Each rectangle representents an option for reducing emissions. The width measures the option’s potential emissions reduction from business-as-usual, in millions of metric tonnes (Mt), in the year 2030.
Figure 7: Global transport carbon abatement cost curve Source: ClimateWorks (2010)
procurement of transport vehicles. IEA (2010) predicts that under BAU by 2050 the world will spend another US$ 150 trillion on motor vehicles24
. There will be an investment of
another US$ 100 trillion in other types of transport vehicles (trucks, ships, aircraft, etc.) and US$ 150 trillion in fuels.
However, in a green economy these investments, if properly designed, would help limit the growth in emissions. Redirecting investment to green transport options can provide the same mobility needs but with significant reduced societal and environment impacts and in some cases even for less money. The global carbon abatement costs curve of McKinsey (2010) – presenting carbon benefits from investment in potential actions to reduce
24. Undiscounted dollars over the next 40 years worldwide.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Light Rail Rail
Cleaner & more efficient vehicles
City planning/ design
NMT infrastructure ++ ++
Long term costs/ investment
++ Air quality
+++ GHG emissions
Table 5: Costs and benefits of investing in green transport Source: Estimates by UNEP and authors. The more the pluses the bigger the investment or the benefit associated with the intervention.
+++ ++++ Transport Road safety
carbon emissions – shows that investing in green transport can be among the most cost-efficient actions to reduce carbon emissions. For example, investing in improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles is claimed to be able to generate net savings of € 65 per tonne carbon abated. The global transport carbon abatement cost curve of ClimateWorks (2010), see figure 7, shows a similar amount for initial improvements in fuel efficiency.
It is important to look not only at carbon abatement efficiency but also other impacts on the various challenges identified in the first chapter of this report. When comparing interventions and their costs and benefits it is also important to look at secondary impacts. For example, some interventions can result in major increases or decreases in tax revenue. Table 5 shows that