Global shift to mass transit could save more than $100 trillion and 1,700 megatons of CO2

[Rhiannon12866]

More than $100 trillion in public and private spending could be saved between now and 2050 if the world expands public transportation, walking and cycling in cities, according to a new report released by the University of California, Davis, and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Additionally, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions reaching 1,700 megatons per year in 2050 could be achieved if this shift occurs.

Further, an estimated 1.4 million early deaths associated with exposure to vehicle tailpipe emissions could be avoided annually by 2050 if governments require the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels, according to a related analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation included in the report. Doubling motor vehicle fuel economy could reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 700 megatons in 2050.

“The study shows that getting away from car-centric development, especially in rapidly developing economies, will cut urban CO2 dramatically and also reduce costs,” said report co-author Lew Fulton, co-director of NextSTEPS Program at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. “It is also critical to reduce the energy use and carbon emissions of all vehicles.”

The report, A Global High Shift Scenario, is the first study to examine how major changes in transportation investments worldwide would affect urban passenger transport emissions as well as the mobility of different income groups. The findings should help support wider agreement on climate policy, where cleanup costs and equity between rich and poor countries are key issues.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11027



The study's findings should help support wider agreement on climate policy, where cleanup costs and equity between rich and poor countries are key issues. (Thinkstock photo)

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Sure it could, and this is not new news, but...

haven't we been trying to do this for the last 100 years or so?

Look how far we've gotten.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. This study came out just before the UN Climate Summit

And the proposed efforts are supposed to be "voluntary." How many are willing to voluntarily give up using a vehicle? If there's no public transportation, it's often impossible to get anywhere.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Depends on who "we" are. And the answer is "no" regardless of party. Ignorance.

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I've seen on this board defensive posts about buying goods from Walmart (China) and driving big trucks, (just because).

More energy goes into transportation than all other sectors combined.

Ask me for data and I'll prove it, true for California and for the US.

Were we to localize food and production and, when needed, use mass transit, we would cut our energy consumption in half.

Like I said, it's demonstrable.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. You can't localize a lot of production like airplane manufacturing, but...

much small production is localized. New Jersey has thousands of small shops making specialized products, but can't compete with China for many things.

Mass transit only makes sense when at least one destination is a central one. It may eventually be reversed, but the current fracturing and suburbanizing of office parks, population, manufacturing and whatever is not conducive to mass transit. Married couples out here don't even bother to carpool themselves in case one has to run off for some reason.

Local food? Sure, but we have become accustomed to oranges, avocados, and fresh lettuce in the Northeast in winter. Do you really think there will be a mass movement for canning or freezing seasonal crops so we'll have something to eat in the winter? Besides, the acreage of truck farms now is nowhere near enough to actually feed metropolitan areas. We have a lot of profitable small farms out here, but they sell most of their production to the summer people who drive out on weekends.

Should there be a food crisis, and no doubt there will be, we'll figure something out, but fat chance before that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I would like that data, if you can

Because the EIA puts transportation at about 28% of energy consumption for the US: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/primary_energy.pdf

[NYC_SKP]

6. California:

I stand corrected on US figures. I don't consider "loss" and end use, here's California:

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. OK, though I would say that losses should be taken into account

If you're thinking about either resource use, or about CO2 production, the losses in electricity production from fossil fuels are important; after all, when considering the energy an internal combustion engine uses, you don't say "but a lot is lost as heat, so we'll ignore that".

[NYC_SKP]

8. Going back to the OP topic, however, and my first reply...

...what isn't accounted for in the EIA data and California Energy Commission data are the hidden energy uses embedded in many of our products, particularly imported foods and goods.

I don't know that the fuel oil for container ships is accounted for, or the uses of energy in manufacture and transport of say, shoes, clothes, and electronics from Asia, or produce from Central and South America.

I think we'll all agree that a shift to mass transit is a good thing, but the problem is far deeper than that.

But that we would shift to less transport overall, smart transit when we need it but generally more locally produced goods and sustainable cities that don't require commuting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I think energy in manufacture is far more, for anything imported by ship

Container ships are pretty efficient methods of transport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation

Domestic waterborne transport is more efficient, in kJ per tonne-km of cargo, than rail. If the figures given there for Emma Maersk are right, I think it can use 1kg of fuel - about 1.2 litres, or 0.3 gallons, to transport one 10 ton container about 45km, or about 28 miles. So it gets way better economy than a truck - about 100 mpg.