Elektromobilität und Klimaschutz in Europa

1. Elektromobilität und Klimaschutz in Europa Felix Creutzig TU Berlin Economics of Climate Change

2. How do total GHG emission change with the advent of the electric bike in Europe? Total emissions Carbon intensity Energy intensity Demand = x x How does the carbon intensity of fuels change with electric bikes? How does the fuel efficiency of average mode change with electric bikes? How does total distance driven/ travel behaviour change with electric bikes?

3. Creutzig, F., Edenhofer. O. (2010): Mobilität im Wandel - Wie der Klimaschutz den Transportsektor vor neue Herausforderungen stellt. Internationales Verkehrswesen 62(3):1-6. Creutzig, F., McGlynn, E., Minx, J., Edenhofer, O. (2011): Climate policies for road transport revisited (1): Evaluation of the current framework. Energy Policy. 39(5): 2396-2406

4. Fuel efficiency standards Energy intensity standards (in l/km) extrapolated from current volume and GHG fuel efficiency standards. Data adapted from An et al. (2007) with updated fuel efficiency regulations

5. Diversification of fuel pathways

6. Currently measured either in volume/ distance and/or CO2e/distance. • Any propellant can have varying CO2 footprint. • Saudi-Arabian Oil vs. tar sands from Alberta • Corn ethanol produced in old bio-refineries vs. sugar cane ethanol in modern bio-refineries • Electricity from coal plants vs. electricity from renewable energies • Car manufacturers cannot influence the specific CO2 footprint of propellants With increasing share of alternative fuels & vehicles, regulate car manufacturers in terms of energy efficiency (MJ/km) but not CO2e/km.

7. California: Low Carbon Fuel Standard US: RFS2 EU: Fuel Quality Directive

8. Two factors matter: efficiency of cars and carbon content of fuels Carbon footprint of alternative fuels is with production, and varying.

9. Carbon intensity standards for fuels Standards Problem: Standards do not account for marginal effects • EU Fuel Quality Directive, Californian LCFS, and US RFS2 • EU Fuel Quality Directive mandates CO2e-reduction of 6%+2%+2% till 2022 • Californian LCFS first instrument that mandates CO2e-reduction across fuels (10% till 2020) • Some lifecycle GHG emissions measures in the US federal RFS2 (also: proposal for China)

10. Key messages • CO2-specific fuel efficiency standard are inappropriate for diversifying fuel supply chains, in particular electric cars • Fuel intensity standards fail to account for marginal effects of integrated energy markets

11. What determines the climate change mitigation effect of pedelecs? • Marginal change in mode choice: switch from car to pedelecs, or additional transport demand from seniors? • Marginal change in activity: Less or additional distance traveled? • Marginal change in electricity supply in response to demand from pedelecs: Coal, gas or wind? Additional demand or peak shaving?

12. Regulate transport demand and reap co-benefits

13. As we get richer, we travel more. Our time budget for travel is constant. The larger question then is how to shift from car to (electric) bike, how to slow down and reduce distances to < 40km a day, but speed up bicycles. For longer travel, we choose faster transport.

14. Co-benefits/ integrated perspective Bill. RMB Creutzig, F. and He, D., Climate Change Mitigation and Co-Benefits of Feasible Transport Demand Policies in Beijing Transportation Research D14, 120 (2009) Creutzig, F., Thomas, A., Kammen, D. M., and Deakin, E., in Low Carbon Transport in Asia: Capturing Climate and Development Co-benefits, edited by Eric Zusman, Ancha Srinivasan, and Shobhakar Dhakal (Earthscan, London, 2009) Net accounting of car traffic in Beijing 2005: Costs are at least 7.7% of Beijng‘s GDP

15. Synergies of urban transport policies • Push policies • Car traffic restrictions • City toll • Reduce available lanes • Parking fees • Speed limits • Pull policies • Better public transport • Safe space for cycling and walking • Prioritisation of bicycles • Bicycle racks • Land use policies • Compact cities • Polycentric cities • Avoid urban sprawl • No greenfield development • Mixed use neighbourhoods Objectives - A - B - C - D Policies - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

16. All policy dimensions contribute • Providing e-bikes is not enough  push needed • Land-use for the long-run Source: Mühlhoff & Creutzig, project report for Freiburg

17. Bottomlines Price parking Fuel and carbon intensity issues to be evaluated from an integrated systems perspective; are still then highly uncertain From bottom-up: • How do electric bikes impact modal shares? • What are contextual policies to shift car drivers to pedelecs? Keep suburbia in check: increase % of commuting distance < 20 km Make urban environment cyclist friendly and reduce barriers (e.g. broad streets) Make bicycle riding increasingly popular also for business (status symbol thing)

18. Looking for PhD student Task: • Model urban transport policies, co-benefit approach • Compare transport-land-use interaction across cities world-wide • Develop economic framework for slow modes (safety; convenience; health) Qualification: • Love to understand details and data of urban transport • Experience with data analysis • Modeling experience (e.g., excel; matlab) Location: Berlin Contact: Dr. Felix Creutzig Group Leader, TU Berlin www.user.tu-berlin.de/creutzig