China is just one of the developing countries where car ownership is rapidly increasing. India, South America, even Russia, which might baulk at the 'developing' tag, have more and more vehicles on the roads every year. The rise in car use naturally has severe implications for any attempts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to transport.
A new report from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) spells out the extent of the challenge: "Total global GHG emissions from the transport sector are predicted to increase by 120 per cent between 2000 and 2050, and it has been estimated that developing countries will be responsible for approximately 80 per cent of this increase."
TRL's report, 'A route to low-carbon mobility in developing countries', advocates a "leapfrogging" approach to the problem. Leapfrogging is "a development trajectory that acknowledges the negative impacts experienced by developed countries in the process of modernisation and uses knowledge of this past experience to leapfrog ahead to a more sustainable development trajectory".
We already have an excellent example of leapfrogging in action. Many parts of the developing world have managed to avoid all those clunky wired telephones. Rather than weaving a network of copper wires all over the place, they opted for mobile telephones.
What leapfrogging means for transport is "intervention in what is currently regarded as a 'traditional' development process". This requires "the design and implementation of a framework conducive to low-carbon mobility, with strategic planning undertaken to: increase the attractiveness of less carbon-intensive modes of transport, such as public transport, walking and cycling; assimilate technological innovations from developed countries into their transport networks; and develop urban areas in a manner that reduces the need to travel".
This sort of high level aspiration, not to mention the fancy language, really needs a few persuasive examples to explain what it means. These seem to be in short supply. For example, the report writes glowingly of China's moves to invest in "the development and commercialisation of electric and hybrid vehicles" but the country is unique in its combination of a command economy and rising wealth. What works in China won't transfer seamlessly to anywhere else.
Perhaps it is expecting too much to ask a report like this, all 46 pages of it, to provide answers rather than raise issues. However, the questions it raises warrant detailed consideration in their own right. For example, the report refers to technology transfer, a subject that increasingly exercises people pondering on how best to respond to climate change.
How do we get all the innovations that arise in the developed world to where they can help in less wealthy places? Leaving it to the markets won't work. Just look at the rows about pharmaceuticals.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) already has its Expert Group on Technology Transfer . While this can lay foundations and suggest mechanisms for technology transfer, someone has to think through the implications for particular sectors. The TRL report suggests that for transport, technology transfer could be useful "in relation to transport fuels, vehicle engines, demand management processes, public transport systems and infrastructure and by providing advice, training and support for their implementation and maintenance".
TRL's report identifies some of the important issues that need fleshing out. Technology transfer is just one of them. The challenge now is to build on this higher level analysis and to come up with concrete ideas that could make a difference.
Categories: Commentary ,
Comments
All comments
You need to be registered with the IET to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user.