This report explores whether technology improvements alone can achieve oil consumption and GHG emissions reduction targets consistent with recent draft legislation and international climate negotiations.
Inquiries
- Erica Schlaikjer, Media Relations and Online Engagement Coordinator
Downloads
Full Report (PDF, 957 Kb)
Transportation represented 71 percent of oil consumption and 31 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States in 2008. Therefore, federal transportation policy presents an opportunity to reduce both oil consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This report explores whether technology improvements alone can achieve oil consumption and GHG emissions reduction targets consistent with recent draft legislation and international climate negotiations. The report finds that the United States must achieve significant improvements in vehicle technology and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita (compared to business as usual projections for 2050, which anticipate a 40 percent increase in VMT per capita over 2010 levels) to meet these targets. With improvements to vehicle technology and reductions in per capita VMT, the United States would not need to import any oil by 2030.
The report also reviews evaluations of existing federal transportation programs for their impact on GHG emissions, oil use, or VMT and finds a general lack of evaluation for these metrics. For a wide variety of transportation strategies (e.g., public transit, pricing, parking management), the report finds evidence that they reduce GHG emissions, oil use, and VMT.
To achieve GHG emissions and oil use targets, the United States should modify federal transportation policy to prioritize investments that reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and oil consumption. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should—
Encourage states and regions to boost usage of existing funding flexibility to increase investments in transportation strategies that reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and oil use;
Provide technical support for standardized evaluation of programs and projects; and
Simplify public access to DOT’s project spending databases to promote evaluation of spending patterns and encourage transparency and accountability.
Congressional reauthorization of surface transportation funding should—
Establish national goals for transportation, including reducing GHG emissions and oil use, and track progress toward these goals.
- Implement performance-based funding (tied to progress toward national goals).
- Require or incentivize performance-based planning. Reserve or competitively distribute funding for states and regions that plan for GHG emissions reductions and/or oil savings.
Increase direct funding for programs and strategies that reduce GHG emissions, VMT, and oil consumption, in two ways:
- Direct a larger portion of federal transportation funds toward programs that dedicate funding to, or achieve, reductions in GHG emissions, VMT, and oil use (e.g. CMAQ, SRTS, etc.); and
- Directly fund transportation strategies that reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and oil use through set-asides or new programs.
Although the rate of technological progress, such as fuel efficiency improvements, is uncertain, these improvements are encouraged by federal incentives and standards. Similarly, the United States can ensure reductions in VMT, GHG emissions, and oil consumption by planning for and funding transportation and land use strategies that provide alternatives to driving. Transportation planning at the local, regional, and state level should incorporate strategies to reduce VMT in order to reduce GHG emissions and oil consumption.
Planners and policymakers committed to reducing oil use and GHG emissions should encourage Congress to pass a reauthorization bill that incorporates the recommendations above.





6 Comments
I have inevitable and
I have inevitable and imperative solution on how Green House Gas emission society. This can only be achieve by drealing, with waste at every point of waste generation. The operation is an incredible feat of achieving zero waste to emission society to limitlessly scope resultant to dynamic sustainability.
whatever the appropriateness
whatever the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of the policy statements/prescriptions, I feel that EMBARQ's value-added is better served in dealing with carbon-related transport sustainability issues in the US as opposed to its overseas endeavours. Given the geographical location of the WRI it would have greater credibility is getting the US to curb transport based emissions in line with other leading OECD (European or Japanese) countries' per capita levels than focus on policy prescriptions for major developing country cases where it cannot establish much credibility in view of the unsustainable practices at home. Indeed, the only veritable raison d'ëtre of EMBARQ's role is contingent upon transforming transportation at home instead of its primary focus on offshore endeavours.
Stop making (building,
Stop making (building, importing, selling) automobiles that burn fossil fuels today and the question of how soon new technologies will be developed that provide for clean transportation will be be answered.
Yes, it will be a difficult leap, but incremental mileage goals and increased drilling get us absolutely no where in the short or long term.
I certainly agree that if
I certainly agree that if the urgency of clean energy isn't there, the likely hood of new, innovative clean transportation methods being developed is very slim.
chad @ http://www.hananiacollision.com
Placing all our eggs in
Placing all our eggs in increasing CAFE (while ignoring - even lowering - the price of fuel).
I haven't read the report, just the shorter articles provided in website - but I did NOT see the answer to: "This report explores whether technology improvements alone can achieve oil consumption and GHG emissions reduction targets consistent with recent draft legislation and international climate negotiations. "
My guess is that the conclusion is that 'technology alone' will NOT achieve the dual goals of reduction of oil consumption and GHG emission.
I wonder how others feel about the proposed administration CAFE goal of 56.2 mpg by 2025?
My thoughts - I see a comparison to pushing higher, and higher, and higher CAFE goals and the Republicans in Congress pushing more, and more spending cuts. Just as the administration refuses to push an increase in the gas tax, the Republicans refuse to accept revenue increases.
My point: requiring Detroit to build more fuel efficient cars while not creating a demand for them by increasing gas prices is ineffective. Worse yet, by releasing oil from the SPR for 'economic reasons', Obama is saying he wants cheap gas and fuel-efficient vehicles - I want to lose weight and indulge in deserts too.....
I agree with you that
I agree with you that keeping the price of fuel low is going to defeat the purpose. We can't have it both ways!
Your analogy of a dieter wanting to lose weight is perfect: Setting a goal, but taking no means to achieve it is analagous to setting targets with no means in place for reaching them. We just don't seem to be serious about reaching the targets we set!
Post new comment