Personal Air and Car Travel Personal Air and Car Travel just don - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Personal Air and Car Travel Personal Air and Car Travel – – just don just don’ ’t do it! t do it!

Christian Brand Christian Brand Transport Studies Unit & Transport Studies Unit & Environmental Change Institute Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford University of Oxford

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 2

Outline of the next 20 minutes

1.

Motivation and aims

2.

Methodology: travel emissions profiling

3.

Case study: travel emissions profiles

4.

Insights for policy

5.

Conclusions and outlook

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 3

• 1. Motivation and aims

n GHG emissions from personal travel 18% of total

UK domestic emissions, still rising

n Sharp increase in leisure air travel; becoming a habit n Surprisingly little known who is contributing to the

problem and what the emissions profile of the population is

n Lack of information at household and individual

levels on annual travel activity, international travel, all modes of travel

n This lack of information makes policy formulation

difficult

n Tough choices to be made: who affected? n

Travel emissions profiles

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 4

• 2. Methodology: emissions profiling (1)

n Methodology to

measure, evaluate and analyse CO2eq

n 12-month period n Households,

individuals (including children >6yrs)

n Personal travel

(not business)

n Multiple

techniques

n Policy implications

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 5

• 2. Case study

n

County of Oxfordshire

n

Household survey

n

Sample size of 456 individuals (20% response)

n

Good representation of pop

n

Urban vs. rural (4 types)

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 6

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles (1)

Base: all 456 individual responses Base: all 456 individual responses

Other 4.3% Air (method E, AIM=3) 70.2% Ferry (national) 0.5% Rail (national) 1.9% Taxi (national) 0.3% Bus & coach (national) 1.2% Motorcycle (method A) 0.3% Car (method A) 25.5%

Average per person: 5.2 tonnes of CO 2

eq per year

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 7

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles (2)

§ Highly unequal distribution of emissions § Large disparities between individuals and households § A few high emitters responsible for the lion’s share

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 201 226 251 276 301 326 351 376 401 426 451 Observations ranked by emissions level CO2eq,tot p.a. (tonnes) CO2 equivalent per person per year "Outlier" at 91 tonnes of CO 2

eq

Individual CO Individual CO2

2 eq eq emissions from all travel activity ranked by emissions totals

emissions from all travel activity ranked by emissions totals

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 Observations ranked by emissions level CO2eq,tot p.a. (tonnes) Large Urban - Individuals Medium Urban - Individuals Small Urban - Individuals Rural - Individuals

Individual CO Individual CO2

2 eq eq emissions from all travel activity by geographical area

emissions from all travel activity by geographical area Household CO Household CO2

2 eq eq emissions from car travel by geographical

emissions from car travel by geographical area area

5 10 15 20 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 Observations ranked by emissions level CO2eq,tot p.a. (thousands) Large Urban - Households Medium Urban - Households Small Urban - Households Rural - Households 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 Observations ranked by emissions level kg CO2eq,tot p.a. Large Urban - Households Medium Urban - Households Small Urban - Households Rural - Households One "outlier" at 93 tCO2eq

Household CO Household CO2

2 eq eq emissions from air travel by geographical

emissions from air travel by geographical area area

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 8

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles (3)

§ Top 20% responsible for 61% of emissions (average 16 tonnes CO2

eq)

§ ‘High-over-Low factor’ of 90 (all modes of travel)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Car (A) Motorcycle (A) Bus & coach (Nat.) Taxi (Nat.) Rail (Nat.) Ferry Air (E, central) All modes Shares of modal CO2eq,tot totals Highest emissions quintile 4th emissions quintile 3rd emissions quintile 2nd emissions quintile Lowest emissions quintile

Bases: 266 (car), 12 (motorcycle), 313 (bus & coach), 210 (taxi) Bases: 266 (car), 12 (motorcycle), 313 (bus & coach), 210 (taxi), 239 (rail), 68 (ferry), 269 (air) , 239 (rail), 68 (ferry), 269 (air)

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 9

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles (4)

n CO2 eq emissions are mainly influenced by income, age,

working status, car availability, household composition and size

n Overall weak or non-existent correlation with household

location, accessibility and gender

n Top 10% typically in their 30s and 40s, in full- or part-time

work and earning £30,000 p.a. or more

n Bottom 10% typically women, children or residents older

than 75 years, not economically active, non-car drivers and

• n low income of less than £10,000 p.a.

n Some variation cannot be explained by this analysis –

lifestyles, attitudes better to explain behaviour?

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 10

E N D S r e p

• r

t , F e b ‘ 7

• 4. Policy implications (1)

The Guardian, March 2007

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 11

• 4. Policy implications (2)

n Focus on personal air (and car) travel n Policy should target high emitters – but how

effectively?

n Moderate tax rises unlikely to curb growth in carbon

emissions

n Cap-and-trading of personal carbon (travel +

household energy) may be better to change behaviour.

n Would challenge the highest emitters: top 10% of

population may use up any in a couple of months

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 12

• 5. Conclusions and outlook

n Personal Air and Car Travel – some of us ‘do it every day’ n Unequal distribution amongst the population – 20/60 rule? n Socio-economic and other factors can explain some of the

variation in emissions, but not all

n Travel emissions profiling as a tool for:

q Carbon measurement and monitoring q Awareness raising and feedback

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 13

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 14

Further information

n Reports on the study at

www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/oxontravel

n Web-based survey still viewable

(guest login: “oxontravel”, password: “onthemove”)

n Contact details

Christian Brand, University of Oxford christian.brand@ouce.ox.ac.uk

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 15

• 2. Methodology: emissions profiling (2)

Household and individuals

n

HH size and structure, incomes, occupation, age, gender, vehicle ownership

n

Accessibility to key services and public transport

Primary data collection in surveys – lots and lots and lots...

Private vehicle information

n

Make, model, age, fuel type, engine size

n

Annual vehicle mileage

n

Road type, trip distances

n

Shared use within HH

n

Fuel purchases and use Air travel

n

Origin, destination, stopovers

n

Duration estimate

n

Occupancy estimate Cycling, walking, bus, taxi, rail, ferry

n

Day-to-day travel (e.g. commuting) – peak/off-peak

n

Casual travel (e.g. holidays, visiting friends)

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 16

• 2. Methodology: emissions profiling (3)

50 100 150 200 250 300

• 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 flight distance (no detour penalty) gCO2

dir or fuel per passenger-km

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 g [other pollutants] per passenger-km CO2 short haul (g/pkm) CO2 long haul (g/pkm) Fuel short haul (g/pkm) Fuel long haul (g/pkm) NOX short haul (g/pkm) NOX long haul (g/pkm) CO short haul (g/pkm) CO long haul (g/pkm)

Air distance-emissions curves for fuel use and various pollutants used in air travel model

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 17

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles

n

Air and car travel dominate overall carbon emissions

n

Emissions from public transport very small

n

Highly unequal distribution of emissions

n

‘Hockey-stick’ shape of emissions ranking curves remarkably similar for different units of analysis, geographical location, modes

• f travel, …

n

Large disparities between individuals and households: some 20% of the respondents drove but did not fly although the same number flew but did not drive

n

Top 10% of emitters responsible for 43% of emissions and the bottom 10% for only 1%

n

Higher emissions of urban population (due to higher propensity to travel by air?)

eceee - 6 June 2007 University of Oxford 18

• 3. Results: travel emissions profiles (5)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Second emissions quintile Third emissions quintile Fourth emissions quintile Highest emissions quintile

emissions quintile shares of all respondents in each income group

Highest income group £30-40k £20-30k £10-20k Lowest income group

§ Example: highly significant disproportionality between CO2

eq

emissions from air travel and income