Long-term transport energy demand and climate policy: Alternative visions on transport decarbonization in energy-economy models

Pietzcker, Robert; Longden, Thomas; Chen, Wenying; Sha, Fu; Kriegler, Elmar; Kyle, Page; Luderer, Gunnar

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.08.059

Cited by 165 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The transport sector represents a quarter of global CO 2 emissions and is recognized to be one of the main causes of global warming [6][7][8][9]. The reduction of global transport-related CO 2 emissions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term climate change will be challenging, because the continuing growth in passenger and freight activity will outweigh all mitigation measures unless transport emissions can be strongly decoupled from gross domestic product (GDP) growth [10][11][12][13][14]. To reduce emissions from the transport sector, policy makers are primarily pushing for more efficient vehicles, alternative sources of energy such as electricity and biofuel, electric vehicles, speed regulation, reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT), traffic signal coordination, public transit system improvement, and other traffic management measures [15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of transport policies to the mitigation potential and cost of 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals

Zhang

Fujimori

Hanaoka

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transport sector contributes around a quarter of global CO 2 emissions; thus, low-carbon transport policies are required to achieve the 2 • C and 1.5 • C targets. In this paper, representative transport policy scenarios are structured with the aim of achieving a better understanding of the interaction between the transport sector and the macroeconomy. To accomplish this, the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Transport (AIM/Transport) model, coupled with a computable general equilibrium model (AIM/CGE), is used to simulate the potential for different transport policy interventions to reduce emissions and cost over the period 2005-2100. The results show that deep decarbonization in the transport sector can be achieved by implementing transport policies such as energy efficiency improvements, vehicle technology innovations particularly the deployment of electric vehicles, public transport developments, and increasing the car occupancy rate. Technological transformations such as vehicle technological innovations and energy efficiency improvements provide the most significant reduction potential. The key finding is that low-carbon transport policies can reduce the carbon price, gross domestic product loss rate, and welfare loss rate generated by climate mitigation policies to limit global warming to 2 • C and 1.5 • C. Interestingly, the contribution of transport policies is more effective for stringent climate change targets in the 1.5 • C scenario, which implies that the stronger the mitigation intensity, the more transport specific policy is required. The transport sector requires attention to achieve the goal of stringent climate change mitigation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of transport policies to the mitigation potential and cost of 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals

Zhang

Fujimori

Hanaoka

2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the reviewed transport models, this is the only study that includes transport infrastructure endogenously as a determinant of travel demand. Pietzcker et al (2014) compares transport decarbonisation from five energyeconomic models, and finds that for the linear optimisation models based on TIMES have less flexibility than other models for mitigation, because mode choice is not endogenous. One model from the study (GCAM) includes the value of time in determining travel patterns.…”

Section: Transport Modeling and Energy Systems Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing Energy and Climate Policies Using Energy Systems Models

Giannakidis¹,

Labriet²,

Gallachóir³

et al. 2015

Lecture Notes in Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

study of energy: from science and engineering to the analysis of energy policy. The series' scope includes but is not limited to, renewable and green energy, nuclear, fossil fuels and carbon capture, energy systems, energy storage and harvesting, batteries and fuel cells, power systems, energy efficiency, energy in buildings, energy policy, as well as energy-related topics in economics, management and transportation. Books published in LNE are original and timely and bridge between advanced textbooks and the forefront of research. Readers of LNE include postgraduate students and non-specialist researchers wishing to gain an accessible introduction to a field of research as well as professionals and researchers with a need for an up-to-date reference book on a well-defined topic. The series publishes single and multi-authored volumes as well as advanced textbooks.More information about this series at

show abstract

“…7). The considered policies target developments that have been identified as robust features of transformation pathways in previous studies [24][25][26] , such as a shift towards low-carbon energy supply, a phase-out of carbon-intensive fossil technologies, in particular coal, and an electrification of end-use. To evaluate how well the policy packages prepare the energy system for the longterm requirements of climate stabilization, we then assess the costs and challenges of achieving the 2 • C target with first-best policies from 2035 onwards.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic theory suggests that comprehensive carbon pricing is most e cient to reach ambitious climate targets 1 , and previous studies indicated that the carbon price required for limiting global mean warming to 2 • C is between US$16 and US$73 per tonne of CO 2 in 2015 (ref. 2). Yet, a global implementation of such high carbon prices is unlikely to be politically feasible in the short term. Instead, most climate policies enacted so far are technology policies or fragmented and moderate carbon pricing schemes. This paper shows that ambitious climate targets can be kept within reach until 2030 despite a sub-optimal policy mix. With a state-of-the-art energy-economy model we quantify the interactions and unique e ects of three major policy components: (1) a carbon price starting at US$7 per tonne of CO 2 in 2015 to incentivize economy-wide mitigation, flanked by (2) support for low-carbon energy technologies to pave the way for future decarbonization, and (3) a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants to limit stranded assets. We find that such a mix limits the e ciency losses compared with the optimal policy, and at the same time lowers distributional impacts. Therefore, we argue that this instrument mix might be a politically more feasible alternative to the optimal policy based on a comprehensive carbon price alone.To limit the mitigation costs and risks of achieving the 2 • C target, it is essential to start comprehensive climate policy as early as possible 3-7 . Recent studies have shown that pledged reductions are not consistent with cost-efficient emissions pathways reaching the 2 • C target 8,9 . Furthermore, a continuation of climate policy at the current ambition level will not lead to a stabilization of climate change 3,6,10,11 , and the delay of more stringent mitigation actions will significantly exacerbate the challenge of reaching longterm climate policy objectives 3-6 . Current policies fail to induce the transformation of the energy system to the extent required by long-term climate targets and lead to further lock-in into carbon-intensive infrastructure. Not only do too much emissions occur in the near term, but also mitigation later on is rendered more difficult 12,13 . It is an important question whether technology policies can reduce such lock-in and mitigate the impacts of delay. Although a few studies based on global energy-economy models have considered single packages of technology policies in their analysis of twenty-first-century mitigation pathways 3,11,14 , none of them explored this question.The environmental economics literature has also not focused on the scope of technology policies for overcoming deficiencies in carbon pricing. In this strand of scholarly work, technology policies have mainly been analysed as means to cure market failures 70 65 60 55 74% 50 45 0 10 Sub-optimal carbon pricing Optimal carbon pricing 20 Carbon tax: additional policies lower emissions Technology policies: no Tech Combined C&L Emissions gap Carbon tax Cap-and-trade Carbon pricing: Coal moratorium Low-c...

show abstract

Long-term transport energy demand and climate policy: Alternative visions on transport decarbonization in energy-economy models

Cited by 165 publications

References 48 publications

The contribution of transport policies to the mitigation potential and cost of 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals

The contribution of transport policies to the mitigation potential and cost of 2 °C and 1.5 °C goals

Informing Energy and Climate Policies Using Energy Systems Models

Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About