(Source: AFP via Yahoo & Science Daily)

Image Courtesy: IOP - Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT (The vehicle operation components are shown with gray patterns. Other vehicle components are shown in shades of blue. Infrastructure components are shown in shades of red and orange. The fuel production component is shown in green. All components appear in the order they are shown in the legend.)

Do you worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint? Are you the one who frets about  tailpipe emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change?

If yes,  you must be the one who prefers to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study published in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain’s Institute of Physics.  Often unknown to the public, there are an array of hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple “tailpipe” tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip. Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at theUniversity of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.  By comparison, San Francisco‘s local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston’s. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the “tailpipe” quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure — railways, airport terminals, roads and so on — nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

The researchers also touch on the effect of low passenger occupancy and show that we are naïve to automatically assume one form of transport is more environmentally friendly than another. They conclude from their calculations that a half-full Boston light railway is only as environmentally friendly, per kilometre traveled, as a midsize aircraft at 38 per cent occupancy.  From cataloguing the varied environmental costs the researchers come to some surprising conclusions. A comparison between light railways in both Boston and San Franciso show that despite Boston boasting a light railway with low operational energy use, their LRT is a far larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter because 82 per cent of the energy generated in Boston is fossil-fuel based, compared to only 49 per cent in San Francisco.

Total life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions contribute an additional 155 per cent for rail, 63 per cent for cars and buses, and 32 per cent for air systems over vehicle exhaust pipe operation.

Journal reference:

• Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 2009; 4 (024008) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008

(Source: Business Standard & Green Car Congress)

Image: REUTERS/Zainal Abd Halim via Boston Globe

The international airline industry is committed to achieving carbon-neutral growth by 2020, said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO in his State of the Industry address at the 65th IATA Annual General Meeting and World Air Transport Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Two years ago we set a vision to achieve carbon-neutral growth on the way to a carbon-free future. Today we have taken a major step forward by committing to a global cap on our emissions in 2020. After this date, aviation’s emissions will not grow even as demand increases. Airlines are the first global industry to make such a bold commitment.

—Giovanni Bisignani

The commitment to carbon-neutral growth completes a set of three sequential goals for air transport: (1) a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency from 2009 to 2020; (2) carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

To achieve these goals, the air transport industry is focusing on a cross-industry four-pillar strategy on climate change consisting of improved technology; effective operations; efficient infrastructure; and positive economic measures.

In 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport is expected to shrink by 7%. Of this, 5% is due to the recession and 2% is directly related to efficiency gains.

Bisignani said a cross industry four-pillar strategy on climate change focused on improved technology, effective operations, efficient infrastructure and positive economic measures was delivering results noting that in 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport was expected to shrink by 7 per cent.

Bisignani attributed 5 per cent to the recession and 2 per cent to efficiency gains from IATA’s four-pillar strategy.

“No other industry is as united and no other industry can point to such good results and progress,” Bisignani claimed.  He noted that the airlines’ commitment needed to be matched by governments. “We are ambitious, but our success will be contingent on governments acting effectively.”

“International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) must set binding carbon emissions standards on manufacturers for new aircraft. A legal and fiscal framework to support the availability of sustainable biofuels must be established.

“Governments must work with air navigation service providers to push forward major infrastructure projects such as a Single European Sky, NextGen in the US or fixing the Pearl River Delta in China,” Bisignani added.

(Source: The Brookings Institution)

The Obama administration’s move to increase vehicle fuel economy standards and reduce greenhouse gas emissions addresses the source of one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions—transportation. In this report, the authors analyze the current state of carbon emissions by metropolitan area, listing the places that emit the least per capita and proposing policy avenues to move the entire nation toward reduced climate impact.   

America’s Challenge

The nation’s carbon footprint has a distinct geography not well understood or often discussed. This report quantifies transportation and residential carbon emissions for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, finding that metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American, although metro footprints vary widely. Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather. 

Limitations of Existing Federal Policy
Numerous market and policy distortions inhibit metropolitan actors from more aggressively addressing the nation’s climate challenge. Economy-wide problems include underpriced energy, underfunded energy research, missing federal standards, distorted utility regulations, and inadequate information. Policy impediments include a bias against public transit, inadequate federal leadership on freight and land-use planning, failure to encourage energy- and location-efficient housing decisions, and the fragmentation of federal transportation, housing, energy, and environmental policies. 

A New Federal Approach
Federal policy could play a powerful role in helping metropolitan areas—and so the nation—shrink their carbon footprint further. In addition to economy-wide policies to motivate action, five targeted policies are particularly important within metro areas and for the nation as a whole:

• Promote more transportation choices to expand transit and compact development options
• Introduce more energy-efficient freight operations with regional freight planning
• Require home energy cost disclosure when selling and “on-bill” financing to stimulate and scale up energy-efficient retrofitting of residential housing
• Use federal housing policy to create incentives for energy- and location-efficient decisions
• Issue a metropolitan challenge to develop innovative solutions that integrate multiple policy areas

Click here to Read/Download Full Report

(Source: National Transportation Operations Coalition)

A coalition of transportation and technology leaders – including state and local officials, industry and academic leaders and prominent stakeholder organizations – is calling on Congress to focus federal funding in the surface transportation authorization bill on the deployment of smart technologies and innovative solutions in order to create a performance-driven, intermodal transportation system that is safer, cleaner, more efficient and more financially sustainable for communities, businesses and the traveling public.

America’s transportation system is facing significant challenges that must be addressed in the next surface transportation authorization bill, from financing our transportation system and reducing traffic fatalities to combating congestion and CO2 emissions. Solving these challenges will require transportation agencies and private sector partners to use all of the tools at their disposal, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS), related technologies, and multimodal operational strategies that can help prevent accidents before they happen, reduce traffic congestion and freight bottlenecks, provide more effective incident and emergency response, reduce energy use and emissions, and enable innovative 21st century financing options.

“As a result of successful research initiatives and private sector innovation, technologies are here today which can help increase safety, reduce congestion and emissions, boost competitiveness, improve system performance, and create more livable and sustainable communities,” the coalition wrote today to House transportation leaders. “While a continued and strengthened research role is still needed, it is critical that state and local agencies and private sector partners make better use of technology to modernize today’s infrastructure and optimize existing capacity, while building smart and efficient roads, bridges, transit systems, and multimodal transportation options for tomorrow’s transportation users.” 

(Source: Green Inc, NY Times)

Raising crops to produce electricity, which will in turn power cars, is more efficient, a new study says, than raising crops to create ethanol to use as fuel in cars.

According to a study by three California researchers, an acre planted with corn for ethanol will provide far fewer miles of transportation fuel as the same acre growing trees or switchgrass, which are then burned in power plants that provide the power to charge the batteries of electric cars.

In fact, even ethanol made from cellulose, a technology that does not now exist in commercial form, is not as efficient a use of biomass as burning it in a power plant would be, the researchers found.

In a paper published in the current issue of Science magazine, Chris Field, a professor of biology at Stanford and director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution, Elliott Campbell of the University of California, Merced, and David Lobell of Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, write that the size of the advantage would depend on many factors.

These include the number of miles per gallon any particular vehicle will go on ethanol, and what a battery weighs per kilowatt-hour of energy stored. As batteries get lighter, for example, it takes less energy to move them.

But the researchers estimated that a small battery-powered S.U.V. would go nearly 14,000 miles on the highway on the energy from an acre of switchgrass burned to make electricity, compared to about 9,000 miles on ethanol.

If one grows a tree or annual crop, for example, which pulls carbon dioxide out of the air, burns it in a power plant that captures and stores escaping CO₂, and then replaces it with another crop, which pulls yet more carbon dioxide out of the air, the process becomes carbon negative.

The “miles per acre” question, and the amount of farmland diverted for use in producing transportation fuel is a sensitive political question, with American use of corn for ethanol blamed in part for last year’s run-up in global grain prices.

 (Source: Autobloggreen & Reuters)

We first heard about a proposal to ban cars powered solely by fossil fuels way back in 2007. According to Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen, the plan “is much more realistic than people think when they first hear about” it and is still very much in the works. Still, it’s highly unlikely that the proposal would come to fruition due to opposition from current Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

“The financial crisis also means that a lot of those car producers that now have big problems … know that they have to develop their technology because we also have to solve the climate crisis when this financial crisis is over,” she said.

“That is why we would like a ban from 2015,” she said, during an exhibition in Oslo of electric and biofuel-powered cars during which she raced a red and white Mitsubishi electric car around a course against several other politicians.

 (Source: Virgin America & Tree Hugger)

(Source: Wired; Photo: Associated Press)

(Source:  Autobloggreen)

This week, Congress and President Obama have approved a bill that includes a June 30th deadline for the EPA to decide whether or not to allow California the right to enact its own greenhouse gas rules. Earlier this year, President Obama directed the EPA to reconsider California’s request for a waiver that would allow it to regulate gases like carbon dioxide, which is widely seen as a way for the state to set its own fuel efficiency requirements

Click here to read the entire article.