 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
January 07, 2007
Meantime, Back in the News Section
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Energy Policy
The NYT's Elisabeth Rosenthal has a very interesting article today on Europe's "car boom." She writes:
Since 1990, emissions from transportation in Ireland have risen about 140 percent, the most in Europe. But Ireland is not alone.Vehicular emissions are rising in nearly every European country, and across the globe. Because of increasing car and truck use, greenhouse-gas emissions are increasing even where pollution from industry is waning.
The 23 percent growth in vehicular emissions in Europe since 1990 has “offset” the effect of cleaner factories, according to a recent report by the European Environment Agency. The growth has occurred despite the invention of far more environmentally friendly fuels and cars.
“What we gain by hybrid cars and ethanol buses, we more than lose because of sheer numbers of vehicles,” said Ronan Uhel, a senior scientist with the European Environment Agency, which is based in Copenhagen. Vehicles, mostly cars, create more than one-fifth of the greenhouse-gas emissions in Europe, where the problem has been extensively studied.
The few places that have aggressively sought to fight the trend have taken sometimes draconian measures. Denmark, for example, treats cars the way it treats yachts — as luxury items — imposing purchase taxes that are sometimes 200 percent of the cost of the vehicle. A simple Czech-made Skoda car that costs $18,400 in Italy or Sweden costs more than $34,000 in Denmark. . .
High taxes on cars or gasoline of the type levied in Copenhagen are effective in curbing traffic, experts say, but they scare voters, making even environmentalist politicians unlikely to propose them. When Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, revealed his “green” budget proposal, it included an increase in gas taxes of less than two and a half cents per quart.
Other cities have tried variations that require fewer absolute sacrifices from motorists. Rome allows only cars with low emissions ratings into its historic center. In London and Stockholm, drivers must pay a congestion charge to enter the city center. Such programs do reduce traffic and pollution at a city’s core, but evidence suggests that car use simply moves to the suburbs.
But Dublin is more typical of cities around the world, from Asia to Latin America, where road transport volumes are increasing in tandem with economic growth. Since 1997, Beijing has built a new ring road every two years, each new concentric superhighway giving rise to a host of malls and housing compounds.
In Ireland, car ownership has more than doubled since 1990 and car engines have grown steadily larger. Meanwhile, new environmental laws have meant that emissions from electrical plants, a major polluter, have been decreasing since 2001.
Urban sprawl and cars are the chicken and egg of the environmental debate. Cars make it easier for people to live and shop outside the center city. As traffic increases, governments build more roads, encouraging people to buy more cars and move yet farther away. In Europe alone, 6,200 miles of motorways were built from 1990 to 2003 and, with the European Union’s enlargement, 7,500 more are planned. Government enthusiasm for spending on public transportation, which is costly and takes years to build, generally lags far behind.
On energy at least, European and Americans (and Chinese and Indians) seem to share more in common than is commonly assumed in the debate over climate and energy.
Posted on January 7, 2007 08:26 AMComments
I find this article very interesting.
On AGW, I'm a Skeptic (I believe that human have an impact on climate, I also believe that their is a natural variability to climate). On Catastrophic AGW I'm a denier.
Although I'm not a believer of drastic actions I do believe in some action. For example I'm against any action that would prohibits common people the rights to own a car. But I would have no problem to action that would restrict access car that aren't sufficiently fuel efficient. I would have no problem to limit access to cities downtown area to taxi, bus, emergency vehicle and delivery truck and cars with reserved parking. There should be no parking allowed along the street to the exception of vehicle mentioned above. Strangely enough I believe that such action can be good for the economy. Many cities economy are slowed down by traffic jam less traffic would reduce cost transportation and gas consumption which in return would reduce the price at the pump.
I hate when people like Al Gore tell me that I should feel guilty for owning a Honda Civic which as a fuel efficiency of about 45mpg and which I drive for less than 20000km/year, while these heroes of the environmental cause justify being among the worst polluter as individuals. If they believe so much in their preaching they should be example to follow not the demonstration of what not to do.
For example, when Al Gore promoted his movie AIT, he could have used technologies that exist and reduce his carbon footprint. Instead of flying to Europe for a 15 min interview he could have set video conference interviews. If AGW is a moral issue, shouldn't he had made sure that his movie was to be seen by the most people, I could have easily been accessible from the Internet just as he could have ask for donation or a small amount for the viewing. He would have made less money but at least he would now have some credibility.
Posted by: Sylvain at January 7, 2007 11:33 AM
"I hate when people like Al Gore tell me that I should feel guilty for owning a Honda Civic which as a fuel efficiency of about 45mpg and which I drive for less than 20000km/year..."
Sylvain, when did Al Gore tell you that?
Posted by: David Roberts at January 7, 2007 01:02 PM
David-
Every time He says that GW is moral question and that we have to change the way we live our life, he is telling me that I should feel guilty.
I translate this into people shouldn't drive and they should take the bus (To the exeption to the vip who don't have to lower themselves to the way of life of the commons).
Posted by: Sylvain at January 7, 2007 03:02 PM
Governments build roads simply to profit the real estate developers. If they got out of the road-building business, the subsidies to sprawling development that leads to traffic jams would end. New roads can be built privately on a toll basis, or paid for by developers. The tax and spend machine is simply a recipe for more taxing and spending - we should get off that treadmill.
I don't see a need for draconian rules, but congestion charges make perfect sense.
Posted by: TokyoTom at January 9, 2007 12:36 AM
I'd take a guess that the increase in car sales is due to more women driving and ever easier financing. I have noticed that people are buying bigger engines but there are still a lot of people who choose diesels and turbodiesels in Europe (roughly 60% of sales) to offset that. Regardless of your position though on AGW, traffic pollution has become pretty horrible in most cities. To reduce car use we probably have to make city public transport easy and cheap while continuing to limit cars in city centres. I've noticed that London has become a nicer place to be due to the traffic ban but it is really expensive to get a taxi everywhere and the underground can't cope. Sylvains point about video-conferencing instead of face-to-face meetings is a very good one. The climate change community should really be leading the way on this.
Posted by: JamesG at January 9, 2007 02:32 AM