[Graeme]

IEA report finds “avoid, shift and improve” policies for urban transport could deliver up to $70T in savings through 2050

Policies that improve the energy efficiency of urban transport systems could help save as much as US$70 trillion in spending on vehicles, fuel and transportation infrastructure between now and 2050, according to a recently released report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Among the three broad categories of policies recommended in the report and policy guide, “A Tale of Renewed Cities”, are those that allow travel to be avoided; those that shift travel to more efficient modes; and those that improve the efficiency of vehicle and fuel technologies. The report notes that if fully implemented across the transportation sector, this “avoid, shift and improve” approach could deliver the up to US$70 trillion in savings.

“Avoid” policies address transport energy use and emissions by slowing travel growth via city planning and travel demand management. “Avoid” policies also include initiatives such as virtual mobility programs (e.g. tele-working) and implementation of logistics technology.

Shift” policies enable and encourage movements from motorized travel to more energy efficient modes, such as public transit, walking, cycling and freight rail. For example, increases in affordable, frequent and seamless public transport can alleviate local congestion while improving access and travel time to destinations and reducing household expenses on travel.

“Improve” policies can reduce energy consumption and emissions of all travel modes through the introduction of efficient fuels and vehicles. “Improve” policies include tightened fuel-economy standards and increased advanced-vehicle technology sales (e.g. clean diesel trucks and hybrid and plug-in electric cars).

greencarcongress

[ralfy]

The problem is that in global capitalist systems savings are re-capitalized, which means they will be spent elsewhere, leading to more resource and energy consumption.

[Graeme]

The savings could be used to pay off debt or invest in renewables to name two.

[dorlomin]

The problem is that in global capitalist systems savings are re-capitalized, which means they will be spent elsewhere, leading to more resource and energy consumption.

Have you any evidence for this assertion? Its seems nothing more than dogma.

[John_A]

Sure sounds like economics expressed with different words to me.

[Plantagenet]

The EU already has a wonderfully efficient mass transit system and the USA does not. However, the wonderfully developed mass transit in the EU hasn't helped the EU at all---both the USA and EU are seeing increasing poverty and joblessness that results in less travel, lower car use, and lower energy consumption.

This shows that the way all developed economies naturally tend to respond to higher energy costs is through economic slowdowns and increases in poverty---thereby forcing decreases in the demand for fuel.

[John_A]

The EU already has a wonderfully efficient mass transit system and the USA does not. However, the wonderfully developed mass transit in the EU hasn't helped the EU at all---both the USA and EU are seeing increasing poverty and joblessness that results in less travel, lower car use, and lower energy consumption.

This shows that the way all developed economies naturally tend to respond to higher energy costs is through economic slowdowns and increases in poverty---thereby forcing decreases in the demand for fuel.

More economics. Throw in a President intent on encouraging economic slowdowns, and you have the recipe for less fuel use for at least another 3 years.

[ROCKMAN]

Did I miss the link to the actual report? Wanted to see what the cost and time line projections for the theoretical policy changes. Without that the discussion is nothing more than a wish list of positive çhanges with no indication of neither the caper required (and it's source) and the time required to make such transitions. The will be zero savings initially as well as capex drain. No savings in the system until significant improvements are made...after someone pays up front.

These may be very good plans...if someone pays for them. Unfortunately can't pay for any of it with savings until they materialize.

[dorlomin]

The EU already has a wonderfully efficient mass transit system and the USA does not. However, the wonderfully developed mass transit in the EU hasn't helped the EU at all

Economies are not solely transport. Good transport systems to not tend to make up for collapsing property markets and over leveraged banks and governments without free floating currencies.

However had those countries also had to find the foreign reserves to feed 2.5 litre V8 SUVs rather than their bikes and buses their plight may have been all the worse.

[John_A]

More economics. Throw in a President intent on encouraging economic slowdowns.

You have any evidence for that?

But of course.

this-is-the-worst-recovery-ever-t67883.html

[kublikhan]

The problem is that in global capitalist systems savings are re-capitalized, which means they will be spent elsewhere, leading to more resource and energy consumption.

Have you any evidence for this assertion? Its seems nothing more than dogma.

There have been many studies done on this. The phenomenon is often described as "rebound effects". The effect is real, and does offset some of the original energy savings. However, the effect is not large enough to completely offset the energy savings, or worse, actually increase energy/resource usage. Here is a more recent article on the subject if you are interested:

Give everyone fuel-efficient cars and we’ll use less fuel, right? According to some economists—and opponents of mandated improvements in energy efficiency—we'll squander some of the savings by driving more. That argument goes for other forms of energy efficiency, suggesting they all can actually lead to greater energy use through a rebound effect. However, a group of economists and others, led by Kenneth Gillingham of Yale University, argue in a new Nature commentary that the rebound effect is exaggerated.

According to their article, the effect is real but small: 5 to 30 percent of energy savings may be lost due to greater use. but energy is still saved overall. These numbers are supported by many (“vast” is the word used by the authors) academic studies and simulations.

To be fair, the rebound effect is not simple. It actually comes about via four factors that interact and combine in a complex manner. The first is the “direct” effect, where a drop in the cost of using some energy-consuming device (like a car or washing machine) results in slightly increased use. For cars, various studies show that this reduces savings in energy from the improved efficiency by 5 to 23 percent initially. After everyone becomes accustomed to the lower fuel costs, this could eventually rise to 30 percent. This number is smaller for other devices like home appliances—around 10 percent. How much more often would you use your washing machine if it was more efficient? Would you even notice?

Of course, even if you didn’t notice that your appliances used less energy, you probably would see your reduced electric bill (and corresponding extra money in the bank). That wad of cash burning a hole in your pocket leads to the next manifestation of the rebound effect, the “indirect” effect. By saving money through more efficient cars and appliances, you have more money to spend on purchasing additional energy-consuming devices. This could erode energy savings an additional 5 to 15 percent.

To sum everything up: the rebound effect exists, and it should be taken into account when planning policy and legislation. Taking all the various aspects together, studies estimate the combined effects to be between 20 and 60 percent on a macroeconomic scale. This certainly isn’t negligible, but it shows that improved efficiency will still lead to reduced energy use overall.

How badly does the rebound effect undercut energy efficiency?

[ralfy]

Have you any evidence for this assertion? Its seems nothing more than dogma.

It's part of capitalism, banking, and business practices worldwide.

[ralfy]

The savings could be used to pay off debt or invest in renewables to name two.

The same thing takes place: the one who receives the paid-off debt will invest it elsewhere, and investment in renewable energy will require a return on that. In either case, more money has to be created, and with that more resources to back them up.

There are, cases, though, where more money will be created for its own sake as part of financial speculation. This is what led to the 2008 crash, and since that involved only a fraction of financial risks, one should expect more.

[Poordogabone]

Give everyone fuel-efficient cars and we’ll use less fuel, right? According to some economists—and opponents of mandated improvements in energy efficiency—we'll squander some of the savings by driving more.

The "rebound effect" I guess the new name for "Jevon paradox"

I always argued that imho this is only true on the way up Hubbert's peak. Going down the slide, efficiency means a larger number of people will still be able to drive while overall consumption is irreversibly trending down. It is no more a paradox but a mitigating effect.

[John_A]

Give everyone fuel-efficient cars and we’ll use less fuel, right? According to some economists—and opponents of mandated improvements in energy efficiency—we'll squander some of the savings by driving more.

The "rebound effect" I guess the new name for "Jevon paradox"

More like an improved version, Jevon's original concept was a bit absolute, the new version is better quantified, specific to different items, seems to come in handy and is used by economists when making forecasts.

[Vineyard]

Plus, If city rents continue to explode, people will still move into the "commuter belt".

I live in Vienna, Austria. Our public transport system is great. But still a lot of people move into the "Commuter Belt" around the city, because housing prices and rents are cheaper there.

[Tanada]

Plus, If city rents continue to explode, people will still move into the "commuter belt".

I live in Vienna, Austria. Our public transport system is great. But still a lot of people move into the "Commuter Belt" around the city, because housing prices and rents are cheaper there.

At least as far back as Rome 2000 ybp the rents on the periphery have always been lower for a simple reason, except in exclusive neighborhoods. Pretty simple when you think about it, the convenience of living where the 'action' is close to the city center is offset by the time and travel required to reach the city center. If you can't afford the cash to live next to (X) but you can afford the time to travel (T) distance (D) to get to X then your rent at X+D must be lower to compensate you for T. Modern technology means you commute by motorized vehicle instead of on foot, but the principal still holds. Rome was a city of relative sky scrapers because people were willing to walk an hour or 90 minutes to get to the action so building three and four storied tenement buildings packed a lot of humans within walking distance of the race track and Colosseum and other down town attractions. For modern cities 60 to 90 minutes commuting time is 40 to 60 miles out if you have a car and 20 miles out if you have a bus ride with many more stops. Convenience is a big deal to humans, some people will pay far higher rents for the chance to avoid the commute, it is human nature. It isn't that the rents outside the core are cheaper as much as the rents in the core are higher.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada – Houston is a perfect example of what you described. I’ve been here over 30 years and have seen that slow transition. About 20 years ago I lived in a middle class section about 15 miles north on d/t. The Woodlands was a higher scale planned community about 15 miles further north that many aspired to. And much of the d/t area was immediately surrounded by low income. But that came with painful commutes to d/t. D/t Houston at night looked like it had been abandoned…no one from the burgs travelled in unless it was for a concert or play at the big auditorium.

Now my old neighborhood is towards the lower end. Not many of the folks living in these neighborhoods commute to d/t and work much more locally. And many folks have tired of those long commutes and sold their $350k 4,000 sq ft homes in the burgs for $400k 1,400 sq ft condos or townhomes close to d/t. Middle income can barely afford to rent in the d/t area now so lower income folks had no choice but migrate. Leaving the office I drive thru a bizarre land of $500k 3-story town homes being built on lots next to what looks like an abandoned crack house. A very rough mix. My assistant and her hubby live in such a neighborhood and if he has to go out after dark, like to put the garbage can out, he tucks his 9mm in his waist band. An odd lifestyle to say the least.