Lowering emissions by changing hearts & minds
This week’s reading has me thinking about the daunting challenge of significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by transportation. Reducing emissions is getting more urgent as I write, as we surpass peak oil and face the rapid onset of climate change. Just last week, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report with a dire warning: we only have a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a manageable level, and if it continues to increase it will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people within our lifetimes. Although numerous solutions for reducing transportation emissions exist, the problem is changing consumer and citizen behavior and attitudes towards transportation. This may prove particularly difficult in a divided political climate, and with American attitudes towards driving seeming to vary widely, especially across the urban/rural divide.
According to a report by David L. Greene and Steven Plotkin from 2011, we currently have the technology to reduce GHG emissions of gasoline vehicles significantly over the next 20-30 years. We could require manufacturers to implement efficiency improvements to both the “light duty” fleet of personal vehicles and smaller freight trucks, as well as to larger vehicles like large freight trucks, buses, and airplanes, reaching overall efficiency improvements of up to 30-50 percent. Greene and Plotkin say, however, that without targeted public policies and public buy-in, new technology alone will not succeed. For one, manufacturers need incentives or pressure to invest in new technology that meets fuel efficiency standards. This can be done either by regulation or market forces, both of which require some form of policy that needs public support to move through the political process. And while a switch to vehicles that use alternative fuels may seem like an obvious solution, the success of these will depend on several factors, including having funding for research and development, figuring out how to make alternative fuels and their vehicles economically competitive, and potentially subsidizing these fuel alternatives until the market becomes self-sustaining. There are many obstacles, especially in our social/political climate that prevents bold action to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Reducing GHG emissions will also require changing travel behavior, which is arguably the most difficult and polarizing challenge in transportation planning. People, especially Americans, have very deeply held beliefs about driving, tied to notions of freedom, privacy, and individualism. Greene and Plotkin suggest that pricing transportation with schemes like pay-as-you-drive motor vehicle insurance, congestion pricing, or “feebates” (a rebate for vehicles with lower emission vehicles and fee for higher emission vehicles) can help lower GHG emissions and fund transportation projects. However, I am skeptical that many of these approaches would have broad public support, so they may be do-able on the local level, but less plausible at the federal level.
A central part of the strategy for reducing GHG emissions from transportation must be changing hearts and minds. This is particularly difficult, especially in our challenging and highly polarized political climate. One area transportation planners and policy makers often ignore is how to better accommodate travelers in rural or suburban areas. These are the places where people are highly car-dependent due to comparatively remote residential settings and less robust or non-exist transit options (due to low density).. It is these folks who (understandably) might be the most likely to oppose new taxes or fees per mile of driving, because the financial burden will disproportionately affect them.. These issues do not have easy answers, but in terms of getting public buy-in for large scale fuel efficiency policy and regulations, we need to appreciate and understand how people in rural and suburban areas feel, and work with them to find a solution that they would support, so that we can move forward on aggressively reducing GHG emissions in the near future.
Written by Sachi Arakawa
Edited by Josh Linden
Sources:
Watts, J. October 8, 2018. We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN. The Guardian. Accessed via web: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
Greene, D.L. and S. E. Plotkin. 2011. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from U.S. Transportation. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
According to a report by David L. Greene and Steven Plotkin from 2011, we currently have the technology to reduce GHG emissions of gasoline vehicles significantly over the next 20-30 years. We could require manufacturers to implement efficiency improvements to both the “light duty” fleet of personal vehicles and smaller freight trucks, as well as to larger vehicles like large freight trucks, buses, and airplanes, reaching overall efficiency improvements of up to 30-50 percent. Greene and Plotkin say, however, that without targeted public policies and public buy-in, new technology alone will not succeed. For one, manufacturers need incentives or pressure to invest in new technology that meets fuel efficiency standards. This can be done either by regulation or market forces, both of which require some form of policy that needs public support to move through the political process. And while a switch to vehicles that use alternative fuels may seem like an obvious solution, the success of these will depend on several factors, including having funding for research and development, figuring out how to make alternative fuels and their vehicles economically competitive, and potentially subsidizing these fuel alternatives until the market becomes self-sustaining. There are many obstacles, especially in our social/political climate that prevents bold action to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Reducing GHG emissions will also require changing travel behavior, which is arguably the most difficult and polarizing challenge in transportation planning. People, especially Americans, have very deeply held beliefs about driving, tied to notions of freedom, privacy, and individualism. Greene and Plotkin suggest that pricing transportation with schemes like pay-as-you-drive motor vehicle insurance, congestion pricing, or “feebates” (a rebate for vehicles with lower emission vehicles and fee for higher emission vehicles) can help lower GHG emissions and fund transportation projects. However, I am skeptical that many of these approaches would have broad public support, so they may be do-able on the local level, but less plausible at the federal level.
A central part of the strategy for reducing GHG emissions from transportation must be changing hearts and minds. This is particularly difficult, especially in our challenging and highly polarized political climate. One area transportation planners and policy makers often ignore is how to better accommodate travelers in rural or suburban areas. These are the places where people are highly car-dependent due to comparatively remote residential settings and less robust or non-exist transit options (due to low density).. It is these folks who (understandably) might be the most likely to oppose new taxes or fees per mile of driving, because the financial burden will disproportionately affect them.. These issues do not have easy answers, but in terms of getting public buy-in for large scale fuel efficiency policy and regulations, we need to appreciate and understand how people in rural and suburban areas feel, and work with them to find a solution that they would support, so that we can move forward on aggressively reducing GHG emissions in the near future.
Written by Sachi Arakawa
Edited by Josh Linden
Sources:
Watts, J. October 8, 2018. We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN. The Guardian. Accessed via web: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
Greene, D.L. and S. E. Plotkin. 2011. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission from U.S. Transportation. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
There are so many challenges with getting people on board with extreme measures to reduce GHG. But considering the cost to all people and the planet, I think it's time for draconian policy. Why should we care about anything more than we care about threatening the lives of millions of people just to maintain the most harmful mode of transportation? Let's start with completely banning single occupancy vehicles in urban areas. There's other good reasons to go through with this idea, safety, public health, congestion, saving and re purposing land, etc. Once we are dealing with the inconvenient results of this action, we can rush to fix the problems created in a responsible way.
ReplyDeleteThe rural transportation issue is one that is must be solved ASAP, regardless of the anger and unfair outcomes that will result. There has to be a way for the rural population to access employment, school, food, hospitals, etc. I don't know a practical solution to avoid isolation when you live in isolation, but the personal car has been mistaken as the solution.
I understand the delicacy of the situation, and usually feel that delicate matters needed to be addressed softly, but trying to change hearts and minds about climate change is a losing battle.
Wells
That 12 year deadline is a shocking value. It is so frustrating that in the face of such an urgent deadline the biggest fight facing the reduction of GHG emissions is still human perception on the issue. Your piece is well thought out and boils down some complicated policy solutions to this wicked problem in an easily digestible format. If you can convince me in one blog post the urgency of enacting meaningful policy and manufacturing change, where are all the road-blocks to success coming from? The barrier presented by politics alone on this issue feels insurmountable considering today's political climate. However when thinking about this challenge in the terms you used, "changing hearts and minds" this mounting issue seems a little more understandable. Thank you for your great post!
ReplyDeleteSophie
Despite the good intentions of the communities with policies to reduce GHG, these communities face hard realities in pursuit of their goals. It is a headache to receive the necessary funding for reducing emission policies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, even if the policymakers can identify the source of GHGs in their area, they may not have the authority to mitigate those emissions. Nevertheless, some are making progress by breaking their long-term goals into shorter-term and more achievable targets. I wonder how are they responding to hard questions about the scope of authority and risk assessment?
Thank you for an interesting and thoughtful post!
Delete