The complex challenge of emissions reduction in the movement of goods

walmart truckThe State of Freight: Understanding greenhouse gas emissions from goods movement in Canada    is a detailed examination of the factors driving the increase of emissions from goods movement, and the complex of federal, provincial, and municipal programs and legislation. The report makes a convincing case for the importance of this issue:  Freight (defined as road, rail, ship and plane), accounted for 10.5 per cent of total emissions in Canada in 2015; freight is the fastest-growing segment of the transportation sector, and the transportation sector is the second highest source of emissions in Canada – and the largest sectoral source of emissions in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.  And simply put: “Any business with a supply chain depends on freight. And nearly everything we purchase as consumers has to be transported to the purchase or delivery point.”

The report focuses most attention on the movement of goods using heavy-duty trucks, and identifies the main actors in that industry, as well as examples of  international programs to improve efficiency, including the  U.S., California, and the EU.  Good companion reading on that issue is the April 2017 Pembina report, Improving Urban Freight Efficiency: Global best practices in reducing emissions in goods movement , which  provides case studies from New York City, Toronto, Sweden, and London.  A 2014 report by Pembina also focuses on Toronto:  see Greening the Goods: Opportunities for low-carbon goods movement in Toronto  .

The State of Freight  identifies as the key opportunities to reduce emissions:  carbon pricing and the forthcoming federal Clean Fuel Standard; Phase 2 heavy-duty vehicle efficiency regulations ; Continued rollout and adoption of efficiency technologies; Build-out of fuelling infrastructure –  biofuels, natural gas ,  electric and hydrogen; and integration of  goods movement into regional and municipal land use planning.

 

$2 Billion Low-Carbon Economy Fund announced, but Saskatchewan headed in a different direction

On June 15, Canada’s  Federal Environment and Climate Minister announced  details of the  government’s five-year, $2-billion Low Carbon Economy Fund , to support the goals of  the  Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.  The Low Carbon Economy Fund consists of two parts: the larger, Leadership Fund of  $1.4 billion, for projects proposed by  provinces and territories that have signed on  Pan-Canadian Framework , and the Low Carbon Economy Challenge, which  will be launched in fall 2017,  to support projects submitted by all provinces and territories, municipalities, Indigenous governments and organizations, businesses and both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations.  As described in “’Only fair’: McKenna on excluding Saskatchewan, Manitoba from $2B carbon fund” , Manitoba and Saskatchewan must sign on to the Pan-Canadian Framework by December 2017 to be eligible to receive any funding .

geothermalA CBC report summarizes the response by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall – who states, “”If this fund, which Saskatchewan taxpayers have helped create, is really about reducing carbon emissions, how does withholding those funds for green initiatives in Saskatchewan help that objective?”  Saskatchewan objects to the carbon tax mandate of the Pan-Canadian Framework, and has directed its climate change fight to carbon capture and storage, and more recently, Canada’s first geothermal power plant.  The press release from SaskPower regarding the geothermal power purchase agreement is here. Read  this article from DeSmog blog for a wide-ranging description of Saskatchewan’s energy policy and the announcement of its geothermal plant.

2 million electric vehicles globally, and less than 30,000 in Canada. How best to encourage more?

Electric vehicles Wikimedia Commons 768x512.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons

The latest edition of the Global EV Outlook 2017 was released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in June, reporting that the global electric car stock, (mainly Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)), surpassed 2 million units in 2016 – an increase of 60% from 2015. China is the leader with the most vehicles, at 648,770 units, followed by the U.S. at 563,710.  China is also the leader in other electrified modes – with over 300,000 electric buses.  In terms of market share, Norway, with its its small population of 5.25 million  is the leader: its 133,260 units represent a 28.76% market share. Canada, with its population of 36.5 million people,  is well behind the pack with an electric vehicle stock of 29,270 units, representing a market share of 0.57%, according to the IEA.   (Perhaps not so bad, considering that electric vehicles still only represent 0.2% of all passenger cars worldwide) . Besides tabulating national statistics and trends regarding vehicle stock and charging stations, the report includes a substantial discussion of supportive policies amongst the member countries.

Canada committed to developing a national strategy to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles on Canadian roads by 2018  in the Pan-Canadian Framework agreement,  and the policy process is currently under review – as summarized in an article in the National Observer .  On May 26, the Minister of Transport announced that:  “ a national Advisory Group has been established to contribute to developing options for addressing the key barriers for greater deployment of these technologies in five areas: vehicle supply, cost and benefits of ownership, infrastructure readiness, public awareness, and clean growth and clean jobs.  The Advisory Group includes representatives from governments, industry, consumer and non-government organizations and academia. ”  One of the members of the Advisory Group is the non-profit Équiterre , which at the end of May released a new report :   Accelerating the transition to electric mobility in Canada .  The report modelled three scenarios for ZEV adoption and concluded that only “the scenario with a legal mandate to sell a certain number of electric vehicles resulted in the market share necessary to drive down greenhouse gas emissions in line with international targets.”

Another new report, from the Ecofiscal Commission, Supporting Carbon Pricing:  How to identify policies that genuinely complement an economy-wide carbon price , provides a detailed case study on electric vehicle subsidies  in Quebec, including a consideration of how they interact with other emissions regulations.  The Ecofiscal report suggests that the current subsidy system  results in a high cost for emissions reduction, and that flexible regulations “might be a more cost-effective approach to increasing ZEV uptake” than a supply-side mandate .   Currently, Quebec is the only Canadian jurisdiction with such supply-side regulation; under Bill 104, passed in October 2016, 3.5 % of the total number of vehicles sold or leased by car manufacturers in Quebec must be zero emissions vehicles starting in 2018,  and by 2020, the standard will  rise to 15.5 %. For an overview of the issue and support for the rebate policy option, see Clare Demerse’  article in Policy Options, “Rebates should be part of electric car strategy”  (June 9) .

Canada has signed on to a new international campaign, EV 30@30, which was announced on June 8 at the 8th Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM8) held in Beijing .  The press release  for the campaign states a target of  at least 30 percent new electric vehicle sales by 2030, and: “The campaign will support the market for electric passenger cars, light commercial vans, buses and trucks (including battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicle types). It will also work towards the deployment of charging infrastructure to supply sufficient power to the vehicles deployed.”   A large part of the implementation will be through efforts to increase public and private sector commitments for EV fleet procurement and deployment. The program will also establish a Global EV Pilot City program to reach 100 electric vehicle-friendly cities around the World over five years, and encourage research into all aspects of deployment.  Full explanation of the 30@30 campaign is here .

Along with Canada, other countries signing on to the EV30@30 campaign include China, Finland, France, India, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.  (The U.S., U.K., Korea and South Africa are members of the CEM Electric Vehicle Initiative, but did not sign on to the 30@30 initiative).  In addition to participant countries, the following groups support the campaign:  C40, the FIA Foundation, the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI), the Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC), the Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT), The Climate Group, UN Environment, UN Habitat, and the International Zero Emission Vehicle Alliance (ZEV Alliance).

Scrap the Infrastructure Bank, says CUPE

GO transit stationThe federal government first announced its plans for an Infrastructure Bank in the Fall 2016 Economic Statement, and fleshed out an implementation schedule and funding in the Budget released in March 2017   .  The  Infrastructure Bank website here  describes: “If approved by Parliament, the Bank would invest $35 billion from the federal government into transformative infrastructure projects.  $15 billion would be sourced from the over $180 billion Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, including: $5 billion for public transit systems; $5 billion for trade and transportation corridors; and, $5 billion for green infrastructure projects, including those that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deliver clean air and safe water systems, and promote renewable power.”  It will function as an arms-length Crown corporation “and would work with provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, and private sector investment partners to attract pension funds and other institutional investors to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.”  A May 13 press release from the responsible Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announces that the selection process for senior management positions has begun, and the goal is to launch the Bank in 2017. The enabling legislation is buried deep in the enormous Bill C-44, the Budget Implementation Act  (as Division 18 of Part 4) . Bill C-44 is now in 2nd reading in the House of Commons, and the Finance Committee began a clause-by-clause review of the legislation in the week of May 29.

There is no shortage of criticism and critics of the Infrastructure Bank, from across the political spectrum.  In “Where Were They Going Without Ever Knowing the Way? Assessing the Risks and Opportunities of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”,  (May 4) economists at the University of Ottawa Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy argue that the case for the infrastructure bank is weak since Canada doesn’t yet have a comprehensive inventory of the status of existing infrastructure. (The May 18 report  submitted to Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation platform may answer some of those objections) .

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) is leading the union charge of criticism , mostly on the grounds that the infrastructure bank encourages and enables privatization of public projects. Even before the March budget was delivered, CUPE Economist Toby Sanger wrote  Creating a Canadian infrastructure bank in the public interest  , published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  After the budget was delivered,  CUPE’s initial response  was published in April .  In May, CUPE compiled expert criticisms here   , and on May 29, the union issued the call to  “Scrap bank of privatization, build infrastructure for Canadians” . CUPE also presented a detailed brief  to government committees in May, with ten points of criticism and recommendations for change so that public bridges, roads and waterways remain under public control.

Catching up to the transportation revolution: Canada will have a national electric vehicle strategy by 2018

Electric vehicles Wikimedia Commons 768x512On May 26, Canada’s Minister of Transportation announced  that Canada will develop  a national electric vehicle strategy by 2018 in consultation with provincial and territorial governments, as promised in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change agreement.  A national Advisory Group has already been established to develop options in five areas: vehicle supply, cost and benefits of ownership, infrastructure readiness, public awareness, and clean growth and clean jobs.  The Advisory Group includes representatives from governments, industry, consumer and non-government organizations and academia.  In November 2016, the Minister had released a vision document,   Transportation 2030: A Strategic Plan for the Future of Transportation in Canada , which included all modes of transportation – air, ships, trucks and trains, as well as  a section on Green and Innovative Transport . According to the government press release on May 26 , transportation accounts for about 24 percent of Canada’s emissions, mostly from cars and trucks.  The Pembina Institute states that there are only 21,000 electric cars on the road in Canada in 2017.

Relevant views of the future:    Expect the Unexpected  , a report from Carbon Tracker Initiative in February 2017,  forecasts that electric vehicles will account for over two-thirds of the road transport market worldwide by 2050.  “The Transportation Revolution is Closer Than You Think” , a May 22 blog  from Climate Works Foundation summarizes several recent studies.    And a new report, Three Revolutions in Urban Transportation  envisions three scenarios up to 2050, and states:  “ The world is on the cusp of three revolutions in transportation: vehicle electrification, automation, and widespread shared mobility (sharing of vehicle trips). Separately or together, these revolutions will fundamentally change urban transportation around the world over the next three decades.”    …Our central finding is that while vehicle electrification and automation may produce potentially important benefits, without a corresponding shift toward shared mobility and greater use of transit and active transport, these two revolutions could significantly increase congestion and urban sprawl, while also increasing the likelihood of missing climate change targets. In contrast, by encouraging a large increase in trip sharing, transit use, and active transport through policies that support compact, mixed use development, cities worldwide could save an estimated $5 trillion annually by 2050 while improving livability and increasing the likelihood of meeting climate change targets.”  Three Revolutions was published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways at UC Davis.

3 revolutions in transportation Infographic_itdp