Abstract
Transport plays a key role in delivering on the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. While providing essential services to society and economy, transport is also an important part of the economy and it is at the core of a number of major sustainability challenges, in particular climate change, air quality, safety, energy security and efficiency in the use of resources. This chapter identifies the linkages between decarbonisation pathways, policy design, coalition building and institutional frameworks. The analysis shows that there are critical interlinkages between these aspects. Decarbonisation of the transport sector is not possible through isolated measures. A broad range of local and national actions are needed to bring the sectors on to low-carbon development path. Furthermore, a holistic policy approach is needed to deliver on wider sustainable development objectives. Addressing a broader range of policy objectives can help forming coalitions and consensus among key political and societal actors. Finally, Consensus oriented institutions are needed to maintain a stable policy environment that enables the long-term transitions towards a low-carbon development path. The chapter identifies the potential for land transport climate change mitigation actions at the local and national level, opportunities for synergies of sustainable development and climate change objectives and governance and institutional issues affecting the implementation of measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Antimiani A, Costantini V, Kuik O, Paglialunga E (2016) Mitigation of adverse effects on competitiveness and leakage of unilateral EU climate policy: an assessment of policy instruments. Ecol Econ 128(August):246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.003
Berry A, Jouffe Y, Coulombel N, Guivarch C (2016) Investigating fuel poverty in the transport sector: toward a composite indicator of vulnerability. In: Energy demand for mobility and domestic life: new insights from energy justice, vol 18, pp 7–20, Aug. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.02.001
Bollen J (2015) The value of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies: analysis with a global sector-trade CGE model called worldscan. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90, Part A(January): 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.008
Cai Y, Newth D, Finnigan J, Gunasekera D (2015) A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation. Appl Energy 148(June):381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.106
Cassen C, Gracceva F (2016) Chapter 7—energy security in low-carbon pathways A2—Lombardi, Patrizia. In: Gruenig M (ed) Low-carbon energy security from a european perspective, Academic Press, Oxford, pp 181–205. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128029701000073
Cook J, Rinfret S (2015) are they really so different? climate change rule development in the USA and UK. J Public Aff 15(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1512
Cooper M (2016) Renewable and distributed resources in a post-paris low carbon future: the key role and political economy of sustainable electricity. Energy Res Soc Sci 19(September):66–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.05.008
Creutzig F (2016) Evolving narratives of low-carbon futures in transportation. Transp Rev 36(3):341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1079277
Cuenot F, Fulton L, Staub J (2012) The prospect for modal shifts in passenger transport worldwide and impacts on energy use and CO2. Energy Policy 41(February):98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.017
Dhar S, Shukla PR (2015) low carbon scenarios for transport in India: co-benefits analysis. Energy Policy 81(June):186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.026
Dhar S, Pathak M, Shukla PR (2017) Electric vehicles and India’s low carbon passenger transport: a long-term co-benefits assessment. In: Bridging the gaps for accelerating low carbon actions in Asia, vol 146, pp 139–148, Mar. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.111
Fais B, Sabio N, Strachan N (2016) The critical role of the industrial sector in reaching long-term emission reduction, energy efficiency and renewable targets. Appl Energy 162(January):699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.112
Fankhauser S, Gennaioli C, Collins M (2015) The political economy of passing climate change legislation: evidence from a survey. Glob Environ Change 35(November):52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.008
Figueroa Meza MJ, Lah O, Fulton LM, McKinnon AC, Tiwari G (2014) Energy for transport. Ann Rev Env Resour 39(1):null
Fredriksson PG, Sauquet A, Wollscheid JR (2016) Democracy, political institutions, and environmental policy☆. In: Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09714-1
Fulton L, Lah O, Cuenot F (2013) Transport pathways for light duty vehicles: towards a 2° scenario. Sustainability 5(5):1863–1874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5051863
Gschwender A, Jara-Díaz S, Bravo C (2016) Feeder-trunk or direct lines? economies of density, transfer costs and transit structure in an urban context. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 88(June):209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.001
Hagen B, Middel A, Pijawka D (2016) European climate change perceptions: public support for mitigation and adaptation policies. Environ Policy Governance 26(3):170–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1701
Harvey LDD (2013) Global climate-oriented transportation scenarios. Energy Policy 54(March):87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.053
International Energy Agenca (IEA) (2014/2016) Energy technology perspectives. Paris, IEA
Jänicke M (1992) Conditions for environmental policy success: an international comparison. Environmentalist 12(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01267594
Jänicke M (2002) The political system’s capacity for environmental policy: the framework for comparison. In: Weidner H, Jänicke M (eds) Capacity building in national environmental policy, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04794-1_1
Justen A, Schippl J, Lenz B, Fleischer T (2014) Assessment of policies and detection of unintended effects: guiding principles for the consideration of methods and tools in policy-packaging. Policy Packag 60:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.015
Kanda W, Sakao T, Hjelm O (2016) Components of business concepts for the diffusion of large scaled environmental technology systems. In: New approaches for transitions to low fossil carbon societies: promoting opportunities for effective development, diffusion and implementation of technologies, policies and strategies, vol 128, pp 156–67, Aug. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.040
Lah O (2014) The barriers to vehicle fuel efficiency and policies to overcome them. Eur Transp Res Rev. http://link.springer.com/journal/12544
Lah O (2015) Sustainable development benefits of low-carbon transport measures. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. http://transport-namas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/giz_TRANSfer_2015_Sustainable-developement-benefits-of-low-carbon-transport-measures_web.pdf
Lah O (2017a) Factors of change: the influence of policy environment factors on climate change mitigation strategies in the transport sector.” Transp Res Procedia (WCTR Special Issue):0–17
Lah O (2017b) Factors of change: the influence of policy environment factors on climate change mitigation strategies in the transport sector. WIRE Energy Environ (Special Issue):0–17
Lakshmanan TR (2011) The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. J Transp Geogr 19(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.01.001
Marquardt J (2017) Conceptualizing power in multi-level climate governance. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.176
Never B, Betz J (2014) Comparing the climate policy performance of emerging economies. World Dev 59(July):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.01.016
Schwanitz VJ, Longden T, Knopf B, Capros P (2015) The implications of initiating immediate climate change mitigation—a potential for co-benefits? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 90, Part A(January):166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.003
Sims R, Schaeffer R, Creutzig F, Nunez X, D’Agosto M, Dimitriu D, Meza M, Fulton L, Kobayashi S, Lah O (2014) Transport In: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change
Sorrell S (2010) Energy, economic growth and environmental sustainability: five propositions. Sustain 2(6):1784–1809
Sørensen HH, Isaksson K, Macmillen J, Åkerman J, Kressler F (2014) Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages. Policy Packag 60:40–52
Spataru C, Drummond P, Zafeiratou E, Barrett M (2015) Long-term scenarios for reaching climate targets and energy security in UK. Sustain Cities Soc 17(September):95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.03.010
Spyra H, Salmhofer H-J (2016) The politics of decarbonisation—a case study. Transport Research Arena TRA 2016 14:4050–4059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.502
Tsebelis G, Garrett G (1996) Agenda setting power, power indices, and decision making in the european union. Int Rev Law Econ 16(3):345–361
Vale PM (2016) The changing climate of climate change economics. Ecol Econ 121(January):12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.018
van Vuuren DP, Kok M, Lucas PL, Prins AG, Alkemade R, van den Berg M, Bouwman L et al (2015) Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 98(September):303–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.005
Wen J, Hao Yu, Feng G-F, Chang C-P (2016) Does government ideology influence environmental performance? Evidence based on a new dataset. Openness Institutions Long-Run Socio-Economic Dev 40(2):232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.04.001
Yang Z, Mock P, German J, Bandivadekar A, Lah O (2017) On a pathway to de-carbonization–a comparison of new passenger car CO2 emission standards and taxation measures in the G20 countries. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ (Special Issue Climate Change and Transport)
Zhang W, Pan X (2016) Study on the demand of climate finance for developing countries based on submitted INDC. Adv Clim Change Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2016.05.002
Acknowledgements
Research that led to the publication of this paper has been supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Grant Agreement No. 723970 (FUTURE RADAR).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lah, O., Lah, B. (2019). Pathways Towards Decarbonising the Transportation Sector. In: Müller, B., Meyer, G. (eds) Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99756-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99756-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99755-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99756-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)