Suchergebnisse

The report discusses options for reconciling the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) with IMO's principle of equal treatment of ships when creating a markedbased measure for curbing CO2 emissions from international shipping. Global application with revenues used for compensating the developing countries (no net incidence) is the most obvious option. Another possibility is to provide a grace period for emissions from ships on route to non-Annex I countries by restricting the application of a market-based measure to emissions caused by ships on journey to ports in the rich countries. The geographical coverage of such a scheme could gradually widen as non-Annex I countries become more economically advanced. Among the issues that need to be clarified are the exact grounds for compensation. The basic choice is between distinct categories (Annex I or non-Annex I) and parametric values such as CO2/capita and GDP/capita. Another main issue is the duration of the compensation rules. Some non-Annex I countries have already passed the least developed Annex I countries in terms of GDP per capita and/or emissions per capita. It may be a good idea to establish an expert group, as proposed by China and India, to look into the details of how to apply CBDR to the reduction of emissions from international shipping, including the longer term implications.

This paper was prepared as a contribution to the Working Group on Ships of the European Union's European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) and presented on 22–23 June 2011 at the second meeting of the group. It discusses various options that may be considered by the EU when contemplating, in the absence of any progress in the International Maritime Organzation (IMO), to act unilaterally on market-based measures for curbing CO2 emissions from international shipping. Focus is, in particular, on the pros and cons of introducing a hybrid scheme where emissions from domestic shipping and other small vessels (below a certain size threshold) are addressed by up-stream allocation of liability, i.e. with the fuel suppliers, while a down-stream allocation of responsibility would apply to large ships and to journeys departing from ports outside of the EU. For the latter, the ship owner would be directly responsible for submission on emission allowances or, alternatively, for paying a CO2 charge or levy.

Noxious diesel emissions far above official limits and the need to rapidly reduce-greenhouse gases generate widespread calls for banning fossil-fueled cars in Europe. This report shows that it is possible to electrify 50 per cent of all new cars in the EU by 2030. This, however, requires massive investment in European battery production capacity, and a long-term commitment to sustainable supply of critical materials. In addition a large-scale expansion of the charging infrastructure is needed, in particular at home and at work places, which account for around 95 per cent of all battery charging. Moreover, local grids will need enforcement in most countries. The additional electricity demand must be satisfied at a time when many coal-fired and nuclear-based power plants will be decommissioned. Plug-in hybrids, which combine a downsized combustion engine with an electric motor, will probably play an important role, both to relieve long-distance drivers of range anxiety and to reduce the demand for scarce virgin metals, in particular cobalt. To make the shift happen, an EU-wide Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate needs to be established from 2025, with planned stringency increases every second year or so. Such a regulation is less vulnerable to budget restraints and changing relative prices than financial incentives. At the same time, the regulatory demands on manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions from combustions engines need to become more stringent and apply to all combustion engines, including those in plug-in hybrids. Such a combination of policies will make it possible to realize the overall target of 50 per cent electrification of new cars in a robust and flexible way. ; Financial support from Jan Wallander´s, Tom Hedelius' and Tore Browald´s research foundations at Svenska Handelsbanken, Stockholm.

In this paper we present a method for evaluating social benefits of electric roads and apply it to the Swedish highway network. Together with estimated investments costs this can be used to produce a cost benefit analysis. An electric road is characterized by high economies of scale (high investment cost and low marginal cost) and considerable economies of scope (the benefit per kilometre electric road depends on the size of the network), implying that the market will produce a smaller network of electric roads, or charge higher prices for its use, than what is welfare optimal. For this reason, it is relevant for governments to consider investing in electric roads, making the cost-benefit analysis a key decision support. We model the behaviour of the carriers using the Swedish national freight model system, SAMGODS, determining the optimal shipment sizes and optimal transport chains, including mode and vehicle type. We find that if the user charge is set as to optimize social welfare, the revenue will not fully cover the investment cost of the electric road. If they are instead set to optimize profit, we find that the revenue will cover the costs if the electric road network is large enough. Electric roads appear to provide a cost-effective means to significantly reduce carbon emissions from heavy trucks. In a scenario where the expansion connects the three biggest cities in Sweden, emissions will be cut by one-third of the overall emissions from heavy trucks in Sweden. The main argument against a commitment to electric roads is that investment and maintenance costs are uncertain and that, in the long run, battery development or hydrogen fuel cells can reduce the benefit of such roads. ; Funding Agencies|Swedish Transport Administration

In this paper we present a method for evaluating social benefits of electric roads and apply it to the Swedish highway network. Together with estimated investments costs this can be used to produce a cost benefit analysis. An electric road is characterized by high economies of scale (high investment cost and low marginal cost) and considerable economies of scope (the benefit per kilometre electric road depends on the size of the network), implying that the market will produce a smaller network of electric roads, or charge higher prices for its use, than what is welfare optimal. For this reason, it is relevant for governments to consider investing in electric roads, making the cost-benefit analysis a key decision support. We model the behaviour of the carriers using the Swedish national freight model system, SAMGODS, determining the optimal shipment sizes and optimal transport chains, including mode and vehicle type. We find that if the user charge is set as to optimize social welfare, the revenue will not fully cover the investment cost of the electric road. If they are instead set to optimize profit, we find that the revenue will cover the costs if the electric road network is large enough. Electric roads appear to provide a cost-effective means to significantly reduce carbon emissions from heavy trucks. In a scenario where the expansion connects the three biggest cities in Sweden, emissions will be cut by one-third of the overall emissions from heavy trucks in Sweden. The main argument against a commitment to electric roads is that investment and maintenance costs are uncertain and that, in the long run, battery development or hydrogen fuel cells can reduce the benefit of such roads. © 2021 The Author(s)