1. Insert the title of your presentation here Presented by Name Here Job Title - Date Carbon Calculators – Status- Quo and Perspectives Holger Dalkmann Group Manager C4S – 02/10/2008

2. Page  2 Table of contents Background: Transport and Climate Change Purposes for carbon calculating Application: Mode Comparison Future Applications Conclusions 1 2 3 4 5 Carbon Calculators – Status-Quo and Perspectives

3. EU: Climate Change and Transport – much is needed but too little is happening  Between 1990 and 2005 CO 2 emissions from the transport sector increased by 26%  Had transport sector emissions followed the same reduction trend as in society as a whole, total EU-27 GHG during the period 1990–2005 would have fallen by 14% instead of 7.9%. 26% 1990 - 2005 7.9%

4. 2020 Projections for Transport Sector The 'targets' for the transport sector for 2020 are linked to: EU target of a 20% reduction Target band in the Bali roadmap (25– 40%) EC position for developed countries - 30% 949 Mt CO 2 -eq. 2010 Emissions 1091 Mt CO 2 -eq. 2020 Emissions 767 Mt CO 2 -eq. 1990 Emissions EEA 2007

5. Page  5 Carbon Calculation  POLICY  GHG – Inventory (IPCC Requirements)  DfT – Carbon Calculator for Biofuels;  Governmental Bodies (e.g. HA)  Business (Operators)  Competition  Benchmarking  Other BUSINESS  Travel Plans  Audit (ISO 14001), Carbon Management  Future Emission Trading?  CONSUMERS  Guidance for purchase decision (e.g. buying a car (DfT: Act on CO 2 )  Personal carbon footprint  Journey information Key target groups and the application

6. Page  6 Policy Application: IPCC 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 2 Energy  CO 2 emission based on fuel consumption (sold)  National emission standards should be used  Some advice on biofuels  N 2 O and CH 4 as further GHG http://www.ipcc-ggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_Combustion.pdf

7. Business/Governmental Application Sustainability Management System for the Asphalt Industry Page  7  TRL is undertaking a project for the HA / QPA / RBA to establish a sustainability management system for the asphalt industry  The system will assist the industry to calculate and report on its environmental impacts in a consistent manner, using a life-cycle based approach  resource extraction – processing - use – maintenance - waste management  The system will assimilate the requirements of existing standard calculation methodologies - LCA (ISO 14040 series), GHGs (PAS 2050), GHG Protocol

8. Consumer Perspective: ICAO: London to Paris 78.56 kg CO 2

9. UIC: Paris to London Trip/ModeCO 2 (kg per passenger trip - return) CO 2 (g/pkm) Journey time (one way direct. Info from service provider websites) London-Paris (return) Short-haul air (average) Heathrow 1221681h40 Eurostar 10.911.02h45 London-Brussels (return) Short-haul air (average) Heathrow 1602191h15 Short-haul air (average) Gatwick 2223221h05 Eurostar 18.324.32h20 Source: www.ecopassenger.org; Paul Watkiss Associates and AEA Technology Environment 2006www.ecopassenger.org 122 kg CO 2

10. UIC: London to Zurich Source: www.ecopassenger.org

11. UIC vs National Express: London to Zurich (947 km) Source: www.ecopassenger.org, http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/OurService/CarbonEmissionsCa lculator.cfmwww.ecopassenger.org

12. Transport Modes - Trains

13. Transport Modes - Aircraft 191 g/pkm

14. Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions Direct Factors:  Technical – vehicle characteristics (weight, vehicle shape, engine type, fuel type, energy source, load capacity)  Operational – driving speed and driving dynamics (speed variations, accelerating and decelerating, cruising and breaking for trains)  Logistical – occupancy rates of vehicles (buses, passenger cars and trains); density of the infrastructure networks, determining distance travelled Indirect Factors:  Construction and maintenance of infrastructure  Production and maintenance of vehicles  Energy production (particularly for vehicles without an internal combustion engine) Difficulties comparing CO2 emissions between modes due to the number of variables Van Wee et al (2005)

15. Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions  Assumptions – easily changed to radically alter the conclusions of studies (fuel consumption, occupancy, distances etc)  Occupancy rate –over estimating to get the emissions of CO2 (g/pkm) to meet needs (e.g. assuming 100% occupancy of vehicles)  Varying emissions between service providers – different vehicles, fuel efficiency, occupancy levels, spatial/demographic variations  Energy consumption of electric vehicles – electricity generation method very important: -Hydroelectric (low CO2) -Nuclear (low CO2) -Coal-fired (high CO2)  Direct and indirect emissions - considering the full life cycle emissions (often vehicle ‘operation’ emissions).

16. Biofuels

17. Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions – Full life cycle Conceptual model showing energy use and emissions according to transport mode (van Wee et al, 2005) Ideally, all calculations would take into consideration the direct and indirect energy use/emissions for each mode, however, this is not usually the case, making it difficult to compare modes

18. Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions – Full life cycle  Direct and Indirect Emissions (considering the full life cycle) -Direct – ‘ tailpipe ’ emissions -Indirect – energy used in the production of vehicles and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure – often quite significant (see figure below) -Inconsistencies in what is included for the various modes making it difficult to undertake a ‘ like for like ’ comparison. Energy Used in Different Life-Cycle Phases (Tolley and Turton, 1995)

19. Comparison of Modes CO2 – g/passenger km Plane (with RFI) Plane Train Coach Car 0100200300400500600700 Mode CO 2 (g/passenger km)

20. Intermodal Comparisons - What is required to make accurate comparisons?  Consistency in the way data is collected  Occupancy rates derived from actual passenger data for transport services/modes  Linked to this, clear information about the vehicle type, engine size, fuel type, energy generation  Comparisons between start and end points, ‘door to door’ (including use of other modes where appropriate, e.g. taxi/car/cycle to station or airport, realistic distances etc)  Understanding of the differences between locations/countries (demographics, culture, energy generation etc)  Full energy life cycle data (to include energy generation for electrically-propelled vehicles: rail, tram etc).  Monetary cost comparisons (fares, taxes, fees, vehicle purchase, insurance, maintenance, fuel, tolls and charges) – important to the end user  Journey time comparisons (including waiting and transfer times, congestion) – important to end user

21. http://directgov.transportdirect.info/

22. Future Applications for Carbon Calculations Multi-modal journey information incl. all modes and companies Benchmarking for companies Full-life cycle information on materials and products Better monitoring for (local) governments

23. Conclusions  To tackle climate change transport has to be tackled  Broad variety of calculation are needed for different purposes  Standards and approved methodologies are required  Comparing modes is needed for better sustainable decisions  Common understanding needs:- -More work -Agreement across sectors

25. Page  25 Thank you Carbon Calculators Presented by Holger Dalkmann Group Manager – 02/10/2008 Tel: 01344 770279 Email: hdalkmann@trl.co.uk