Search

Global transportation energy use is steeply rising, mainly as a result of increasing population and economic activity. Petroleum fuels remain the dominant energy source, reflecting advantages such as high energy density, low cost, and market availability. The movement of people and freight makes a major contribution to economic development and social well-being, but it also negatively impacts climate change, air quality, health, social cohesion, and safety. Following a review published 20 years ago in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources (then named the Annual Review of Energy and the Environment) by Lee Schipper, we examine current trends and potential futures, revising several major global transport/energy reports. There are significant opportunities to slow travel growth and improve efficiency. Alternatives to petroleum exist but have different characteristics in terms of availability, cost, distribution, infrastructure, storage, and public acceptability. The transition to low-carbon equitable and sustainable transport will take time but can be fostered by numerous short- and medium-term strategies that would benefit energy security, health, productivity, and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Land transportation pathways towards 1.5 °C scenario for 4 countries are presented. • The avoid/shift/improve approach is used to create a 1.5 °C scenario for each country. • Ambitious pledges in transportation will be necessary for updated countries' NDCs. • A 1.5 °C scenario will require the implementation of a wide range of policies and measures. • These will reflect commitments tovery low CO 2 vehicle technologies, energy systems, and travel patterns. Decarbonizing transportation in emerging economies will be one of the key challenges in global climate change mitigation efforts. In this paper, pathways are developed towards achieving a 1.5° degree scenario for land-transport for four emerging economies (Brazil, India, Kenya and Vietnam). The aim is to highlight the key opportunities and challenges for low-carbon transport in countries with rapidly growing mobility demand. The main focus of this paper is to reconcile actual and required emission reduction targets and develop plausible pathways to achieve these targets. The paper also identifies potential strategies and measures for these countries to follow these pathways. The analysis considers the contributions of "avoid" (cutting travel growth), "shift" (to lower CO 2 modes) and "improve" (vehicle and fuel CO 2 characteristics) interventions to decarbonisation scenarios. These scenarios aim to inform renewed Nationally Determined Contributions and shed light on the feasibility of deep decarbonisation pathways that would be in line with the Paris Agreement. Results from this study show that achieving 1.5DS would require dramatic changes in travel patterns, technology and fuels, and major intensification of current policy approaches. Decarbonization solutions will need to include greater use and investment of efficient modes, major shifts toward near-zero carbon fuels such as clean electricity, systems integration, modal shift and urban planning solutions. Although the socio-economic situations and national transport systems differ between the selected countries, some fairly similar strategies appear likely to be core to the mitigation effort, such as rapid growth in light- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification and investments in public transit systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving a truly sustainable energy transition requires progress across multiple dimensions beyond climate change mitigation goals. This article reviews and synthesizes results from disparate strands of literature on the coeffects of mitigation to inform climate policy choices at different governance levels. The literature documents many potential cobenefits of mitigation for nonclimate objectives, such as human health and energy security, but little is known about their overall welfare implications. Integrated model studies highlight that climate policies as part of well-designed policy packages reduce the overall cost of achieving multiple sustainability objectives. The incommensurability and uncertainties around the quantification of coeffects become, however, increasingly pervasive the more the perspective shifts from sectoral and local to economy wide and global, the more objectives are analyzed, and the more the results are expressed in economic rather than nonmonetary terms. Different strings of evidence highlight the role and importance of energy demand reductions for realizing synergies across multiple sustainability objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]