| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
125857
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
California's overarching mandate to achieve 1990 levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in 2020 (AB 32, 2005), and the ensuing recent regulations (SB 375, CEQA updates) require local and regional governments to assess GHG mitigation policies, including on-road transportation. The regulations do not make cost-effectiveness a primary criteria for choosing measures but cost remains important to a variety of stakeholders.
This communication summarizes results from GHG and cost analysis for seven actual San Diego County road transportation policies: telecommute, vanpools, a bicycle strategy, an increase in mass transit use, parking policies (parking pricing, preferred parking for electric vehicles), an increased local fuel tax and speed harmonization (signal re-timing, roundabouts). Net costs are calculated as the sum of direct costs and benefits to the administering agency, the employer and the individual. Net costs per metric ton GHG abated vary greatly across measures, from negative to high positive (more than US $1000). We find that local GHG cost cannot be sensibly compared to other carbon or GHG policy costs outside the local context for a variety of reasons, but especially because measures have not been adopted primarily for carbon or GHG abatement potential or on the basis of cost effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
150464
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many cities are implementing policies and climate action plans. Yet local climate policies suffer from a lack of scientific understanding and evaluation methods able to support the definition of efficient mitigation strategies. The purpose of this paper is to build on classical approaches in the energy policy field that exist at the national and international level to propose an urban MACCs methodology able to fulfill this lack and inform local debates. The methodology is an extension of static “expert-based” MACCs; it combines a land use transport integrated model and an abatement cost methodology that integrates co-benefits, and takes into account the spatial and systemic dimensions of cities. The methodology is implemented for the transportation sector of a mid-sized European city (Grenoble, France). Our results present the cost-effectiveness and political feasibility of several proposed measures. We find that the inclusion of co-benefits can profoundly change the cost-benefit assessment of transport mitigation options. Moreover we underline the key parameters determining the cost-effectiveness ranking of mitigation options. These urban MACCs aim to serve as a bridge between urban planning and mitigation policies and can thus contribute to strengthen and align sustainable and climate change agendas at the local level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|