RE: WorldTransport Forum transport and climate change
Hope there was a typo below. Hope you meant mode-SHIFT!
Another worry I have is that the present framework encourages projects that may show a carbon savings BUT NOT NECESSARILY a transport improvement.
From: Jay Thakkar [mailto:JThakkar@...]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 8:52 AM
Cc: Eric Britton; S.Norton@...; Lee Schipper
Subject: RE: WorldTransport Forum transport and climate change
I agree with Lee on this.
Firstly, Carbon negotiators are doing a job that has more to do with creating a carbon market and supporting the mode-shit towards a sustainable development. They are creating a market, where trading is perhaps easily calculable. Transport sector, even though it vastly contributes to emissions, is very disjoint in nature when it comes to evaluation.
Secondly, Transportation is a design flaw, and not an operational mistake. It has to be fixed, regardless of the carbon content in our atmosphere. May it be 450 ppm, 350 ppm or even less? Reforming transformation is necessary for the overall societal development, and emissions (especially CO2) reduction is one amongst the many advantages that this reform would bring.
Jay Thakkar | Green Commute Coordinator
Ph: 609.452.1491 | Ext: 237
From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:41 AM
Cc: Eric Britton; S.Norton@...
Subject: WorldTransport Forum transport and climate change
I think you misunderstood. My point is that the carbon negotiators have no authority, political or otherwise, to change transport. That’s what’s wrong. The transport people who matter are not “delegates” here and don’t sit in the meetings and make policies. That’s too bad. But I’m not sure they should be here. They should be making sensible transport policies as Simon recommends INDEPENDENT of the swirl of hot air and debate that will arise in Copenhagen . We can’t wait for a climate agreement to fix transport, and fixing transport will contribute to lower Co2 emissions without having to wait for the large economies to stop fighting!
Project Scientist, Global Met. Studies, UC Berkeley
Sen. Res Eng., Precourt Energy Eff Ctr, Stanford U.
- Lee Schipper, I'm still not sure that I understand you, but let me try to
restate my point of view more clearly so that you can see whether it accords
with what you are trying to say.
Most of us recognise that a car based transport system is utterly dysfunctional,
and the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is therefore a co-benefit
of what needs to be done anyway.
However, there are those who believe that private motor transport is essential
to civilisation. These people, assuming they are not climate change deniers,
will therefore have their eye on technological means of reducing emissions,
which are more costly and which will have a more limited scope.
Transport activists need to lobby climate change negotiators to ensure that they
recognise that this is not so. Then they will be willing to contemplate a more
sustainable transport system in addition to other means of reducing emissions,
and, hopefully, confront the car lobbyists who currently pervade most of our
We may be able to persuade them, further, that a better quality of life is
possible in a low car society, but for them it will be the better quality of
life that is the co-benefit of a policy that will, I hope, help to reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions below the danger level.