Increased cargo volume is arguably a direct consequence of the single market. The same is true to some extent for recreational travel within Europe. Realisrtically, the best anyone can hope for in the medium term is that CO2 emissions by the transportation sector can be stabilized. Real reductions will have to come from other sectors of the economy.

For stabilization to occur, the EU urgently needs to look broadly at any and all incentives it and its member states are providing to boost transportation volume in the name of economic growth and European unification - and then strike a new balance.

Now, it is true that German auto makers in particular continue to generate and then satisfy consumer demand for cars that are larger and more powerful than they really need to be. Hence the recent decision to propose a fleet average limit of 130 gCO2/km by MY2012. However, businesses can still write off transportation assets in full, regardless of how much CO2 they produce.

Also, it's not uncommon for livestock to be ferried back and forth across the Alps because it allows the owner to collect "export" subsidies twice over. Road haulage volume of industrial goods is also growing rapidly, e.g. because the car and engine assembly plants are sprouting up in Eastern Europe receive 80% of their parts from suppliers in the West. Plus, everywhere in the EU, diesel fuel is taxed at a lower rate per unit of energy than gasoline is. Alternative fuels are taxed more lightly in some places, but the desire to boost biofuel blend fractions is already causing tropical countries to turn their rain forests into feedstock plantations - this can increase well-to-wheels CO2 emissions substantially relative to petrofuels.

Meanwhile, the effort to integrate Europe's freight rail services such that rolling stocks, locomotives and their drivers can cross national borders is proceeding at a snail's pace. The Iberian peninsula presents special problems because track gauges there are wider. There are no plans to support dual gauges on selected routes. In stead, mountains of fresh produce are shipped from southern Spain to the rest of Europe using trucks. Their refrigeration cycles really ought to be driven by the waste heat in the exhaust gas, using absorption chillers or Vuilleumier machines, but little research is being done on applying them to HDVs.

There are also a lot of super-discount airfares on offer. These are subsidized by regions that want to attract traffic to their secondary airports, because doing so tends to raise real estate values once you get beyond the immediate vicinity of the runways. The EU is trying to levy fuel taxes on kerosene, but long-standing international treaties with e.g. the US are making that hard to implement.

At the other end of the spectrum, little is being done to encourage the use of (electric) bicycles for neighborhood traffic, e.g. by increasing the number of bicycle lanes and adding speed bumps to narrow city streets. The Netherlands and Denmark are exceptions to this rule. Public transport networks are much denser in Europe than in the US, but even here capacity utilization is poor during much of the day. Given Europe's legions of currently unemployed people, it might make sense to switch to van-based door-to-door services plying ad-hoc routes optimized by computers in a central location.

Finally, while broadband internet connections are widely available in Western Europe at least, it is still less common for knowledge-based businesses to let their staff telecommute than in the the US or Canada.

Summing up, there is actually a lot the EU and member states could do regarding the macroeconomic parameters that are driving the increase in CO2 emissions from the transportation sector. A few things are being done here and there, but it's high time for much bolder, more comprehensive and more co-ordinated action.

Despite all the problems outlined by Rafael, Europeans still generally have a lot more options to avoid using the auto than Americans do. My guess, however, is that the Irish, especially, have taken advantage of their newfound wealth to indulge themselves in something similar to the "American dream", that which should really be called the American nightmare.

I am curious, though,since I used to live in Frankfurt. Has the percentage of miles traveled attributable to the auto increased over the last two or three decades. My experience in Frankfurt was that, for most trips, it was more convenient, safe, and pleasurable to take mass transit, walk, or bicylce, than take the auto around town. In fact, it would never have even occurred to me to take a car to downtown Frankfurt. All my transporation needs throughout the whole metro area were taken care of for $40 per month.

Another good European technical study. Quite informative, with sensible analysis and realistic predictions. Appears that European politicians newer read technical papers, such as this one, UN paper on livestock “long shadow”, or papers from International Energy Administration.

Couple of comments, thought. Claim that Europe “produces” biofuels is somehow misleading. They only “refine” raw vegetable oil and other raw stock (if add in numbers of agricultural import), mostly grown in S.America and S-E Asia.

I kind of puzzled with numbers for huge road transportation subsidies. Where all huge fuel taxes are going? Funding IPCC?

Four million life-years lost every year due to poor air quality associated with road traffic is chilling number. I wish European authorities will concentrate their efforts on immediate reduction of smog-forming and PM emissions (according to report not decreasing in big cities), especially from legacy diesel vehicles and two-stroke motor bikes.

Stan:

According to report, both passenger and cargo road transport grew in Europe at about same pace as GDP – about 30% for the period.

P.S. From 1990 to 2004 GHG emissions from transport (excluding international aviation) in Austria grew by 89%. Rafael, you are fired.

The reason for the mess is simple and what china learned from the us. The better your roads the less fuel needed to get something from one place to the other.

Also it simply is the case that for once people are realizing that hey wait a minute going someplace with my stuff and comming back with more stuff is damn fun!

Now ewhat would realy make me laugh my ass off is if americans reach kyoto 2020 or 25 er watever it was before europe does.. not because we cared to not because we ment to not because we tried to but simply because the tech is cool and trendy. Concidering the sick sense of humor the universe seems to have....

The SHORTER your roads the less fuel needed to get something from one place to the other.

Kit P: Mandating that the car companies make efficient cars even more efficient will not reduce ghg emissions.

Mandating that car companies make grotesquely inefficient cars more efficient might help though.

Stan, the "sanctimonious EU" was already quite efficient in 1990. The US was not. Get a clue.

Oh no the sky is falling and the Europe is going to save us! I'm going to go idle my truck for a few hours while I burn a pile of tires in my back yard. You know, to offset the tree hugger.

jb -

in 2005, Austria was the first country to buy locomotives that can deal with the different voltages and frequencies across Europe. There are also special trains that HDVs can be loaded onto, so drivers can sleep while crossing the Alps. This greatly alleviates congestion on the few available freeways and also reduces emissions of both noxious gases and noise, but it's an expensive system.

The reason we have all these incompatible rail systems in Europe in the first place is that through WW II, railways were considered strategic military assets that had to be controlled directly by the state. When Prussia pummeled the Habsburg empire at Koeniggraetz in 1866, everyone notices that its rail-based logistics were a key element of that victory. Consequently, steps were taken to make sure trains could not easily cross national borders.

Today, we are suffering the consequences of this nation-state thinking. Railway operators everywhere are losing money because they cannot compete effectively with road haulage in the crucial cross-border freight market. Getting them there would require significant additional investment - by the taxpayer - in the rail infrastructure, in the face of aggressive lobbying by the road haulage industry.

Btw, that high-speed 1430mm gauge rail line from Madrid to Seville was ostensibly built for the 1992 World Expo. Rumor has it that France actually forced Spain to buy TGV trains with that gauge as a quid-pro-quo for going after ETA in the Basque provinces on the French side.

In addition to investment in hardware, shifting freight back onto the rails would require a single pan-European grid operator serving competing train operators. That would mean taking on bolshy unions because most railway operators in Europe also happen to be grossly overstaffed. I'd like to see that happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

all -

Europe couldn't save the US if its life depended on it. You're going to have to do that by yourselves and, burning a pile tires in your back yard is a good way to start. You'll be arrested for polluting the air and fined up the wazoo. That should make you think twice.