Personal Air and Car Travel – – Personal Air and Car Travel just don’ ’t do it! t do it! just don Christian Brand Christian Brand Transport Studies Unit & Transport Studies Unit & Environmental Change Institute Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford University of Oxford
Outline of the next 20 minutes Motivation and aims 1. Methodology: travel emissions profiling 2. Case study: travel emissions profiles 3. Insights for policy 4. Conclusions and outlook 5. eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 2
1. Motivation and aims n GHG emissions from personal travel 18% of total UK domestic emissions, still rising n Sharp increase in leisure air travel; becoming a habit n Surprisingly little known who is contributing to the problem and what the emissions profile of the population is n Lack of information at household and individual levels on annual travel activity, international travel, all modes of travel n This lack of information makes policy formulation difficult n Tough choices to be made: who affected? n � Travel emissions profiles eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 3
2. Methodology: emissions profiling (1) n Methodology to measure, evaluate and analyse CO2 eq n 12-month period n Households, individuals (including children >6yrs) n Personal travel (not business) n Multiple techniques n Policy implications eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 4
2. Case study County of Oxfordshire n Household survey n Sample size of 456 n individuals (20% response) Good representation of pop n Urban vs. rural (4 types) n eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 5
3. Results: travel emissions profiles (1) eq per year Average per person: 5.2 tonnes of CO 2 Air (method E, AIM=3) 70.2% Rail (national) Ferry (national) 1.9% 0.5% Other 4.3% Taxi (national) 0.3% Motorcycle (method A) Car (method A) 0.3% Bus & coach 25.5% (national) 1.2% Base: all 456 individual responses Base: all 456 individual responses eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 6
3. Results: travel emissions profiles (2) § Highly unequal distribution of emissions Large disparities between individuals and households § § A few high emitters responsible for the lion’s share 50 CO2 equivalent per person per year 45 50 Large Urban - Individuals eq "Outlier" at 91 tonnes of CO 2 45 40 Medium Urban - Individuals 20 Small Urban - Individuals Large Urban - Households 40 35 CO2eq,tot p.a. (tonnes) 80,000 Rural - Individuals Medium Urban - Households Large Urban - Households 35 30 CO2eq,tot p.a. (tonnes) One "outlier" at 93 tCO2eq 70,000 Small Urban - Households Medium Urban - Households 15 CO2eq,tot p.a. (thousands) 30 Small Urban - Households 25 Rural - Households 60,000 Rural - Households 25 20 kg CO2eq,tot p.a. 50,000 20 10 15 40,000 15 10 10 30,000 5 5 5 20,000 0 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 201 226 251 276 301 326 351 376 401 426 451 0 10,000 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 Observations ranked by emissions level 0 eq emissions from all travel activity ranked by emissions totals 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 Observations ranked by emissions level eq Individual CO 2 emissions from all travel activity ranked by emissions totals Individual CO 0 2 eq emissions from all travel activity by geographical area Observations ranked by emissions level eq Individual CO Individual CO 2 emissions from all travel activity by geographical area 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 2 eq emissions from car travel by geographical Observations ranked by emissions level eq Household CO 2 Household CO emissions from car travel by geographical area area 2 eq emissions from air travel by geographical Household CO 2 eq emissions from air travel by geographical area area Household CO 2 eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 7
3. Results: travel emissions profiles (3) § Top 20% responsible for 61% of emissions (average 16 eq ) tonnes CO 2 § ‘High-over-Low factor’ of 90 (all modes of travel) 100% Highest emissions quintile 90% Shares of modal CO2eq,tot totals 4th emissions quintile 80% 3rd emissions quintile 70% 2nd emissions quintile 60% Lowest emissions quintile 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Air (E, central) Car (A) Motorcycle (A) Rail (Nat.) All modes Bus & coach (Nat.) Taxi (Nat.) Ferry Bases: 266 (car), 12 (motorcycle), 313 (bus & coach), 210 (taxi), 239 (rail), 68 (ferry), 269 (air) , 239 (rail), 68 (ferry), 269 (air) Bases: 266 (car), 12 (motorcycle), 313 (bus & coach), 210 (taxi) eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 8
3. Results: travel emissions profiles (4) eq emissions are mainly influenced by income, age, n CO 2 working status, car availability, household composition and size n Overall weak or non-existent correlation with household location, accessibility and gender n Top 10% typically in their 30s and 40s, in full- or part-time work and earning £30,000 p.a. or more n Bottom 10% typically women, children or residents older than 75 years, not economically active, non-car drivers and on low income of less than £10,000 p.a. n Some variation cannot be explained by this analysis – lifestyles, attitudes better to explain behaviour? eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 9
4. Policy implications (1) 7 0 ‘ b e F t , r o p e r S D N E The Guardian, March 2007 eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 10
4. Policy implications (2) n Focus on personal air (and car) travel n Policy should target high emitters – but how effectively? n Moderate tax rises unlikely to curb growth in carbon emissions n Cap-and-trading of personal carbon (travel + household energy) may be better to change behaviour. n Would challenge the highest emitters: top 10% of population may use up any in a couple of months eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 11
5. Conclusions and outlook n Personal Air and Car Travel – some of us ‘do it every day’ n Unequal distribution amongst the population – 20/60 rule? n Socio-economic and other factors can explain some of the variation in emissions, but not all n Travel emissions profiling as a tool for: q Carbon measurement and monitoring q Awareness raising and feedback eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 12
eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 13
Further information n Reports on the study at www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/oxontravel n Web-based survey still viewable (guest login: “oxontravel”, password: “onthemove”) n Contact details Christian Brand, University of Oxford christian.brand@ouce.ox.ac.uk eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 14
2. Methodology: emissions profiling (2) Primary data collection in surveys – lots and lots and lots... Household and individuals Air travel HH size and structure, Origin, destination, stopovers n n incomes, occupation, age, Duration estimate n gender, vehicle ownership Occupancy estimate n Accessibility to key services n Private vehicle information and public transport Make, model, age, fuel type, n Cycling, walking, bus, taxi, engine size rail, ferry Annual vehicle mileage n Day-to-day travel (e.g. n Road type, trip distances n commuting) – peak/off-peak Shared use within HH n Casual travel (e.g. holidays, n Fuel purchases and use visiting friends) n eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 15
2. Methodology: emissions profiling (3) 300 1.4 Air distance-emissions curves for fuel use CO2 short haul (g/pkm) CO2 long haul (g/pkm) and various pollutants used in air travel 1.2 Fuel short haul (g/pkm) 250 model Fuel long haul (g/pkm) g [other pollutants] per passenger-km NOX short haul (g/pkm) dir or fuel per passenger-km 1.0 NOX long haul (g/pkm) 200 CO short haul (g/pkm) CO long haul (g/pkm) 0.8 150 0.6 100 gCO 2 0.4 50 0.2 0 0.0 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 flight distance (no detour penalty) eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 16
3. Results: travel emissions profiles Air and car travel dominate overall carbon emissions n Emissions from public transport very small n Highly unequal distribution of emissions n ‘Hockey-stick’ shape of emissions ranking curves remarkably n similar for different units of analysis, geographical location, modes of travel, … Large disparities between individuals and households: some 20% of n the respondents drove but did not fly although the same number flew but did not drive Top 10% of emitters responsible for 43% of emissions and the n bottom 10% for only 1% Higher emissions of urban population (due to higher propensity to n travel by air?) eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 17
3. Results: travel emissions profiles (5) eq § Example: highly significant disproportionality between CO 2 emissions from air travel and income 100% emissions quintile shares of all respondents in each income group 90% 80% 70% Highest income group 60% £30-40k 50% £20-30k £10-20k 40% Lowest income group 30% 20% 10% 0% Second emissions Third emissions Fourth emissions Highest emissions quintile quintile quintile quintile eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 18
Recommend
More recommend
