Putting transport into climate change agenda - need to translate between two “languages” transport sector and climate change negotiation – Yoshitsugu Hayashi

Putting transport into climate change agenda

- need to translate between two “languages” transport sector and climate change negotiation –

Yoshitsugu HayashiInternational Center for Sustainable Transport and Cities (SUSTRAC) Nagoya University

Sino-France / WCTRS Shanghai Forum11-13 September 2010, Tongji University

Translation between Transport and Climate Change

●Transport currently not recognised in “climate regime language”

●Climate not recognised in “transport language” 2Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010

Upgrading Transport to a Key Sector

- Can Developing Countries Take Leap-frog Pathway? -

3Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010

Bottleneckfor

Development

Local/GlobalProblems

Emission Rate

CO,NOX,PM; CO2

Higher Cost ofInfrastructure

Supply

Sprawl

Higher EnergyConsumption

ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMYHigher

Car-Ownership

Urbanization

Severe TrafficCongestion

Longer Trips

EconomicDevelopment

IncomeGrowth

Modal Shift to Car

Excess Car DemandLack of Rail

Lack of Road

Mechanism of Urban Transport Improvement and its Negative Impacts on Economy & Environment


Car Ownership

GDP per Capita US$ (1995)

Cars

per

1,0

00 in

habi

tant

s

London

TokyoBangkok

Seoul

Hong kong

Singapore (CA)

‘95

‘95

‘90

‘90‘90

‘95‘00

‘85

‘85‘80

‘80

‘95

‘95‘00

‘70

‘60

Nagoya

Shanghai

‘95

‘02

Beijing

Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010

Road Infrastructure Supply vs. Motorization Level vs. Peak Hour Speed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0246810

Bangkok

Tokyo

London

Nagoya

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Bangkok

Tokyo

London

Nagoya

1972

1986

1993

1971

1988

1972

1987

1993

1972

1988

1972

1986

1993

1972

1993

1971

1988

Road length per car(m/car)

Car ownership(car/1,000 inhabitants)Speed (min/km)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Leng

th (p

erce

nt fr

om20

05 le

vels

)

GDP per capita

Tokyo

Road

Rail

20052000

19851980

1975197019651960

18721960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1990

2000

Paved Road

Rail

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Leng

th (p

erce

nt fr

om20

08 le

vels

)

GDP per capita

Beijing

Road

Rail

20092006

2005

1997

1978

19781986-1991

1992-1998

2002

Paved Road

Rail

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Leng

th (p

erce

nt fr

om20

05 le

vels

)

GDP per capita

Shanghai

road

rail

Paved Road

Rail

2007

2006

2006

2003

2003

2000

1997

20001993

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Leng

th (p

erce

nt fr

om20

05 le

vels

)

GDP per capita

Singapore

road

rail

Paved Road

Rail

2009

1990

19902003

2001

1992

1995

Which is more priority, Rail or Road ?

Cartraveltime

Road construction&operationcost

Roadtrafficvolume Rail

passengervolume

Railtraveltime

Rail construction &operationcost

SRo1

SRo1

SRo2

SRo2

SRa1

SRa1

SRa2

SRa2

DRo1

DRo1

DRo2*

DRo2*

DRa1

DRa1

tRo1

tRo2

tRo2*

CRo2*

CRo1

CRo2 CRa

2

CRa1

Demand level

Supply level

VRa1 VRa

2

Construction cost

Construction cost

Widening cost

Policy A Road widening

Policy B Track widening

ERo2*

VRo2* VRo

1* VRo2

ERo2

ERo1

ERa1

ERa2

Cartraveltime

Road construction&operationcost

Roadtrafficvolume Rail

passengervolume

Railtraveltime

Rail construction &operationcost

SRo1

SRo1

SRo2

SRo2

SRa1

SRa1

SRa2

SRa2

DRo1

DRo1

DRo2*

DRo2*

DRa1

DRa1

tRo1

tRo2

tRo2*

CRo2*

CRo1

CRo2 CRa

2

CRa1

Demand level

Supply level

VRa1 VRa

2

Construction cost

Construction cost

Widening cost

Policy A Road widening

Policy B Track widening

ERo2*

VRo2* VRo

1* VRo2

ERo2

ERo1

ERa1

ERa2

Hayashi Optimal Rail-Road Balance Chart

Yoshitsugu Hayashi, Nagoya University

Transport Strategies

Supportive Mechanisms

CO2 Targets

Sharp Reduction

Avoid

Shift

Improve

Developed Countries

Developing Countries

Leap-frog

•Fund shortage•Imperfect institutional practice•Lack of motivation•Unsustainable international aid

•Outdated technology•Uncontrolled land use•High dependence on car use•High carbon transport mode

Obstacles

Institutional

Financial

Overcoming Obstacles- Leap-frog in Developing Countries are Required -


Leap-frog (1): Green Transport Systems- CO2 reduction by railway improvement scenarios (Shanghai) -

Alternative scenariosof railway

construction

CO2

emission

O: road improvement only

B: road + rail (delay) improvement

A: road + rail (early) improvement

BA


0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

year

No

. of

Sta

tio

n p

er

inh

ab

-it

ab

le a

rea

[s

ta./k

m2

]

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

year

CO

2[M

t-C

O2

/yr]

O

25% reduction

The level of Tokyo Metropolitan Area (2005)

Leap-frog (2): Innovative Technologies- CO2 reduction by passenger car

high technology diffusion Scenarios (China) -

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

year

CO

2 em

issi

on f

rom

pas

seng

er c

ar[M

t-C

O2/

yr]

CCS: Carbon Capture & Storage


Importance of long-term integrated policy roadmap

- CUTE Matrix: liaisoning comprehensive strategiesand individual instruments -

Consistency of low carbon society and economic growth is achieved by the sustainable socio-economic framework and land use-transport infrastructure, which are constructed by long-term policy roadmap.

Individual instruments, which sometimes bring conflicts each other, should be positioned in an integrated roadmap.

Key factors of leap-frog in developing countries are earlier diffusion of both 1) innovative technologies and 2) green transport systems. They are mainly leaded and supported by regulatory, informational and economic instruments.


Transport Strategy - Techno/Policy Instruments

13

Strategy

Avoid Shift Improve

Reduce traffic demand Reduce emissions per unit transported

Reduce emissions per kilometer

Instruments

Tech nology

•Pedestrian Ort Dev’t

•Bicycle Ort Dev’t

•Transit Ort Dev’t

•Integrated Public Transport System

•Highly Competitive Railway

•LEV, EV

•Alternative Energy

•Advanced Infra- Tech

•Logistic Efficiency

Regulation

•TDM

•Parking Regulation

•Compact/Mix Land Use

•Bus/Tram Priorities

•Non-MT

•Smarter Modal Evolution

•Emission Standard

•Top Runner Program

•Eco-Drive

Information

•ICT

•Telework

•Smart Choices for Workplace and Schools

•Awareness Campaign •Knowledgebase

•ITS

•Labeling of Vehicle Performance

Economic

•Fuel Tax

•Road Pricing

•Car Charge / Fee

•Location Subsidy

•Fuel Tax

•Road Pricing

•Car Charge / Fee

•Fuel Tax

•LEV Preferential TaxYoshitsugu Hayashi, Nagoya University

CUTE Matrix

Realising Mitigation in Transport Sector


Cliquez pour éditer le format du plan de texte

Second niveau de plan

Troisième niveau de plan

Quatrième niveau de plan

Cinquième niveau de plan

Sixième niveau de plan

Septième niveau de plan

Huitième niveau de plan

Neuvième niveau de plan マスタテキストの書式設定

Why CDM does not like “Transport Projects”?

2010/7/14 Yoshitsugu HAYASHI, Nagoya University, Japan

2270 CDM Projects

(Source: UNFCCC, 2010)

Energy industries

(renewable - / non-renewable

sources) 62.07%Energy

distribution 0.00%Energy demand

1.00%

Manufacturing industries 4.79%

Chemical industries 2.47%

Construction 0.00%

Transport

0.11%

Mining/mineral production 0.96%

Metal production 0.29%

Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) 5.01%

Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and

sulphur hexafluoride

0.81%

Solvent use 0.00%

Waste handling and disposal

17.36%

Afforestation and reforestation

0.55%

Agriculture 4.57%

2270 CDM Projects

The Programmatic CDM is not an option but a new scheme to realize a project which consists of a bundle of similar projects. Compared with traditional project CDM, Programmatic CDM can absorb the risks of each individual CDM project due to uncertainty in reaching the emission targets proposed for the transport sector.

From Project CDM to Programmatic CDM

2010

2012

2016

20182014

Program

CDM joined later


The Risk Hedge Fund avoids the risk for investors (firms in developed countries) to miss the emission credit due to uncertainty of achieving the expected CO2 reductions. To avoid the risk, the Fund should be established to reserve a certain percent of emission rights from each CDM projects in transport sector.

Country A-- ＄Country B-- ￥Country C--€

Transport Projects

Risk Hedge Fund

X%

X%X%


The “Green ODA” contributes low carbon transport system as

Long-term impact: The volume of transport projects by ODA is huge among internationally transferred budget. Road construction is dominant compared to railways, which induce further automobile demand and more CO2 emission in long term. To avoid carbon-dependent transport requires the SHIFT of ODA to green mode.

Designing the market for the future reduction: CO2 reduction effect of green transport continues for a long time. However, the current carbon market treats only short period’s emissions and therefore does not adapt such long term effects as generated by transport projects. Financial commodities that the expectation to the future CO2 reduction is considered should be financial products; e.g. carbon stock option and carbon futures.


Realising Mitigation in Transport Sector


Transport Improvement Projectsare Essential Choices in NAMAs(Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions)

Earlier Actions for AVOID: Progress of motorization and urbanization is irreversible. Construction of low carbon transport network and land-use pattern requires a long period. Developing countries does not allow waste of time.

Methodology of MRV(Measurement/Report/Verification): Rich technologies and knowledge should be integrated as practical methodologies and be transferred to developing countries.

Co-benefit: Low carbon transport systems bring various positive effects to developing countries; convenient & comfortable trips, economic growth without bottleneck by traffic congestion, mitigation of mobility divide and local pollutions, and compact & smart landscape.

Value capture: Self-sustaining finance system for NAMAs should be established. Value capture is one of the most promising methods under growing economy by means of collecting wind-fall benefit.


What WCTRS Can Contribute ?

Politicians cannot imagine about the catastrophic future of transport

No opportunity for politicians to learn about the reality of transport and its risk.

High attention of politicians on WCTRS with more than 1,500 members from 64 countries.

WCTRS could play a much bigger role in the world society.

“Yes we can help ! ” UNFCCC and IPCC

We need a well designed road map for in-advance activities to COPs.

23

Where Are We ?

Environment（ Climate Change ）

Society（ Vulnerable

）

Economic（ No

Growth ）

Potential of Growth Decrease

MitigationDecreased

Investment CapabilityLand UseAdaptation

Switch ofLifestyle

ReducingDamages, Burdens

Shifting Strategy of Urban

Configuration

IncreasedRisk

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

year

Nu

mb

er

of

sta

tion

s p

er

inh

ab

itab

le a

rea

[sta

./km

2]

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

year

CO

2 e

mis

sio

n [

Mt-

CO

2/y

r]

Leap-frog (2): Green Transport Systems- CO2 reduction by railway improvement scenarios (Shanghai) -

Alternative scenariosof railway

construction

CO2

emission

Same level of Tokyo Ward Area (2005)

O: road improvement only

B: road + rail (delay) improvement

A: road + rail (early) improvement

O

B

A50% reduction


Approach Steps

Supportive Mechanisms

Translation between Transport and Climate Change

Political Will – Upgrade Transport Sector as A Key Sector in Climate Change Negotiation

Sector Target

Mitigation-Adaptation-Actions in Transport Sector

Technology/Knowledge Transfer Capacity Building

Financing Mechanism

An programmatic CDMODA ， domestic public funding and private fundingMitigation Fund, Capacity-building Fund, Climate Fund, Risk hedge fund


Financial flows for “transport”

Financial flows for“climate mitigation”

Domestic public funding

(trillions)Private funding

(trillions)

GEF

MitigationFund

Climate Funds

(millions)

ODA

(billions)

Financial flows for “sustainable low carbon transport” ?

CDM

26Yoshi Hayashi, Sep. 2010 Source: Ko Sakamoto

Sector ApproachSector approach aims to allocate emission reduction target for each sector inside the country. The approach may encourage developing countries to reduce emissions particular in transport sector through joint implementation with other sectors even if they do not have national target emission yet.

Developing Country (0%) Developed Country (n%)

Sectoral CDM

Transport

Transport

Sector B Sector B

Sector A

Sector A

Em

issi

on R

edu

ctio

n

Tar

get

Actual Emission

・・・

・・・

Emission Reduction

Emission Target


Mitigation Options: CUTE Matrix


Documents

Putting transport into climate change agenda - need to translate between two “languages” transport sector and climate change negotiation – Yoshitsugu Hayashi