pietrewicz | Mar 3, 2008 6:56:46 AM
Environmental fascism? For what? Actually openly discussing the market pulls that they don't want and some ways to work something in? If it was car companies marketing SUVs to increase profit in light of increasing fuel prices and decreasing supply, what would you call that?
It's going to require both a set of standards and some sort of regulation and developemental incentives and strictures to get the socio/economy to develop in the directions they want, ie lower GHG emissions.
Posted by: aym | Mar 3, 2008 8:40:33 AM
If people in the U.S. would start to see imported oil as a national security issue, we might make some progress. As long as it is just seen as Business As Usual and keep commuting in huge SUVs and pickups, we will continue to devalue the dollar and fund terrorism in unstable countries. We spend $30b a year on Homeland Security, but $300b on imported oil. It is time we started reducing the amount of imported oil in big ways.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 3, 2008 9:37:38 AM
A few comments:
a: It stops in 2005 - we have had 2 years of expensive fuel since then.
b: It looks like a slight dip since 2004 for the EU15.
The other guys are coming up form a low base, so can be expected to increase.
The 120 gms/km cars are really only starting to come out in 2008 in any numbers and it will be a decade before there is > 60% or so.
Europe has tax laws that favour small engine displacement - these are being replaced in many countries by ones which favour low CO2 cars, but again, it will take 5-10 years to see a difference.
I suppose the reasons for doing this are:
a: to raise loads of taxes,
b: to prepare the EU for the day when fuel gets really expensive.
Posted by: mahonj | Mar 3, 2008 9:37:55 AM
Don't take the bait from Mr. Pietrewicz. "No good reason" implies that lowering GHGs is unnecessary, and objective observers agree with the very strong consensus in the scientific community that climate change, due to human-caused increases in CO2 emissions, is in fact a serious global problem that must be addressed.
No sense in arguing fact against fiction (which I guess I just did).
Posted by: jvp | Mar 3, 2008 9:39:48 AM
CO2 emissions from road traffic have risen 26% since 1990 in large part because of increased internal trade in the EU, which itself has grown from 12 to 27 members in that time frame. Passenger car numbers and aggregate emissions from them are up but that is even more true of trucks.
In addition to technological improvements, reducing fuel demand (= CO2 emissions) implies eliminating a lot of "export" subsidies for ferrying goods across borders that are actually internal to the EU. These provide perverse incentives for ferrying livestock and semi-finished products back and forth for no good reason. It also implies more effective harmonization of fuel taxes to curb fuel tourism, i.e. detours taken to fill up more cheaply in e.g. Luxembourg.
Kerosene should be taxed, at least on flights inside the EU, to fund the expansion of the European high-speed rail network. This should be fully integrated with airport operations (incl. secure baggage handling) to largely eliminate the need for short-haul connecting flights of less than ~500km (~300mi).
There is also no reason why airlines cannot charter or own rolling stock, including cargo transporters. For example, perishable goods such as flowers, fruits and vegetables are generally not transported by rail across Europe because incompatible systems generate lengthy delays at many borders.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 3, 2008 11:13:47 AM
We already have the technology to reduce CO2 level from 10+ tonnes to less than 1 tonne per vehicle per year. Its is called a 100+ mpg PHEV.
PS: The Toyota Prius is going in the right direction with about 2.4 tonnes per year.
If we all had to pay a very high price for every tonne of CO2 we produce, we may be more inclined to drive smnaller, greener vehicles even if they cost more.
The same approach could be used for domestic and industrial HVAC systems.
Polluters should pay for the pollution they create.
Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 3, 2008 11:21:26 AM
Stan Pietrewicz. Stan Peterson. Notice that you never see the two of them together?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 3, 2008 3:50:10 PM
RUN YOUR'S ON WATER...IT HAS FEWER CONTAMINATES
WATER IS COMPRESSED HYDROGEN & OXYGEN THAT CAN BE FREED, UNDER YOUR HOOD WITH ELECTROLOSIS, TO FUEL YOUR ENGINE...AND HYDROGEN HAS FAR FEWER CONTAMINATES THAN OTHER FULES AND HAS MORE BTU'S THAN GASOLINE. THEY HAVE DRIVEN A CAR OVER 100 MILES ON 2 OUNCES OF WATER. SO WHY MESS WITH THE OTHER INFERIOR FUELS??? RUN YOUR VEHICLE ON WATER!
LEO WELLS
Posted by: LEO WELLS | Mar 3, 2008 6:05:44 PM
I've put in a request for a filter to classify upper-case shouting as spam.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 3, 2008 9:52:32 PM
I've put in a request for a filter to classify upper-case shouting as spam.
While we're at it, we should throw in a filter for promotion of fraudulent web sites.
Posted by: George | Mar 4, 2008 12:14:40 AM
"Stan Pietrewicz. Stan Peterson. Notice that you never see the two of them together?"
That may be because they have the same email address.
myob27@cox.net
Posted by: sjc | Mar 4, 2008 9:13:36 AM
Hey guys, cut Leo some slack. The guy has invented perpetual motion. Sign me up..
Posted by: Ted | Mar 5, 2008 4:22:29 AM
I think that is one thing that the U.S. Patent Office will not accept, a perpetual motion device. So if he did create it, the Chinese will just copy it and make it cheaper :)
Posted by: sjc | Mar 6, 2008 5:29:45 PM
