Climatic Change

, Volume 131, Issue 3, pp 451–464 | Cite as

Technology priorities for transport in Asia: assessment of economy-wide CO2 emissions reduction for Lebanon

Article

Abstract

This paper analyses the technology choices of countries that prioritized transport as a sector in Asia under the Technology Needs Assessment project. The countries used a wide variety of criteria to prioritize technologies which were related to the benefits technologies would provide, costs of technologies and availability of technology charactersitics. Non-motorized transport, mass transit and technologies that improve vehicle energy efficiency emerged as the three most preferred technology choices for the countries. These technology choices can be appropriate candidates for nationally appropriate mitigations actions (NAMA) given their strong contribution for developmentand therefore a methodology based on input-output decomposition analysis isproposed for analysing economy wide CO2 emissions reductions. The methodologyhas been applied for the transport sector of Lebanon where alternative fuels,improvement to cars (private and taxis) and buses for public transport were prioritized by stakeholders. The economy-wide CO2 emission reduce by 2,269 thousand tons by 2020 if the prioritized technologies are implemented in Lebanon. Fuel mix effect and structural effect would reduce CO2 emission by 2,611 thousand tons, while the final demand effect would increase the CO2 emission by 342 thousand tons.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1309_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (588 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 587 kb)

References

  1. Bhattacharyya SC, Timilsina GR (2010) A review of energy system models. Int Jo Energy Sect Manag 4(4):494–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bin S, Dowlatabadi H (2005) Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 33:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caloghirou YD, Mourelatos AG, Roboli A (1996) Macroeconomic impacts of natural gas introduction in Greece. Energy 12(10):899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creutzig F, He D (2009) Climate change mitigation and co-benefits of feasible transport demand policies in Beijing. Transp Res D Transp Environ 14:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DCLG (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. Department for communities and local government, UK GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietzenbacher E, Los B (1998) Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Econ Syst Res 10:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis J, Winkler H, Corfee-Morlot J, Gagnon-Lebrun FDR (2007) CDM: taking stock and looking forward. Energy Policy 35:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FIA/IEA/ITF/UNEP/ICCT (2011) Global fuel economy initiative - plan of action 2012–2015. in. International energy agency, Available at <http://www.iea.org/media/files/GlobalFuelEconomyInitiativePlanofAction20122015.pdf>
  9. Gay PW, Proops JL (1993) Carbon-dioxide production by the UK economy: an input–output analysis. Appl Energy 44:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guttikunda SK, Mohan D (2014) Re-fueling road transport for better air quality in India. Energy Policy 68:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haghshenas H, Vaziri M (2012) Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global comparison. Ecol Indic 15:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoekstra R, van der Bergh JCJM (2002) Structural decomposition analysis of physical flows in the economy. Environ Res Econ 23:357–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IEA (2013) World energy outlook 2013. OECD/IEA, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IMF (2013) World economic outlook: April 2013. In. International monetary fund available at <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf>
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lesser JA (1994) Estimating the economic impacts of geothermal resource development. Geotherm 23(1):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Litman T (2007) Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transp Res Rec: 10–15Google Scholar
  18. Lutken SE, Dransfeld B and Wehner S (2013) Guidance for NAMA design: building on country experiences. UNFCCC, UNEP & URC,Google Scholar
  19. Mayer H, Flachmann C (2014) Environmental-economic accounting- direct and indirect CO2 emissions in Germany, 2000–2010. Statistisches Bundesamt, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  20. Metz B, Davidson OR, Martens JW, van Rooijen SN, van Wie McGrory L (eds) (2000) Methodological and technological issues in technology transfer: a special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge Universities Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. MoE/URC/GEF, (2012) Lebanon: technology needs assessment report for climate change. Ministry of Environment (MoE), BeirutGoogle Scholar
  22. Murty NS, Panda M, Parikh J (1997) Economic development poverty reduction and carbon emissions in India. Energy Econ 19:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman P and Kenworthy J (2011) Evaluating the transport sector’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. In Salter R, Dhar S and Newman P (eds). Technologies for climate change mitigation: transport sector, UNEP Risoe CentreGoogle Scholar
  24. Oikonomou V, Flamos A, Grafakos S (2010) Is blending of energy and climate policy instruments always desirable? Energy Policy 38(8):4186–4195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olsen KH, Fenhann J (2008) Sustainable development benefits of clean development mechanism projects: a new methodology for sustainability assessment based on text analysis of the project design documents submitted for validation. Energy Policy 36:2819–2830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Presidency of the Council of Ministers (PCM) (2006) Economic accounts of Lebanon, 2003Google Scholar
  27. Proops JLR, Gay PW, Speek S, Schroder T (1996) The life time pollution implications of various types of electricity generation: an input–output analysis. Energy Policy 24:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwanen T, Banister D, Anable J (2011) Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: a critical review. Transp Res A Policy Pract 45:993–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shukla PR, Dhar S, Mahapatra D (2008) Low carbon society scenarios for India. Clim Pol 8:S156–S176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sims R, Schaeffer R, Creutzig F, Nunez XC, D’Agosto M, Dimitriu D, Meza MJF, Fulton L, Kobayashi S, Lah O, McKinnon A, Newman P, Ouyang M, Schauer JJ, Sperling D, Tiwari G (2014) Chapter 8: transport. In: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanguay GA, Rajaonson J, J-Fo L, Lanoie P (2010) Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol Indic 10:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP (2011) A practical framework for planning pro-development climate policy. United Nations Environment Programme <http://www.unep.org/pdf/Planning_Pro-Dev.pdf> Accessed on 12 Nov 2013
  33. West JJ, Smith SJ, Silva RA, Naik V, Zhang Y, Adelman Z, Fry MM, Anenberg S, Horowitz LW, Lamarque J-F (2013) Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat Clim Chang 3:885–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhu Q, Peng X, Wu K (2012) Calculation and decomposition of indirect carbon emissions from residential consumption in China based on the input–output model. Energy Policy 48:618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNEP DTU Partnership, DTU Management Engineering DTUCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Universitas Kristen IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations