A new paper from the New Climate Economy shows there is large untapped potential for fuel efficiency gains in both aviation and shipping sectors that would cut costs and reduce emissions. International aviation and shipping have grown dramatically in the last few decades along with their emissions: aviation and shipping now produce 5% of global CO2 emissions, and by 2050, that share could rise to as much as 32%.
Much of the potential to reduce emissions in aviation and shipping can be unlocked through existing technologies and practices that leading companies in each sector have already embraced. The most fuel-efficient US airlines, for instance, are 27% more efficient than the worst performers. The most efficient oil tankers are five times more fuel-efficient than the least. Fuel costs make up around half the total operating costs in shipping and a third in international aviation, so there are big savings to be achieved from increased efficiency. However, as this new paper shows, market failures and political barriers are hindering progress.
To catalyse further gains, the paper calls for stronger international leadership by two key UN agencies: the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The 191 ICAO Member States have already set aspirational goals for fuel efficiency and net global CO2 emissions from the sector, and proposed a market-based mechanism to support attainment of those goals. The IMO has adopted an Energy Efficiency Design Index and a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan. But progress within both organisations needs to be dramatically accelerated, especially in the lead-up to the UN climate negotiations in Paris in December.
“International aviation and shipping are not covered under the Paris climate negotiations, so without ambitious action under ICAO and IMO, fast-rising emissions in these sectors could undermine global efforts to keep warming under 2°C,” says Michael Jacobs, director of the 2015 New Climate Economy report on international cooperation. “Progress so far has been much too slow. What we need now is strong leadership from ICAO and IMO, backed by major companies in each sector, to turn the talk into concrete action.”
Saving fuel has major economic benefits as well as reducing emissions. American Airlines, for example, has invested more than US$300 million in efficiency measures since 2005, saving approximately US$1.5 billion in fuel costs. According to the paper, existing technologies can generate major savings: in aviation, for example, “winglets” can improve fuel efficiency by 4% and pay for themselves in as little as 2 years, thereafter saving the airlines money through lower fuel expenditures. In shipping, new hull coating technology can raise efficiency by 22% in a cargo ship, saving US$1.2 million over 9 years. But too many cost savings go unrealised because of the “split incentives” between ship owners and charterers, where charterers bear the fuel costs, while the owner is responsible for the ship’s technology and design.
In order to help overcome these market failures, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, whose major report released in July included a summary of this paper’s analysis, urges the IMO to adopt a global emissions reduction target and to increase operational efficiency through new policy measures and a data-sharing system among ship owners.
In aviation, the Global Commission recommends that, at its assembly in 2016, ICAO agree to implement a stringent aircraft CO2 standard covering all new aircraft, and commit to introducing a market-based measure (such as an offset scheme) from 2020.
If the ICAO and IMO adopted these potential “win-win” measures, the paper shows that international aviation and shipping emissions could be reduced by as much as 0.9 Gt CO2e annually by 2030.
“Introducing international efficiency standards will ensure that aviation and shipping make their fair contribution to the fight against climate change,” says lead author Ipek Gencsu. “But even without the climate benefits, the economic case for taking action in these sectors is very powerful. It should not be delayed any longer.”
Victoria Stulgis, Senior Associate, Shipping Operation, Carbon War Room said: “The New Climate Economy’s report highlights the opportunities that Carbon War Room has been working towards for the past five years. Now more than ever, charterers and ship owners have access to better information and capital, both of which confirm the business case for investment in efficiency upgrades. Continuing with this work, our recently-announced RFP will prove that retrofit bundles can achieve fuel savings of up to 15% – a win for ship owners, charterers, technology-providers and the environment.”
The report can be found at: http://2015.newclimateeconomy.report/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/NCE-Aviation-Maritime_final.pdf.
Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?
Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?
But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.
That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.
One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.
As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.
Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.
Make and Model of Car
Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.
On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.
The Bottom Line
Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?
Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035
New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.
New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.
Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.
Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”
The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.
Zero net emissions by 2050
Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.
Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.
Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”
A worldwide shift to renewable energy
Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.
Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.
Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.
- Energy3 weeks ago
How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Use, Really?
- Environment4 weeks ago
Biggest Tip to Eco-Friendly Car Ownership (Which May Surprise You)
- Energy4 weeks ago
Top 5 Changes You can Make in Your Life to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint
- Energy4 weeks ago
4 Energy Efficient Home Upgrades that You Can Install Yourself