[sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] CDM Projects (Clean Development Mechanism) - public transport

[Morten Lange]

Hi

Interesting discussion.  How do you think personal CO2/GHG quoatas fit into this picture ? 

Personal carbon quotas considered
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4645031.stm
Personal carbon trading
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_carbon_trading


Best Regards,
Morten Lange
Chairman of the Icelandic Cyclists' Federation

--- On Mon, 24/11/08, Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org> wrote:

> From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] CDM Projects (Clean Development Mechanism) - public transport
> To: "Lee Schipper" <schipper at wri.org>, NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com, sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Cc: "Holger Dalkmann" <h.dalkmann at gmx.de>, "Cornie Huizenga" <cornie.huizenga at cai-asia.org>, jleather at adb.org, Cities-for-Mobility at yahoogroups.com, akopp at worldbank.org, "Sergio Sanchez" <ssanchez at cleanairinstitute.org>
> Date: Monday, 24 November, 2008, 5:51 AM
> I agree with Lee on two points. First, investments in
> alternative 
> modes by themselves are an inefficient way to conserve
> energy and 
> reduce emissions. It is far more important to implement
> pricing 
> reforms which discourage automobile travel and encourage
> the purchase 
> of more efficient vehicles then to simply invest in public
> transit, 
> since only about 5% of fuel savings result from shifts to
> public 
> transit - the rest results from other changes such as the
> purchase of 
> more efficient vehicles, and shifts to walking, cycling,
> ridesharing, 
> and closer destinations.
> 
> Second, public transit service improvements are justified
> on many 
> other grounds besides climate change emissions, so focusing
> on this 
> one objective would result in underinvestment in public
> transit. It 
> is far better to justify public transit improvements due to
> their 
> economic and social benefits (congestion reduction, road
> and parking 
> facility cost savings, consumer savings, accident
> reductions, 
> improved mobility for non-drivers) rather than focusing on
> energy 
> conservation and emission reduction benefits.
> 
> That being said, climate change concerns are stimulating a
> lot of 
> rethinking about transportation planning goals and
> practices. If the 
> CDM can help justify some additional investment in
> efficient 
> transportation, I'm all for it. Ideally, climate change
> emission 
> reduction advocates should work with other interest groups
> (economic 
> development, traffic safety, equity, public health,
> consumer 
> interests, etc.) to build support for the substantial
> changes 
> required to create truly sustainable transportation
> systems.
> 
> Let me tell you a related story. I'm currently writing
> a paper 
> concerning methods for monetizing (measuring in monetary
> units) 
> carbon emissions. There are two general approaches: damage
> costs, 
> which may be hundreds of dollars per tonne, and control
> costs, which 
> are probably much lower, perhaps $30-50 per tonne. A
> colleague wants 
> to use the higher value for analysis because he assumes
> that will 
> justify greater reductions in vehicle travel, but I'm
> not convinced. 
> A very high climate change value will justify technical
> solutions 
> that ONLY reduce emissions (such as regulations and
> incentives that 
> increase fuel efficiency or shifts to alternative fuels)
> since the 
> high value implies that climate change is the dominant,
> while a lower 
> value will justify more mobility management solutions that
> reduce 
> total vehicle travel and therefore help achieve multiple
> planning objectives.
> 
> For more information see:
> "Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction
> Strategies" 
> (<http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf>www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf
> )
> "Smart Transportation Emission Reduction
> Strategies" 
> (<http://www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf>www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf
> )
> "Carbon Taxes: Tax What You Burn, Not What You
> Earn" 
> (<http://www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf>www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf
> )
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> -Todd Litman
> 
> 
> At 09:24 AM 23/11/2008, Lee Schipper wrote:
> >Why would you want public transport in CDM, when the 
> >values/costs/benefits of time saved, lower air
> pollution, less 
> >noise, greater rider security and safety etc DWARF the
> carbon 
> >values...and when adding a CDM component slows the
> entire 
> >improvement of transport down immensely while all of us
> don our 
> >green visors and count carbon.
> >
> >Counting that carbon is VERY hard 
> >(http://embarq.wri.org/en/Article.140.aspx examined
> some of these 
> >issues including a paper we wrote for the 2007 ECEEE
> conference on 
> >measuring CO2 emissions CHANGES from transport
> projects).
> >
> >I'm VERY worried about CO2 in transport, but
> I'm convinced CDM and 
> >like process that link to "carbon finance"
> either slow the process 
> >down (see GEF grant progress), put too much focus on
> reducing CO2 
> >rather than improving transport (they are not the
> same), filter our 
> >vision to projects whose carbon savings are relatively
> to measure 
> >(hybrid buses, proven but expensive) or ones with tiny
> and often 
> >questionable savings (like small additions of biodiesel
> to bus fuel).
> >
> >I'm not against rewarding carbon saving or efforts
> at mass transit, 
> >but the proportions of $ for carbon are tiny compared
> to the overall 
> >pot of time, transport, urban development.  Can Mexico
> City honestly 
> >say that their Metrobus was "additional",
> ie., would not have been 
> >undertaken to save $$ millions in saved time,
> accidents, local air 
> >pollution, reduced numbers of cars on the road
> (according to a nice 
> >report by the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia published
> in 2006) for 
> >a few hundred thousand $ of carbon finance funds
> arranged after the fact?
> >
> >Juerg Gruetter has made a good case for CDM and carbon
> financing of 
> >BRT projects, but in the end these only affect a small
> amount of CO2 
> >(in buses) and, while they draw a modest number of
> riders from cars, 
> >still leave the rest of cars untouched. My fear is that
> CDM draws 
> >interest to those easily bankable projects and away
> from the much 
> >greater challenge, use of cars and other light duty
> vehicles.
> >
> >In four Latin American cities (Mexico City region,
> Bogota, S Paulo, 
> >and Santiago) cars and taxis appear to account for
> 65-70% of all 
> >direct GHG emissions from road traffic (including
> trucks).  Without 
> >policies and projects that reduce that traffic (and its
> growth) 
> >SIGNIFICANTLY, the savings from 'urban transport
> projects" in 
> >general will be small.  Since most fo the carbon is in
> cars, most of 
> >the change has to come from cars. How do you measure
> that and sell 
> >the results against a rapidly growing baseline? And
> cars and trucks 
> >are not "cdm-able", i.e., owned by the kinds
> of entities that can be 
> >part of CDM directly. Of course $$ could be given to
> cities who 
> >undertook strong transport measures, but again, why
> would they not 
> >undertake those measures anyway? And why would national
> governments 
> >not want to promulgate fuel economy standards to save
> oil?
> >
> >In short, is this really about $$ or political will?
> >Finally, consider the following very rough numbers that
> illustrate 
> >the scale of the problem.
> >    * World GDP 60 Trillion (until the crash)
> >    * World gross investment $10 TN (remember buildings
> burn energy 
> > leading to CO2 emissions, too)
> >    * Investments in transport infrastructure (road,
> rail, port, 
> > air, facilities like transfer stations) - my guess
> $1-2 TN
> >    * World purchase of private household transport
> equipment $1TN 
> > (40 mn cars $25 000/car)
> >    * World purchase of road fuels (roughly 2 TN)
> >
> >Are we really talking about  putting hundreds of
> billions YEARLY 
> >into doing what is the right thing even if CO2 was not
> a problem. 
> >Conversely, if we had a CO2 free fuel tomorrow,
> we'd still have a 
> >traffic mess worldwide. So maybe focusing on transport
> and Co2, 
> >rather than more broadly clean development - and
> understanding why 
> >developing cities' traffic is such a mess even
> before CO2 is 
> >considered - is higher on the agenda. If there are
> going to be N-S 
> >transfers, aka Overseas Development Assistance, is CO2
> "abatement" 
> >the most cost effective way of using money for
> development?
> >
> >Realistically, how can CDM have more than a
> demonstration effect? If 
> >so, then let's forget CDM as such and move to  a
> wider effort to
> >
> >Demonstrate various regional policy and technical
> solutions, 
> >investing (for once) in enough competence building and
> data 
> >gathering so localities can monitor traffic, emissions,
> fuel, safety 
> >etc better. Our EMBARQ project in se Asia (PSUTA)
> discovered that 
> >authorities' ability to monitor even the most
> elementary problems of 
> >transport was pretty meager 
> >--http://embarq.wri.org/en/ProjectCitiesDetail.aspx?id=9
> >
> >Some of these issues will be discussed at the upcoming
> COP (Dec 5). 
> >Maybe Climate negotiations are not the right place to
> decide how to 
> >use the streets? There will also be a spirited
> discussion during 
> >Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting in
> Washington DC, both 
> >during the meeting itself and at a special side event
> Friday 16 
> >January.  This note is copied to several of those
> involved in these 
> >discussions. Watch this space!
> >
> >Lee Schipper, Ph.D
> >Project Scientist
> >Global Metropolitan Studies
> >2614 Dwight Way 2nd floor
> >University of California Berkeley
> >CA 94720-1782 USA
> >TEL +1 510 642 6889
> >FAX +1 510 642 6061
> >CELL +1 202 262 7476
> 
> 
> 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"
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss
> messages via YAHOOGROUPS. 
> 
> Please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
> join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership
> rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and
> 'members' there cannot post to the real
> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem
> like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of
> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a
> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').