Report finds road transportation sector in Canada likely to fall far short of 2050 GHG emissions reduction target

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCC:
Report finds road transportation sector in Canada likely to fall far short of 2050 GHG emissions reduction target
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151112-cboc.html

I've occasionally been taken to task for my position that EVs alone aren't going to get us where we need to be by 2050, and that we also need to reduce the amount of VMT by redesigning our cities to reduce distances and emphasize alternative means of transportation (walking/biking/transit) to cars. From the article:

. . . Canada is making progress reducing its GHG emissions and will continue to do so for the next decade. The challenge is that we are not moving fast enough. Relying on technological solutions alone will not be enough for Canada to meet the 80-by-50 goal. Canada needs a coordinated approach that supplements our focus on technological improvements with efforts that change the way we use transportation and that reduce demand for road transportation. The challenge is significant for Canadians who will need to dramatically rethink their travel habits to achieve even a 50 percent reduction target in road transport emissions. . . .

The report makes a number of recommendations to help bring Canada closer to an 80% reduction in GHG emissions from road transport, including:

  • Continued improvement in vehicle performance and efficiency. <snip>
  • Further adoption of alternative vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, plug-in electric, natural gas and biofuels.
  • <snip>
  • Getting people out of cars and onto other modes of transport. For the past 20 years, consumers have shifted their purchasing decisions away from passenger cars toward passenger trucks (including minivans, crossovers, and sport utility vehicles). This trend has partially offset the benefits of fuel efficiency improvements in both categories. Further, the average distance travelled per vehicle is declining slowly and the average occupancy per VKT remains stubbornly below two.

    Canada’s cities are spending on urban transit systems, but their spending is limited by available tax revenues, making it a challenge to grow transit services faster than population grows. Cities are also spending on alternative transit modes (walking and cycling) and on encouraging their use. Some cities are considering addressing congestion through fees, parking costs, and other measures.

    As Canada moves toward 2050, the challenge of getting people out of their cars and onto other modes of transportation will remain one of the largest we face. This will require governments, cities, businesses, and people to change the way they think about getting where they need to go.

    Considering lower carbon freight options such as rail and marine transport. <snip>

    Reducing demand for transportation. The challenge is that reducing demand requires behavioural change, and that is not easy to accomplish. Individuals choose to act to reduce emissions knowing that their actions will benefit society, but may not bring sufficient personal benefit to justify the change based on self-interest alone. Governments can provide incentives, but individuals must make the choices.
Unfortunately, the report itself is behind a paywall, but I expect the excerpts give an adequate idea of its main points. Those interested in the subject may find this book, "Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence" (1999; it was preceded by "Cities and Automobile Dependence" in 1989) a good starting point: http://islandpress.org/book/sustainability-and-cities

They've just published what is in effect the 3rd edition with more recent data , but I haven't gotten my hands on a copy yet:
The End of Automobile Dependence:
HOW CITIES ARE MOVING BEYOND CAR-BASED PLANNING

https://www.islandpress.org/book/the-end-of-automobile-dependence#sthash.lNnbQ4cb.dpuf https://www.islandpress.org/book/the-end-of-automobile-dependence
 
I just read the article, though not the source report. It seems to me that the anticipated GHG emission reductions are pretty modest, implying continued use of many ICE vehicles in 2050 as well as substantial fossil fuels for electricity production. This isn't entirely surprising, given that the report was funded by the Canadian Fuels Association, which represents the industry that supplies 95 percent of Canada’s transportation fuels. I'm reminded of an Exxon report a few years ago that suggested something similar, i.e., a relatively tepid shift away from ICEs.

While I'm for walking, biking, and smarter land use, I feel that shouldn't be a requirement to meet sustainability goals in North America. By 2050, the goal should be for ICEs to be extremely rare and for the great majority of power to be generated by renewables, hydroelectric, and possibly safer, next-generation nuclear if it ends up being cost-effective. Unless we can get nuclear going again, we will need a huge amount of energy storage, so in addition to batteries, hydrogen may well have a significant role here.
 
abasile said:
I just read the article, though not the source report. It seems to me that the anticipated GHG emission reductions are pretty modest, implying continued use of many ICE vehicles in 2050 as well as substantial fossil fuels for electricity production. This isn't entirely surprising, given that the report was funded by the Canadian Fuels Association, which represents the industry that supplies 95 percent of Canada’s transportation fuels. I'm reminded of an Exxon report a few years ago that suggested something similar, i.e., a relatively tepid shift away from ICEs.

While I'm for walking, biking, and smarter land use, I feel that shouldn't be a requirement to meet sustainability goals in North America. By 2050, the goal should be for ICEs to be extremely rare and for the great majority of power to be generated by renewables, hydroelectric, and possibly safer, next-generation nuclear if it ends up being cost-effective. Unless we can get nuclear going again, we will need a huge amount of energy storage, so in addition to batteries, hydrogen may well have a significant role here.
Unfortunately, even if we completely shifted to renewables for transport, we wouldn't meet the GHG reduction goals for 2050, and cities would still be unsustainable for water, sewage, and other infrastructure costs. Sprawl is inefficient in numerous areas, not just energy, and that's one of the points behind the report's conclusions. We need reductions in motorized transport energy use and different energy sources, yes, but we need a whole lot more besides, at a cost we can afford.
 
GRA said:
Unfortunately, even if we completely shifted to renewables for transport, we wouldn't meet the GHG reduction goals for 2050, and cities would still be unsustainable for water, sewage, and other infrastructure costs. Sprawl is inefficient in numerous areas, not just energy, and that's one of the points behind the report's conclusions. We need reductions in motorized transport energy use and different energy sources, yes, but we need a whole lot more besides, at a cost we can afford.
First, I share with you a disdain for sprawl, as it is generally ugly and wasteful. There is nothing worse than looking up at a hillside and seeing rows of cookie-cutter homes constructed with no regard for their natural surroundings. Cut and fill, cut and fill. Yuck. On the other hand, some of us really value residing close to nature and trails and maintaining a day-to-day outdoor lifestyle. (I just came back from mountain biking with part of my family in the national forest right next to our dense, little, 90-year-old mountain community.) Living here would be challenging without a car, and communities like mine seem likely to grow more attractive as self-driving cars come of age, so I am particularly interested in the cause of sustainable transportation.

The emphasis of the subject report, at least as quoted by Green Car Congress, seemed to be on transportation, so I will admit that my response focused on transportation and not the bigger picture.

However, given the existence of plentiful, near-zero carbon energy that can be deployed wherever and whenever needed, which presupposes that we have the energy storage problem worked out, we should be able to get close enough to achieving sustainability with respect to energy use and production across all sectors of the economy.

If one can accept desalination as sustainable, provided the energy it requires is cheap enough and is obtained sustainably, then we should ultimately be able to take care of our water needs as well. Of course, desalination is not the first choice, but it could help us to address worst-case scenarios in terms of future droughts. (That's not a near-term concern in my community as our local water supply continues to be in good shape, but it's obviously a huge issue in general.)

Still, even with our energy and water needs fully met, I agree that there will remain sustainability concerns in the areas of land use, raw materials, biodiversity, and others. Each generation will need to be more inventive and creative than the last at devising ways of dealing with these challenges and others.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
Unfortunately, even if we completely shifted to renewables for transport, we wouldn't meet the GHG reduction goals for 2050, and cities would still be unsustainable for water, sewage, and other infrastructure costs. Sprawl is inefficient in numerous areas, not just energy, and that's one of the points behind the report's conclusions. We need reductions in motorized transport energy use and different energy sources, yes, but we need a whole lot more besides, at a cost we can afford.
First, I share with you a disdain for sprawl, as it is generally ugly and wasteful. There is nothing worse than looking up at a hillside and seeing rows of cookie-cutter homes constructed with no regard for their natural surroundings. Cut and fill, cut and fill. Yuck. On the other hand, some of us really value residing close to nature and trails and maintaining a day-to-day outdoor lifestyle. (I just came back from mountain biking with part of my family in the national forest right next to our dense, little, 90-year-old mountain community.) Living here would be challenging without a car, and communities like mine seem likely to grow more attractive as self-driving cars come of age, so I am particularly interested in the cause of sustainable transportation.
I completely understand your reasons for living where you do, and I share them. The problem is that people who choose to live at the urban/wilderness boundary (including many of my environmentalist friends) are part of the very process they wish to avoid - what many people really mean by 'sprawl' is that they wish to prevent anyone after them from choosing to live in the same location they do, i.e. 'my house isn't the problem, it's the house being built next door, after I got here.' It's a case of killing what you love. That living in such a location is also extremely energy inefficient is just one issue. In the past, I've been a contributor to the problem, as those are exactly the sorts of places that people who want to live off-grid choose to live, and by selling them the equipment and/or designing their RE systems I was an enabler of that.

abasile said:
The emphasis of the subject report, at least as quoted by Green Car Congress, seemed to be on transportation, so I will admit that my response focused on transportation and not the bigger picture.

However, given the existence of plentiful, near-zero carbon energy that can be deployed wherever and whenever needed, which presupposes that we have the energy storage problem worked out, we should be able to get close enough to achieving sustainability with respect to energy use and production across all sectors of the economy.
I agree that energy is now less likely to be the ultimate constraining factor for sustainability, given recent drops in renewable prices; I believe cost and other resource/infrastructure issues will be primary.

abasile said:
If one can accept desalination as sustainable, provided the energy it requires is cheap enough and is obtained sustainably, then we should ultimately be able to take care of our water needs as well. Of course, desalination is not the first choice, but it could help us to address worst-case scenarios in terms of future droughts. (That's not a near-term concern in my community as our local water supply continues to be in good shape, but it's obviously a huge issue in general.)

Still, even with our energy and water needs fully met, I agree that there will remain sustainability concerns in the areas of land use, raw materials, biodiversity, and others. Each generation will need to be more inventive and creative than the last at devising ways of dealing with these challenges and others.
I think desalination is going to be limited by cost factors barring cheap nukes, and it's not going to help inland sprawl megalopolises like Phoenix except at huge cost, not just to desalinate but to transport the water there. Then there's the possible/likely ecosystem consequences of dumping all that salt back into the ocean in a limited area. San Diego's current project will hopefully give us the kind of data we need to see just how severe those effects are: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near

Anyway, it's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you.
 
GRA said:
I completely understand your reasons for living where you do, and I share them. The problem is that people who choose to live at the urban/wilderness boundary (including many of my environmentalist friends) are part of the very process they wish to avoid - what many people really mean by 'sprawl' is that they wish to prevent anyone after them from choosing to live in the same location they do, i.e. 'my house isn't the problem, it's the house being built next door, after I got here.' It's a case of killing what you love. That living in such a location is also extremely energy inefficient is just one issue. In the past, I've been a contributor to the problem, as those are exactly the sorts of places that people who want to live off-grid choose to live, and by selling them the equipment and/or designing their RE systems I was an enabler of that.
Continual expansion deeper into the wilderness definitely is a problem in many areas. However, at least in California, my perspective is that the existence of a certain number of mountain resort communities is a given, as people from the giant megalopolises below are always going to want to visit the mountains and have amenities available to them. And at least where I live, there's plenty of room for population growth without significantly expanding the boundaries of the communities; being surrounded by national forest helps to enforce that. We have no shortage of neglected, old vacation cabins that can be remodeled or become "tear downs". Our real estate values are relatively low, as most Californians don't seem inclined to regularly deal with snow and cold. Energy use is an issue, but not having a daily commute (or a long one) is a mitigating factor.

GRA said:
I think desalination is going to be limited by cost factors barring cheap nukes, and it's not going to help inland sprawl megalopolises like Phoenix except at huge cost, not just to desalinate but to transport the water there. Then there's the possible/likely ecosystem consequences of dumping all that salt back into to ocean in a limited area. San Diego's current project will hopefully give us the kind of data we need to see just how severe those effects are: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near
Yes, I'm familiar with the Carlsbad facility. I agree that desal isn't likely to be all that cost effective for agriculture, though it may become important for cities. As for dumping the brine back to the ocean, the challenge will probably be to disperse it widely enough to minimize harm. I suppose it depends on the salinity range that most marine life can tolerate.

GRA said:
Anyway, it's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you.
Likewise, thanks for the discussion!
 
abasile said:
Continual expansion deeper into the wilderness definitely is a problem in many areas. However, at least in California, my perspective is that the existence of a certain number of mountain resort communities is a given, as people from the giant megalopolises below are always going to want to visit the mountains and have amenities available to them. And at least where I live, there's plenty of room for population growth without significantly expanding the boundaries of the communities; being surrounded by national forest helps to enforce that. We have no shortage of neglected, old vacation cabins that can be remodeled or become "tear downs". Our real estate values are relatively low, as most Californians don't seem inclined to regularly deal with snow and cold. Energy use is an issue, but not having a daily commute (or a long one) is a mitigating factor.
There will undoubtedly be mountain resort communities here, for the reasons you state. At least in the Bay Area, and several common weekend resort destinations, there are pretty strong greenbelt regs./park boundaries. Although, depending on the effects of AGCC, dealing with cold/snow may be much less common a factor keeping people from living in the mountains in the future than hitherto. If that proves to be the case, Arrowhead-Big Bear may come to resemble SLT, Santa Fe or even Moab; Mammoth is about a third of the size of SLT already, but it's also about 1,600 feet higher, so colder.

Your area is lower than Tahoe and a lot further south, so the past four years may well be the new normal for you. You're also a lot closer to major population centers than Mammoth is (or June Lake, a closer size analog to Arrowbear Lake), so if the flatlands heat up significantly you may be faced with lots of people trying to adapt to warming the same way other species do, by moving north or up. An influx of that size would completely change the nature of your community, which might prompt you to want to move up/north yourself to get back to the density you desire, and so on ad nauseum.

We can hope that telecommuting will eliminate much physical commuting, although that hasn't really proven to be the case in practice. The energy inefficiency of communities such as the above is not just in the individual houses, it's also bringing all the resources/supplies to an area with low population density, limited infrastructure, a short growing season and limited arable land.
 
Telecommuting may grow and help reduce the need for physical commuting, but I'm skeptical that it'll become the norm. Many appreciate the synergy that comes from being co-located. It's tough to replace in-person meetings, bumping into coworkers at the water cooler, hallway gatherings, etc. While I'm thankful to be able to work from home, it's not a panacea.

In the long run, climate change likely will prompt many people to move north and/or up in altitude, though in developed nations where air conditioning is available, that's probably going to be minor compared with the migration away from coastlines that will need to take place as sea level rises.

How our particular housing market will be affected is anyone's guess. We are close to the populated flatlands, but our scenery is much more subdued than Mammoth or Tahoe. If climate change were to cause our area to lose most of its big trees and turn into high desert, we'd be less inclined to want to stay (though we'd prefer to maintain our ties to the community and friends we have here). On the other hand, at our southern latitude, we've been getting more tropical moisture in recent years, which is why the current drought hasn't affected our local water supply too badly. Climate change seems likely to increase this effect.

Overall, I'm not too worried about population growth up here, as long as the national forest boundary doesn't get moved and most development is "infill". Most of us do our major shopping online and "down the hill", which isn't really that far. In my family and many others, we try to group our errands together, as we generally don't want to leave the mountain more than necessary. The bottom line is that we really enjoy our environment, we accept that being here carries a larger energy footprint than being in a walkable city neighborhood, and we try to do what we can to lessen our footprint.
 
abasile said:
Telecommuting may grow and help reduce the need for physical commuting, but I'm skeptical that it'll become the norm. Many appreciate the synergy that comes from being co-located. It's tough to replace in-person meetings, bumping into coworkers at the water cooler, hallway gatherings, etc. While I'm thankful to be able to work from home, it's not a panacea.
Yup.

abasile said:
In the long run, climate change likely will prompt many people to move north and/or up in altitude, though in developed nations where air conditioning is available, that's probably going to be minor compared with the migration away from coastlines that will need to take place as sea level rises.
Not that I'll be around for much of it, but it will be interesting to see what happens to Canada's population over the rest of the century. With forecasts that the Bay Area's climate will resemble San Diego's in a few decades, and a similar knock-on effect as you go northwards, maybe provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba will become major growth areas.

Re air conditioning, in hot climates I've seen cars described primarily as a way to transport air conditioning between buildings.

abasile said:
How our particular housing market will be affected is anyone's guess. We are close to the populated flatlands, but our scenery is much more subdued than Mammoth or Tahoe. If climate change were to cause our area to lose most of its big trees and turn into high desert, we'd be less inclined to want to stay (though we'd prefer to maintain our ties to the community and friends we have here). On the other hand, at our southern latitude, we've been getting more tropical moisture in recent years, which is why the current drought hasn't affected our local water supply too badly. Climate change seems likely to increase this effect.

Overall, I'm not too worried about population growth up here, as long as the national forest boundary doesn't get moved and most development is "infill". Most of us do our major shopping online and "down the hill", which isn't really that far. In my family and many others, we try to group our errands together, as we generally don't want to leave the mountain more than necessary. The bottom line is that we really enjoy our environment, we accept that being here carries a larger energy footprint than being in a walkable city neighborhood, and we try to do what we can to lessen our footprint.
Seems like you've thought through it pretty thoroughly, and I hope you find the situation remains acceptable to you.
 
GRA said:
Not that I'll be around for much of it, but it will be interesting to see what happens to Canada's population over the rest of the century. With forecasts that the Bay Area's climate will resemble San Diego's in a few decades, and a similar knock-on effect as you go northwards, maybe provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba will become major growth areas.
I've been thinking the same thing, that Canada is poised for significant growth, though I suspect that the great majority of North America's growth will continue to occur closer to the coasts (and in Canada the Great Lakes), as the central states and provinces seem to have a harder time attracting new residents. The major exception to this is Texas, and to some degree North Dakota due to the shale boom there.

That said, the growth of the "sunbelt" indicates that a huge fraction of the population, maybe even a majority, finds snow and cold to be so unattractive, in their day to day lives, that they are willing to instead rely on A/C for many months of the year. So, while agriculture will move northward, I don't think people will be quick to abandon southern cities. For instance, while I as an outdoors person would consider Phoenix to be uninhabitable, it continues to grow. Of course, that means more and more people using cars to transport A/C from building to building. I suppose that's far more pleasant than being confined to a possible settlement on Mars, however.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
Not that I'll be around for much of it, but it will be interesting to see what happens to Canada's population over the rest of the century. With forecasts that the Bay Area's climate will resemble San Diego's in a few decades, and a similar knock-on effect as you go northwards, maybe provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba will become major growth areas.
I've been thinking the same thing, that Canada is poised for significant growth, though I suspect that the great majority of North America's growth will continue to occur closer to the coasts (and in Canada the Great Lakes), as the central states and provinces seem to have a harder time attracting new residents. The major exception to this is Texas, and to some degree North Dakota due to the shale boom there.
I expect that BC/Alberta and Eastern Ontario/Quebec will attract the majority of the population growth, but I won't be surprised if there's a considerable increase in the 'plains' states in the middle as well.

abasile said:
That said, the growth of the "sunbelt" indicates that a huge fraction of the population, maybe even a majority, finds snow and cold to be so unattractive, in their day to day lives, that they are willing to instead rely on A/C for many months of the year. So, while agriculture will move northward, I don't think people will be quick to abandon southern cities. For instance, while I as an outdoors person would consider Phoenix to be uninhabitable, it continues to grow. Of course, that means more and more people using cars to transport A/C from building to building. I suppose that's far more pleasant than being confined to a possible settlement on Mars, however.
It will be interesting to see if the sunbirds choose to travel TO NYC for the winter, in future :D In the case of a city in the desert southwest like Phoenix, water shortages will limit population growth before energy usage does. They're already running as fast as they can to stay in the same place, trying to build infrastructure to import water from quite long distances, as their existing sources are oversubscribed now. If you're interested in the details, see "A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest" http://www.amazon.com/Great-Aridness-Climate-American-Southwest/dp/0199974675
 
Back
Top