[sustran] Re: Token efforts we know areuseless...]

Lee Schipper schipper at wri.org
Wed Oct 24 03:11:34 JST 2007


Todd makes a good point..both about long and short run and about things
potentially worse than fuel related externalities.

 

From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Lee Schipper; edelman at greenidea.eu; jeroen.verhoeven at foeeurope.org
Cc: kyle3054 at iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies at hotmail.com; ben at bralvzw.be;
Mari Jussi; lievin.chemin at webage.be; Nina Renshaw; Global 'South'
Sustainable Transport
Subject: Re: Token efforts we know areuseless...]

 


The values Schipper cites are short-run effects; long-run effects are
probably two or three times higher, as lower per-mile vehicle operating
costs affect longer term decisions such as where people live and work.
For more information see the "Rebound Effects" chapter of our Online TDM
Encyclopedia ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm
<http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm>  ).

If the only problems we are concerned about are excessive energy
consumptions and associated pollution emission, then shifting to more
efficient and alternative fuel vehicles may be reasonable solutions,
despite the rebound effects, since there is still a substantial net
reduction in energy use. 

However, because of these rebound effects, energy savings benefits are
offset, at least to some degree, by increases in traffic congestion,
road and parking facility costs, traffic accidents and sprawl. Described
in a more positive way, a liter of fuel saved by reducing vehicle travel
is worth far more (about an order of magnitude more according to my
analysis) than an liter saved by increasing energy efficiency or
alternative fuels because reduced mileage provides many other economic,
social and environmental benefits, including congestion reduction, road
and parking facility cost savings, consumer savings, increased safety
and health, and more efficient land use development. For discussion of
this issue see my paper, "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient
Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation
Strategies", published in Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March
2005, Pages 121-129, and available at http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf . 

We have identified a number of "Win-Win" transportation solutions, which
are policy reforms based on market principles, which help achieve
economic, social and environmental planning objectives by correcting
existing market distortions what result in economically excessive motor
vehicle traffic (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). Our research
indicates that in a more efficient market, consumers would choose to
reduce their vehicle travel by about a third, rely more on alternative
modes, choose more accessible communities, and be far better off overall
as a result (see http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ). 

The best way to encourage both efficient vehicles and efficient
transportation is to raise fuel taxes. By stimulating more driving,
subsidizing hybrid vehicles, hyper cars and alternative fuels make other
problems worse. Biofuel subsidies are particularly misguided, except
perhaps for ethanol used to fuel walking and cycling, although I prefer
mine undistilled. 


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 04:50 AM 10/23/2007, Lee Schipper wrote:

In wealthy countries, the rebound effect of more vehicle efficiency on
vehicle use is between 5% (US) and 20% EUrope...Kindly see the June 2000
issue of Energy Policy (which I edited) on the rebound in general.


Lee Schipper
Director of Research, EMBARQ
>From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar, 
UC Transportation Center
UC Berkeley, CA 



-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org at list.jca.apc.org on
behalf of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Tue 10/23/2007 6:57 AM
To: jeroen.verhoeven at foeeurope.org
Cc: kyle3054 at iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies at hotmail.com;
lievin.chemin at webage.be; Mari Jussi; ben at bralvzw.be; Nina Renshaw;
Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know
areuseless...]
 
Hi Jeroen and everyone,

Jeroen Verhoeven wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>  
> I read your e-mail and I indeed one can say in hundreds of ways the 
> same argument over and over again, but it always stays the same 
> argument. And I heard the argument hundreds of times before.
>  
> We need increased fuel efficiency AND to reduce car use.
OF course!
> Why?


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
 



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list