PDF: 9795 KB - Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional ...

Chapter 5 | Projection and estimation uncertainties
• related emissions from additional sources, such as military transport or energy
use for commodity movements by pipelines (where Australian military fuels plus
the energy consumption to operate major oil and gas pipelines probably account
for a further 2–4 per cent of aggregate transport emissions)
• any of a wide range of additional life cycle emissions, from sources associated
with transport vehicle use and transport infrastructure provision (e.g. emissions
from energy used in vehicle construction, repairs and disposal; evaporative
losses from service stations; road and rail-track construction, maintenance and
signal operation; energy consumption due to railway stations and airports). BITRE
estimates of the emission add-on for such full system cycle effects are in the order
of a further 15 per cent (BTCE 1995a).
Choosing the most reasonable method for allocating international transport
emissions between the various countries involved in international trade is a very
controversial and complicated question, which has already been at the centre of
many policy debates (for some background to this issue see Faber et al. 2007, Aviation
and maritime transport in a post 2012 climate policy regime).
The current targets under the Kyoto Protocol do not cover international transport
emissions, and existing NGGI guidelines do not require the inclusion of emissions
from fuel use by international vessels or aircraft within the national CO 2
equivalent
totals, though emissions from those international craft consuming fuel purchased
in Australia are reported separately to the national domestic totals (see Tables 2.5
and 2.8 for BITRE time series estimates and projections of this component of total
international fuel use).
This standard jurisdictional allocation used currently for international transport (i.e.
based on the amount of fuel uplifted or bought within the country) probably serves
to understate a properly equitable share of Australian emissions, since the bulk
of fuel consumed by international shipping involved in Australian trade is bought
overseas. On the other hand, allocating all fuel used by international craft both into
and out of Australia (see Tables 2.4 and 2.7 for consumption estimates) would grossly
exaggerate a suitable national allocation. As an indicative estimate of the relative
importance of international transport’s contribution to aggregate sector totals (i.e.
for demonstration purposes, and not necessarily suggested as a suitable allocation
mechanism), Table 5.2 also gives FFC estimates that include half of the emissions
due to total fuel use by international shipping and aviation travelling to and from
Australia. This will still tend to overstate Australia’s share of international transport
emissions (since a proportion of international travel will involve several ports-of-call
during the full voyage), but should be closer to a balanced allocation than purely
country of fuel uplift.
Referring to Table 5.2, the BITRE base case estimates of total CO 2
equivalent emissions
(direct and indirect effects) for Australian transport sector fuel use (civil transport
energy use on a full fuel cycle basis, including the international transport allocation)
are approximately 149 million tonnes for 2007, around 74 per cent higher than the
domestic end use totals given in Table 5.1, and are projected to grow to around 185.5
million tonnes by 2020 (76 per cent higher than the 2020 domestic energy end use
estimates). These calculations are done on the assumption that the indirect GWP
unit values derived for the domestic aviation estimates are also valid for international
aviation.
81