sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Transport<br />
Figure 6<br />
Transport related CO 2 emission<br />
'000 tonnes<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
BL<br />
MB<br />
AF<br />
IT<br />
IM<br />
1990/91<br />
1995/96<br />
1998/99<br />
2000/01<br />
2005/06<br />
2010/11<br />
Table 4 summarizes the magnitude <strong>of</strong> energy savings <strong>and</strong> reduction in emission <strong>of</strong> local air<br />
pollutants <strong>and</strong> CO 2 in 2010/11 under each alternate option compared to the BL result. Then for<br />
each option, relative ranks are assigned depending upon the magnitude <strong>of</strong> total energy savings,<br />
total reductions in weighted toxicity emissions <strong>and</strong> the reduction in CO 2 emissions.<br />
Table 4<br />
Ranking <strong>of</strong> alternate options in Delhi in 2010/11: energy savings <strong>and</strong> emission<br />
reduction<br />
Scenario description Fuel dem<strong>and</strong> Weighted CO 2 emission<br />
emission <strong>of</strong> local<br />
pollutants<br />
mtoe Rank '000t Rank '000t Rank<br />
Baseline 1678 - 513 - 4901 -<br />
More bus (20.9) 1 2 (20.7) 2 (20.7) 1<br />
Alternative fuel (29.1) 1 (63.3) 1 (14.3) 2<br />
Improved technology (9.1) 4 (8.8) 4 (8.9) 4<br />
Inspection <strong>and</strong> maintenance (15.2) 3 (39.9) 3 (15.2) 3<br />
1 Figures in parentheses denote the reduction potential in percentages under each option<br />
Considering the assumptions under each option, augmentation <strong>of</strong> public transport appears to be<br />
the most attractive measure in terms <strong>of</strong> meeting the local <strong>and</strong> global environmental agenda for<br />
implementation in Delhi, along with the introduction <strong>of</strong> cleaner fuels like CNG, propane <strong>and</strong> use<br />
<strong>of</strong> electricity for battery operated vehicles. It is interesting to note that even though the results<br />
contained in Table 4 are purely illustrative, by <strong>and</strong> large the rank order <strong>of</strong> different options<br />
considered here would likely to remain unchanged with changes in data input assumptions, given<br />
the large variation in the energy-emission results under each option.<br />
It may however be noted that there are limitations to a strategy focussed primarily on<br />
technological improvements, such as fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency gains can themselves induce<br />
an increase in vehicle-kilometres travelled by lowering the cost <strong>of</strong> travelling, which may be<br />
sizeable enough to <strong>of</strong>fset the reduction in emissions per vehicle-kilometre. The strategy towards<br />
reducing the total travel dem<strong>and</strong> has been discussed earlier in considerable detail.<br />
178
Change language