• Oil will become so scarce and expensive that driving vehicles on gasoline or diesel will no longer be affordable.
• In order to successfully combat climate change, for which mobility accounts to the extent of one quarter, Humanity must find alternative energy sources.

But as long as most of our electricity demand is covered from fossil sources there is no ecological urgency for implementing the necessary technological revolution of land transport. Nor is there an economic urgency as long as e-vehicles are substantially more expensive, while being less convenient in terms of range and loading energy.

In order to reach the EU 2050 climate target of reducing C02 emissions by 80 per cent, the European transport sector will have to reduce emissions by 60 per cent.

This will be achievable by a combined approach of

• further enhancing fuel efficiency of combustion engines
• combining efficient diesel and plug-in electric engines;
• improving battery technology in view of making them lighter, cheaper and doubling their range without recharging.

Presently the average newly admitted car in Europe must emit less than 127 g C02/km. This compares to 50 g/km for the latest models of hybrid plug-in diesel cars. That big difference demonstrates the huge potential for higher fuel efficiency through diesel and hybrid engine technology.

The EU should therefore fix much stricter emission standards for new cars, while leaving manufacturers the necessary respite for adjustment and technological improvement, say 95g by 2020, 70 g by 2025 and 50 g by 2030. By implementing such a medium-term road map the EU would dispose of a completely renovated vehicle stock by 2030 that would enable it to roughly halve its C02 emissions from road transport.

Fully electrical cars will most likely remain the exception until 2030, essentially used as a city and special purpose vehicles. Their market share is unlikely to exceed 10 per cent for new vehicles which is fine considering that more than half of EU power will still be generated from fossil plants

This analysis leads to five policy conclusions for the EU:

• Toughen fuel efficiency standards for passenger and commercial vehicles. These will offer powerful incentives for improving battery, storage and engine technologies.
• Target a 40 per cent share of electricity generated from non-fossil sources by 2030.
• Negotiate comparable targets for automotive fuel efficiency and non-fossil electricity generation with USA, China, Japan, Korea and Brazil, to make EU measures globally climate-relevant.
• Abstain from granting specific research support, let alone purchase premiums for electrical vehicles. Member states should be free to do so, if necessary to keep up with the technological developments in competing countries, especially China.
• Promote effective public transport systems as the overriding priority, as e-mobility will not offer the answer to the ever growing urban and high-way congestion.

Um den innerstädtischen Fahrradverkehr zu vereinfachen, dürfen Radfahrer
künftig an einigen Kreuzungen mit dreifarbigen Ampeln bei rot nach rechts
abbiegen oder weiter geradeaus fahren.

Um die Nutzung des Fahrrades in den Städten intensiv zu fördern, wurde im
Rahmen der ersten nationalen Fahrradkonferenz im Januar 2012 ein
nationaler Radverkehrsplans vorgestellt, der die Menschen in Frankreich
zur häufigeren Nutzung des Zweirads ermuntert – sowohl als
Fortbewegungsmittel als auch zu Sport- oder Freizeitzwecken.

Mit Blick auf das Ziel des so genannten “Plan National Velo” den
Radverkehr flüssiger zu gestalten und Staus an Kreuzungen zu vermeiden,
wurde per Verordnung vom 12. Januar 2012 ein neues Verkehrszeichen
eingeführt, das es Radfahrern an bestimmten Kreuzungen erlaubt, an einer
roten Ampel rechts abzubiegen oder geradeaus zu fahren, sofern keine
Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert. Sie haben dabei die Vorfahrt der anderen
Verkehrsteilnehmer zu beachten.

Die Verordnung legt fest, dass die Installation neuer Verkehrszeichen
nicht automatisch erfolgt. Laut Verkehrssicherheitsbehörde entscheidet der
Bürgermeister, an welchen Strecken oder ausgewählten Knotenpunkten, die
den entsprechenden Sicherheitsbedingungen entsprechen, die Schilder für
Radfahrer installiert werden.

Die Gebietskörperschaften können zwischen zwei Signalformen wählen:

Ein blinkendes Ampelsignal an der dreifarbigen Verkehrsampel, wie für das
Rechtsabbiegen für Autofahrer. Das neue Signal ist gelb und genauso groß
wie die anderen. Blinkt es, erscheint ein Piktogramm in Form eines
Fahrrads, das es dem Radfahrer erlaubt, die Ampelkreuzung bei roter bzw.
gelber Ampel zu überqueren. Ein Pfeil verweist auf die freigegebene
Fahrtrichtung, entweder nach rechts oder geradeaus, sofern keine
Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert.

Ein an der dreifarbigen Ampel angebrachtes dreieckiges Schild. Es zeigt
ein gelbes Fahrrad auf weißem Untergrund und ist rot umrandet. Ein gelber
Pfeil weist dem Radfahrer die freigegebene Fahrtrichtung, entweder nach
rechts oder geradeaus, sofern keine Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert. Dieses
einfachere Verkehrszeichen wurde von zahlreichen Kommunen bzw.
Departements angefordert, da es technisch leichter umzusetzen ist,
berichtet die Verkehrssicherheitsbehörde.

Das Zeichen “Rechtsabbiegen” wird seit zwei Jahren getestet

Diese neue Regelung unterstützt die Gebietskörperschaften beim Ausbau des
innerstädtischen Radverkehrs. Das neue Ampelzeichen wurde bereits zwei
Jahre lang in Bordeaux, Nantes und Straßburg getestet.

Ist noch keines dieser beiden neuen Verkehrszeichen installiert, müssen
sich die Radfahrer nach wie vor nach der Ampelschaltung richten. Außerdem
sind die Radfahrer vor dem Überqueren der roten Ampel angehalten
vorsichtig zu fahren und den anderen Verkehrsteilnehmer, insbesondere den
Fußgängern, die Vorfahrt einzuräumen.

• encourage the use of biofuels from sun flower seeds, rape seeds, soy beans, wheat, corn and palm oil and obtain a share of 5.75 per cent of total fuel consumption in 2010 and 10 per cent in 2020.
• fix a technical standard of 130 g C02 emission per km for the average newly registered car in 2012.

Both measures were only moderately successful:

• The bio-fuels employed did not really reduce emissions because of additional C02 emissions occurring during their production and processing.
• The fast rise of individual traffic more than neutralised the positive impact of emission standards;

The EU should therefore try to do better in the future.

It should only admit biofuels that reduce C02 emissions by at least 50 per cent, taking into consideration all negative by-effects, from the use of chemical fertiliser to deforestation.

Second generation biofuels like wood, grasses, non-edible parts of plants achieve such results and should therefore be the basis for the future.

Europe has a good chance of becoming one of the leaders in processing cellulosic bio-ethanol. The world` s biggest plant is due to start production later this year in northern Italy. The EU should encourage the development of this innovative industry.

By supporting sustainable ligno-cellulosic bio-ethanol the EU would also render a service to its aircraft industry that calls for sustainable kerosene additives. The future of low-carbon air traffic will depend on higher fuel efficiency of planes and less polluting fuels.

In practical terms, the EU should take two strategic decisions:

• Phase out the use of first generation bio-diesel until 2020.

It should drop the 10 per cent non-mandatory target for the share of biofuels in total diesel/gasoline consumption for 2020 as meaningless, end support mechanisms like the € 45/ha premium for sun-flower and rape seed production and offer incentives for the production of sustainable ligno-cellulosic biofuels.

• Fix much more ambitious car C02 emission standards.

The global car industry has made great strides in fuel efficiency during the last years. But it is far from having reached the limits of what is technically possible.

The EU should therefore have the courage to make the average car twice as fuel-efficient as at present. A fuel-efficiency standard of 70g C02 per km for the average newly produced car should be feasible until 2020.

By fixing such an ambitious standard the EU will oblige both the domestic and foreign car manufacturers to focus on fuel efficiency, which will be crucial for future competitiveness.

These measures are no panacea for converting automobile traffic into a green paradise. In order to achieve substantial reductions of C02 emissions from the transport sector the EU will have to adopt a broad programme of actions. Making public commuter transport and rail transport for goods more attractive must become additional priorities beyond minimising emissions from cars and trucks by stricter fuel efficiency standards. Considering the share of the transport sector in the aggregate C02 balance the EU should put more focus on reducing emissions from transport.

More individual traffic cannot be the answer, not the electric car, not even car-sharing. Cities have only one solution: extend their public transport systems, make them faster and more frequent, while at the same time inhibiting individual transport.

Brussels is an example of flawed policies during the 1960-80s, when those in charge believed that it would be possible to expand population far beyond the city limits and rely on cars as the major means transport. The result: in 2011 only one third of the daily commuters to Brussels used public transport! It is only slowly that those in charge attempt to correct earlier mistakes and catch up with Berlin, Hamburg, Munich or Frankfurt and their exemplary electric train + subway connections up to 60 km from the city centre.

Encouraging public transport in European cities is crucial for clean air on the one hand and lower C02 emissions on the other. Individual transport in cities is the most polluting form of traffic. It consumes easily three times as much energy as public transport. Though all this is well-known to policy makers, little action has been taken, and almost none at EU level, municipalities falling under strict subsidiarity!

Still, the EU should facilitate the transition from individual to public traffic in Europe’s major cities by

• producing a green paper on urban traffic and green house gas emissions;
• regularly bringing together mayors from major cities for an exchange of experience on how to cope with rising numbers of commuters;
• making available more funding from structural funds and EIB for co-financing the necessary subway, train and tram investments;
• announcing stricter EU regulations for C02 and hazardous emissions from cars.

As the world’s only mandatory programme to address emissions from aviation, the Directive’s measures have provoked a chorus of criticism from India, China and, in particular, the US. Many airlines outside Europe have reacted angrily to the decision as it will increase the cost of flying to the continent. True, if they cannot increase their efficiency or absorb this expense it will have to be passed on to customers, but this negative attitude towards a progressive policy is sadly reminiscent of the wider ongoing climate negotiations.

Whilst airlines may not be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (2-4%), this figure will rise significantly if action is not taken. Global urbanisation means we now have more than 400 cities with populations over 1m, in a system already served by 1700 active airlines across 44,000 airports. These airports are increasingly important hubs and the burgeoning size and interconnectivity of cities, especially in Africa, China and India, can only worsen the damage caused by airlines.

But this growth also represents vast commercial potential for the aviation industry and serves to strengthen its opposition to change. Sector-based interest organisations (in this case airlines) and national government representatives are almost always the biggest threat to attempts to solve the issue of climate change. The stronghold of lobbyists in Washington (a total of about 25,000) ensures that commercial interests influence decision makers in both Congress and Senate, drastically curbing the impact of environmental concerns.

True to form, the voices of the aviation industry were heard the loudest after the EU ruled against them. In a letter to the EU that was undoubtedly the result of pressure from lobbyists, Hillary Clinton criticised the ETS and portrayed Europe’s forward-thinking approach as a sign of its increasing isolation.

This marks a sad departure from the approach taken by her husband, Bill Clinton, whose Climate Initiative encouraged airlines to work together with city airports to build more efficient (and therefore sustainable) transportation hubs. His C 40 network, along with the European Committee of Regions, is working on new agreements between governors and mayors in Europe, India, US and China. Cities there are beginning to build new networks and sustainable strategies, including the use of public-private partnerships.

This innovative approach (which also promotes cooperation on emission trading) represents a better platform for a new type of dialogue. There is also compelling evidence in Europe that these solutions can benefit the airlines and the planet.

We can look to Sweden for evidence of just how successful these collaborative models can be. Swedavia, which owns and operates 11 of the country’s airports, was the first major Swedish company to become climate neutral. Since 2003 the company has reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from its airports by a staggering 73 percent. The target is to achieve zero emissions by 2020 through a comprehensive set of measures that expand year-on-year. Both Swedavia and SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) have been working with voluntary cap-and-trade agreements to help keep emissions in line with Kyoto targets.

It is this cooperation between airline and airport that has impressed the most. Take Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport, for instance, which now uses a carbon-neutral aquifer (a groundwater reservoir that acts as a thermos) to cool all airport buildings during the summer, including the terminals. What’s more the aquifer also stores heat that can be used in the winter for ground heating systems at aircraft parking stands and to pre-heat ventilated air in buildings.

There are many similar opportunities lying around the corner. The Joint Implementation (JI) project, for example, aims to involve the airlines in projects that will stimulate technology development in partnership with the airports they serve.

But as well as the power of collaboration, Swedavia’s example shows the power of localised initiatives. Air traffic largely flows in and out of cities and it may be at this level that meaningful change can be implemented. Rather than relying on international sanctions or national governments regulating from under the thumbs of aviation lobbyists, we should be encouraging each city to find its own solutions and work with local governments and businesses on sustainable city models. Mayors, not ministers, are best placed to find pragmatic and imaginative solutions.

Airports and airlines may not like Europe’s attempts to cut emissions, but the ETS is here to stay. So instead of embarking of futile attempts to stop the EU in the courts, they should work towards developing new partnerships and best practise to support more sustainable cities.

Mediterranean countries such as Spain,for example, stand to benefit most from such investments. According to La Vanguardia, a rail link along the coast from the Franco-Spanish border to Algeciras in the south will finally be built in the next few years, at a cost of some 19 billion euros. The railway will bypass Madrid altogether. This development is also in line with the measures advocated in a recent Project Syndicate op-ed (“Mediterranean Reborn”) by Javier Solana. According to him, the building of new rail links connecting southern Europe with the centre of the continent will reduce costs as well as pollution levels and help rebalance the current trade flows from the Pacific region to Europe. Since northern European countries have far better-equipped harbour and rail networks than the south, merchandise from the Far East or India that comes via the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean currently bypasses ports like Venice, Marseilles or Barcelona in favour of Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Hamburg, even though the trip is three days longer.

The Commission will allocate money for the upgrading and linking of oil and gas pipelines, as well, in an effort to streamline energy distribution across the continent.

Taken together, these projects have the potential of creating tens of thousands of low-level jobs across southern Europe, at a time when unemployment in Spain, for example, has reached alarming levels. (sources: Presseurop, European Commission press release, La Vanguardia, Project Syndicate).

Programme:

The transport sector will have to reduce its emissions by 45-60% below 1990 levels if the EU is to keep with its climate change objectives for 2050. The European Commission’s White Paper on the Future of Transport will set out a wide array of options to achieve this.

• How can EU policy shape the right framework for a cost-efficient switch to lower carbon transport? Can better implementation of existing legislation contribute to this goal?
• The Commission is proposing to follow more systematically the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Which market-based instruments can enforce it? In which sectors can a cap-and-trade mechanism be successfully applied? Where is fuel taxation better suited?
• By 2050 European transport infrastructure will have been redesigned to serve the needs of an integrated Single Transport Area. What will be in this context the different roles of network innovation (e.g. ‘green corridors’), vehicle innovation (e.g. hybrids and fully electric cars), and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)?
• Where is technology now, and how can it contribute to making the vision of a single EU transport area reality? What alternatives are available to conventional fuels, and what will R&D deliver in the next decade?

Contributors included:

• Matthias RUETE, Director General, DG MOVE
• Dirk STERCKX, MEP
• Joost VAN ROOST, President, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical Benelux
• Jos DINGS, Director, Transport & Environment
• Kai LÜCKE, Director Public Affairs, Robert Bosch GmbH

Moderator: Frédéric SIMON, Managing Editor, EurActiv
Chair: Rick ZEDNÍK, CEO, EurActiv

First of all, there is no compulsion on any member state to introduce road-pricing.  It is up to each country to decide whether or not to do it.

But secondly, and importantly, the European Commission’s initiative makes a lot of sense.  At present, there are often complaints from British lorry drivers that their continental colleagues have a competitive advantage because lorry taxes are lower there.  Foreign lorries can drive on British roads paying taxes where they are registered rather than where they drive.

To deal with this anomaly, the EU is experimenting with road toll systems so that lorries pay towards the costs of the roads they drive on, in whichever country they happen to be.  Because lorries cross borders often – they are one of the main means of transporting goods from one country to another within the single market – it makes sense to have a common system for monitoring and collecting tolls rather than requiring each lorry to carry up to 27 different bits of electronic equipment, one for each country it might enter.

A road toll system of this sort will align the costs paid by lorry transport much more closely with the environmental and other costs that lorry transport causes, and will do so with the minimum of bureaucracy and red tape.  Of course this is the right thing to do: it is exactly what the EU was invented for.

Think about the options:

(1)   continue with the current system that puts UK lorry drivers at a competitive disadvantage

(2)   ban foreign lorry drivers from British roads or tax them heavily, in which case British lorry drivers can expect the equivalent treatment in other countries, and the cost of importing and exporting goods will go up a lot

(3)   replace national road toll schemes with a European scheme, raising and spending the money at EU rather than national level

(4)   enabling the member states to cooperate together using technology to reduce costs and regulatory burdens on business

Why, given the alternatives, are the eurosceptics objecting to option 4?