visioning scenarios for transport and co2 for latin america in 2050: you can’t see the future ...
DESCRIPTION
By Lee Schipper. Presented on Day Two of Transforming Transportation. Washington, D.C. January 15, 2010.TRANSCRIPT
Presentation for Transforming TransportationInter-American Development Bank
January 15, 2010Lee Schipper, Ph.D.
Project Scientist, Global Metropolitan Studies, UC BerkeleySenior Research Engineer, Precourt energy Efficiency Center, Stanford
* Opinions strictly those of Dr Schipper. Analysis work funded by the World Bank; Scenario work funded by the Institute for Transportation Policy Studies, Japan
Visioning Scenariosfor Transport and CO2
For Latin America in 2050:You Can’t See the Future
Unless You Have the Right Glasses
Presentation in Two PartsThe Glasses: Framing the CO2 problem as a
transport problem
The Vision: Seeing a different transportation future for L. America
WORLD CARBON EMISSIONS: TRANSPORTThe Latin American Share Is Small
CO2 a Symptom of Latin America’s Transport Problems
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
MT
on
nes
CO
2
China non-TransportOECD Non TransportRest of World non TransportLat. Am incl Mexico non transportSea and Aviation BunkersChina TransportOECD Transport ex MexicoRest of World TransportLatin Am incl Mexico Transport
CO2 Emissions: Is Latin America Different?Total, Per Capita, or Per GDP
• Low in Total CO2 – Per Capita or Per GDP– L.A. (all sectors) < per capita world avg – Brasil hydro, ethanol ( ETOH)
– Road transport share of total emissions – relatively high despite ETOH
– Total road transport CO2 /GDP high by developing country standards
• Trends over Time– Ratio fell before 1990 as Brazilian ETOH role increased
– Barely fell 1990-2006 as ETOH could not keep pace
– Ratio fell more in most other regions
• What this Means– High emissions/GDP a symptom of poor transport– Low global share of emissions no excuse for indifference or inaction– Act on transport problems, reap emissions reduction as co-benefit
L. America Ic Different: High Emissions for Road TransportHigh Or Low CO2 Not The Issue: The Issue is Transport
Road Transport Emissions Relative to GDP?Falling Only Very Slowly in Latin America
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
US, Canada OECDEurope
OECDPacific
E Europe LAC wMexico
China India
Kilo
gram
s CO
2/$U
S of
GD
P (2
000
PPP)
19902006
* 1990 figure includes many non-transport uses
*
Light Duty Vehicle Ownership and IncomeLatin America is High for Its Income – the Link to CO2
Light Duty Vehicles Dominate Urban Streets and CO2 Emissions
• Global Estimate for All of Latin America– WBCSD Estimates for 2000- 75% of VKT, 43% of rd. trans. emissions– If “Urban” 80% of LDV, minibus, 50% of bus, 10% of heavy freight – – Urban LDV are 80% of VKT and 55% of emissions
• Similar Results from Local Emissions Inventories– Mexico City, Bogota, S Paolo and Santiago– High car share means high congestion– High congestion itself worsens fuel use, local pollution
• High CO2 is Symptom of Poor Urban Transport– Light duty vehicles (and colectivos) clog streets– LDV -> 55% of urban-centered road transport CO2 emissions– Tough measures to address LDV required
Hard to Address CO2 without Improving Urban TransportIncluding Problems of Transit and Land USe
CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in MCMA – The Urban Share by Vehicle Type
*Source: This study based on SMP/WBCSD and IEA/MOMO estimates by mode 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
LDVPassenger
Motorcycles Minibuses Busses LDV freight Med Trucks HeavyTrucks
CO
2,
Mil
lio
n M
etr
ic T
on
ne
s
Total Emissions
Urban Regions
CO2 Emissions from Road Transport in MCMA – Similar Patterns for Bogota, Santiago, S Paulo*
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Cars, Pickups and Taxis Buses, colectivos, VW Buses All Trucks
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns
. M
illi
on
Me
tric
To
nn
es
Compressed Natural Gas
LPG
Diesel
Gasoline
*Source: MCMA Bottom-up Emissions InventoryS. Paulo has lower emissions from LDV because of alcohol, but still bad traffic
The Future for Transport and Emissions as LDV Dominance Grows
• WBCSD Projections: “Sustainable Mobility Project” (SMP) – First truly global mobility-CO2 study– Projected all major regions, all transport modes, all fuels– Signed by CEO of major oil and vehicle makers
• Latin America in Perspective by 2030 – According to SMP– Remains most motorized part of developing world– LDV dominate growth in fuel use despite 20% lower fuel/km– 2030 Emissions 250% of 2000 (other regions narrow gap)
• Dealing with CO2 in Urban Transport Means Facing LDV– “Good Transport” (W Bank) means fewer vkt, probably fewer cars– Transport measures (congestion pricing, vkt fees) and fuel economy– Low CO2 transit vehicles only have a minor impact
Needed: Strong Transport Actions Slowing Car VKT, Strong National Actions on Fuel/CO2 Taxes, Fuel Economy
Future Latin America Passenger Road Transport CO2Driving Force is LDV Ownership and Use
(Source WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project)
LDVs out of control
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Cars, Mcycles All Buses
CO
2 E
mis
sio
ns.
Mn
To
nn
es
Emissions in 2000
Emissions in 2030, no fueleconomy improvements
Emissions in 2030, w fueleconomy improvements
Bus Rapid Transit – Mexico’s 1st Metrobus Line260,000 people/day over 19km for US $80mnLower emissions, CO2, reduced car traffic
Metrobus as a Case Study in Co-BenefitsHow to Save CO2 Without Even Trying
• The INE Cost Benefit Analysis – – Values of time, less road wear – Value of lower air pollution emissions– Fewer accidents and deaths not counted
• Impacts – 50 000 tonnes/CO2 year from Saved Fuel– Roughly 1/3 from bus switch, 1/3 from better traffic, 1/3 from mode
switch– Fuel saving accure to bus operators, switchers, others in traffic– In $, CO2 small benefit even at $85/tonne CO2
• Lessons: Transport First, CO2 as a Co-benefit– Most of CO2 saving comes from non-project vehicles (!)– Having good long-term data (Inventario) essential for CO2 monitoring– 1 good transport project can spark dozens (Insurgentes II, Eje 4 )
Metrobus CO2 Changes by ComponentCO2 Savings (10% of Corridor Emissions) as Cobenefit were FREE
Source Rogers 2006, 2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Before After
Thou
sand
Ton
nes
CO2
A. 20 Extra Metrobus
B. Original 70 Metrobus on Route
C. Colectivos and RTP Buses Removed
D. Car Users Shifting to Metrobus
E. Delays to vehicles crossing Insurgentes
F. Additional Distance for Left turns
G. Savings from improved parallel traffic
H. Remaining parallel traffic
What Trends and Projections Say About The FutureTreat C02 as a Transport Problem
• Reducing CO2 Intensity of Travel Important– Smaller and more fuel economy vehicles– Higher load factors and better management of vehicles– TDM and congestion management to reduce idling losses
• Reducing Travel in High CO2 Modes More Important– Avoiding Latin America’s high car to GDP growth rate – Urban
Development – Shifting to less C-intensive, more sustainable modes.– Giving real priority to mass transit
• Taking an Integrated Approach Most Important Of AllTaking an Integrated Approach Most Important Of All– Frame problem as transport and urban development, NOT CO2– Count CO2 as important co-benefit of better urban systems– Long-term monitoring and evaluation
Financing for Low Carbon Transit – The Least ProblemStrong Policies – The Hardest Problem
Transport and CO2 in Latin America in 2050:The View from Scenarios
• Projections (WBCSD, IEA even MEDEC): Lots More Carbon– Underlying growth in mobility or freight is not challenged– Opportunities to avoid more CO2-intensive development overlooked– Final values probably beyond reach
• Backcasting (this Assignment) Exposes Opportunities– Global goal (from sponsor, ITPS): 50% of present global transport CO2 – For US, this means 92% reduction– For L America, modest reduction
• Realistic?– 300 million more Latinos/as expected by 2050, even more urbanization– Bogota, MC, Curitiba show avoidance or shifting not impossible– 40 year time frame: 2 generations of vehicles, 1 of infrastructure
Purpose of Scenarios is to turn Weak Links into Opportunities, Not Reinforce Dangerous Trends
“ASIF” Decomposition: Road Map For Scenario Building
Fuel Use UC Back Cast
ICCT Projection only
Trips, Land Uses Our Team
G
= A Si Ii Fi,j
Emissions from Transport
* * *
Occupancy/ Load Factor
Vehicle fuel intensity Vehicle characteristics
Technological energy efficiency
Real drive cycles and routing
Veh-km and pass-km by mode
Modal Energy Intensity
Emissions per unit of energy
or volume or km
Total Transport Activity
Lesson: Attack all Problems of TransportNot Just Technological Efficiency and Fuels
Air pollution, health
impacts Global CO2
Transport and CO2 in Latin AmericaTwo Approaches
• Backcasting from ITPS Goals (Our Team Only)– Worked from goals, using very low CO2 intensities, lower activities– Varied these “ASIF” components to get per capita targets– Final values probably beyond reach
• Projections of Transport Activity, Carbon Intensities (w ICCT)– ICCT provided well researched fuel and CO2 intensities– We varied loads/vehicle and shrunk cars in Glocal to modify
intensities– We projected activities based on European, earlier US experience
• Challenges Common to Both Approaches– L. America data problems except SMP estimates for light duty vehicle– Results testing frontiers of technology– General policy directions clear, but specifics must follow
Transport and CO2 in Latin America in 2050Why Scenarios?
• Globalization – – Universal concern for CO2 – rapid advances in technology– Less local concern for transport, but some actions on congestion– CO2 intensity falls greatly, but activity rises --
• “Glocalization -– Less local interest in CO2, but strong local interest in improved transport – Large deviation from BAU activity projections but growth– Much smaller cars, higher load factors all modes
• Backcasting – for ½ Present CO2/capita, Lat. Am Close– Lat. Am great reduction in CO2 intensities but more travel, freight activity– Either scenario requires strong policies and governance now, not in 2049– Fuel economy stds, road pricing and tolling, etc all need time
Results Show Outcomes, but No Guarantee of ResultsCo-Benefits, “Good Transport” not CO2 Key Drivers
Three Modes Dominate EmissionsCars, Flying, Trucking
• Cars, Trucks, Air – WBCSD Estimates for 2000- 75% of VKT, 43% of rd. trans. CO2 in LA– Few countries have good data on vehicle use, fuel intensity– No reliable “data” on fuel use/km; no national travel surveys, etc
• Trends Mixed and Uncertain– Latin Am has very high car ownership/GDP – own production Car use– Ownership rising in L. America – need to understand driving factors– Air Travel in L. America uncertain – Mostly Int’l travel?
• What Matters– Even Given the Uncertainties– Much better economy and utilization factors, serious look at rail– Slowdown in growth in LA and end to car-focused development– Major shift in transport and developmental policies-
Broad Brush Appropriate, but Details Lacking to Validate individual policies’ or technologies’ impacts
Travel and Freight Emissions Projected with ICCT: Latin America
1
10
100
1000
1000 10000 100000Tonne - km or Passenger-km per Capita
CO2,
gra
ms/
tonn
e-km
or p
asse
nger
-km
Actual LA 2005 TravelActual LA 2005 FreightGlocal 2050 Trave lProjGlocal 2050 Freight ProjGlobal 2050 Travel ProjGlobal 2050 Freight ProjTravel Share of 2050 TargetFreight Share of 2050 Target
De-Carbing Transport in Latin America AS – Activity and Mode Shares
• Avoid Carbon Intensive Development (is it too late for NA?)– For Latin America, large break with trends ala MC, Bogota– Push against enclaves like Santa Fe (MC); other land use changes– For new regions, Curitiba model of cleaner development
• Switch: Big Push for Better Transport in Both Scenarios– For Latin America, big increase in share of bus, rail, little increase in air – Strong integration of all modes in urban, inter-urban travel– Support from congestion pricing, road tolls, CO2 taxes, etc
• Improve by Operations, Technology – But How Far?– Higher load factors on all modes reduce CO2 intensity – Better logistics reduce fuel waste in trucking, delivery– Strong TDM to reduce present 20-30% fuel waste in congestion
Projections Show Modest Increase in Travel (and Freight)Did We Put In Enough?
De-Carbing Transport in L. America IF – Fuel Intensity and Carbon Content
• Vehicles– Shrinking cars and improving vehicle technology for cars, trucks– New generation of buses, hybrid mini buses, newest aircraft– For both regions, technology and changes in transport contribute
• Operations– Measures to increase loading – more pkt or tonne-km for each vkt– Real transport demand measurement to reduce losses in congestion– Stronger enforcement of maintenance for clean and fuel saving
• Fuels – Dilemma for L America is Biofuels– Careful exploitation of ethanol and fuel cells from low-carbon sources– Hoped-for role of biodiesel– Electrification of rail (still limited role)
Figures Used Imply Much Higher Efficiency Than TodayThis Means Reversal of Apparent Trends in L. Am. Today
Travel and Carbon Intensity AssumptionsPie in the Sky or Realistic
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Actual Base Projection,WBCSD
Global Glocal
2005 2050 2050 2050
Mill
ion
Mto
nnes
CO
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Lite
rs/1
00 K
M, L
ight
Dut
y V
ehic
les
LDV
BUS
RAIL
AIR
Liters Per 100 KM, LDV
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Actual Base Projection,WBCSD
Global Glocal
2005 2050 2050 2050
Pas
seng
er K
m P
er C
apita
by
Mod
e
AIR
RAIL
BUS
LDV
Scenarios Results for Latin AmericaWith A Real Effort, Latin America Will Have Lower Emissions Tomorrow
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Actual Base Projection,WBCSD
Global Glocal
2005 2050 2050 2050
Millio
n M
ton
ne
s C
O2
Fuel Cycle Losses, all Modes
AIR
RAIL
BUS
LDV
Key Messages: Saving CO2 in Latin America• Transport Matters A Lot for CO2; CO2 Matters Little for Transport Personal and goods mobility grows with income- how to change that? Technology improvements important, but activity growth the major problem Frame problem as a transport problem: High Co2 = symptom of bad transport
• Freight Harder to Change than Travel? Specialization within a country/region and globalization Trucking still more flexible than rail; can the patterns shift back Packages don’t complain like people – improved handling and logistics more important than
technology alone
• CO2 In Transport – Not by Tailpipe Alone (Further thoughts) Strengthening non-car transport is much more than a CO2 issue Easier for L. America to avoid if leaders want that? Finance good transport: how and why if leaders only want cars?
Don’t Hang Ordinary Peoples’ Transport Ordeal on CO2Improve Transport Without Waiting, Take the CO2 Cobenefit
TECHNOLOGY LEAPFROGGING Gracias
Lee Schipper – [email protected]