while some transport interventions are cost effective ways to reduce carbon emissions, others are more effective in increasing accessibility or decreasing congestion.
While there are differing views on the role that biofuels can play in reducing GHG emissions in the transport sector, its use has been rapidly increasing over the past years. Much of this development has been triggered by mandates for blending biofuels into vehicle fuels, enacted in at least 41 states/provinces and 24 countries at the national level. Ethanol, made primarily from corn and sugar cane, and biodiesel, produced primarily from oil seeds such as rapseed and oil palm seeds, are currently the key biofuels for transport. Most mandates require blending 10-15 per cent ethanol with gasoline or blending 2-5 per cent biodiesel with diesel fuel. Standards comprehensively addressing environmental and social concerns raised in the context of production of biofuels should be applied to ensure sustainability.
To achieve a green transport sector and meet targets set in terms of improved urban air quality, reduced carbon emissions and reduced road accidents, a mix of strategies is needed combining Avoid, Shift and Improve interventions. Models of the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2009b) and the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2010) show that a package of measures, combining measures in the Avoid, Shift and Improve areas, are needed to achieve major emissions reductions (see Box 7). UNEP’s work also arrives at a similar conclusion (see Box 8).
Box 7: Net savings from greening the transport sector
In the context of climate-change mitigation, it is often claimed that actions in transport are costly due to the required new technologies. However, as demonstrated by several studies such as Cambridge Systematics (2009) in its “Moving Cooler” study and McKinsey’s and ClimateWorks’ cost abatement curves (see earlier), the cost of many transport interventions and especially a comprehensive set of policies based on the Avoid, Shift, and Improve strategy can often result in net savings to the economy as a whole. The savings in fuel costs brought about by a mixture of behavioral and technological changes far outstrip the implementation costs. A World Bank (2009) study on Mexico notes that projects targeted at improving the efficiency of bus networks, rail freight and vehicle-inspection schemes generated large net savings.
100 120 140 160
20 40 60 80
0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Each curve shows the additional effect of adding further instruments.
1. Improve package: improved engine and vehicle design, electric cards, low-carbon fuels and technologies encouraging behavioural change. These measures lead to a 44 per cent reduction in transport CO2
emissions.
2. Avoid and shift package: road pricing, car clubs, increasing population density in cities and travel planning. These measures lead to a
20 per cent reduction in transport CO2 emissions.
Figure 8: Effect of a combination of Avoid,
Shift and Improve measures to reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector in the
EU Source: EEA (2010)
Business-as-usual
1 2
Target
Box 8. Effects of combining investments in measures in the Avoid, Shift and Improve areas on reducing transport emissions
UNEP has been working closely with IEA and others in promoting clean and efficient vehicles. In doing so, UNEP has found that major reductions can be achieved through the introduction of cleaner fuels and vehicles. However, UNEP also found that to achieve the emissions reductions needed investments must be made in all three areas: Avoid, Shift and Improve. Models of the IEA and European Environment Agency (EEA) show that emissions reductions of 70 per cent or more are possible with the right policies and investments – with about two-thirds coming from measures in the Improve area and one-third from measures in the Avoid and Shift areas.