As the European Union begins its debate on how to remove carbon emissions from the transport sector, it could do worse than look across the pond to see how the United States is dealing with the issue. While often derided for its resistance to emission-reducing measures, the US nonetheless has a few key pointers that are worth picking up.

The United States is widely seen by Europeans as an example of how not to tackle climate change: the US Congress was never close to ratifying the Kyoto Treaty, former President George W Bush only reluctantly accepted that climate change was man-made, and the US is by far the most polluting nation in the world per capita, with a particular appetite for gas-guzzling cars. And yet, when it comes to transport emissions and congestion, there are still some lessons to be learned from the US.

For an idea of how the US can actually set a global example, look at the six-year $556 billion transport plan unveiled by President Barack Obama in February, as a way to boost U.S. economic competitiveness and spur job growth. While cutting other spending, Obama aggressively accelerated efforts to upgrade aging roads, bridges, introduce a $53-billion high-speed rail service with the package, and provide $119 billion (a 127% raise) for public transportation. The total is 60% richer than the last transportation blueprint enacted by Congress, which expired in 2009. Obama’s has long seen rail as an area of opportunity for creating jobs and improving the nation's transportation system. In addition, the President is calling for what is being described as “setting historic new fuel economy standards” that will raise the average fuel economy for passenger vehicles - including a push for vehicles with more advanced fuel technologies (hybrid, electric).

So what does this mean? According to David Burwell, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment, this is a hugely ambitious program and represents a massive change in transport priorities for Washington. Speaking at a debate in Brussels hosted by Edelman/The Centre, and co-organised with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Burwell said the Obama proposals – if confirmed by Congress – would go some way to addressing the environmental consequences of the American model of cheap oil and free roads. He said that underlying the proposals were explicit links between transport policy and low carbon goals, including a bonus system to reward states that tie transport to the environment. It is also ambitious because it looks at the US as a single market in a way that the EU does not: while the Trans-European Networks (TENs) aim to deal with Europe’s overall priorities, the national barriers between member states still represent an impediment to decision-making.

But while this could represent a huge step for the US, Burwell had some words of caution. He noted that $336 billion – or 60% of the overall six-year transport budget – would still be devoted to highways. This, he pointed out, was mainly thanks to long overdue infrastructure repairs: the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates it will cost more than $2 trillion to bring roads, bridges, and other infrastructure to a state of good repair. “That large figure for highways is almost exclusively ‘fix-it-first’ money,” Burwell said. “In the US, we build but don’t plan, and in Europe we plan but don’t build.”

The US approach earned praised at the Edelman/The Centre debate from Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s Director General for Mobility and Transport. Reute pointed out that both Europe and America shared similar challenges, but different political climates. The Commission, of course, unveiled its own White Paper on Transport in March 2011, which includes the aim to halve the EU’s use of conventional cars in cities by 2030, and insist all vehicles used in EU cities ought to be powered by low-emission technologies by 2050.

Reute explained that there were a number of drivers for the Commission proposals, including the fact that the EU’s internal market had now made transport more efficient, and that innovation had changed the scope for low emissions. Yet while Europeans are much more active users of rail networks for travel, Reute noted that the US is far more advanced when it comes to rail freight. “Europe is not so good in rail freight,” he said. “We want to develop rail freight corridors in Europe.”

While he called for more discussion Reute said he wanted a “more realistic” debate on transport, and in particular end the “sterile” discussion on modal shift. “Let’s look at the reality: our agenda is a reduction in the use of oil and in emissions while not affecting the ability of people to move,” he said. “We need to ensure that transport remains a growth engine.” That aim is at the heart of both the European and American strategies. And while they have their differences, there are enough fresh ideas in each to provide some inspiration for one another.

Europe has long considered itself a global leader in climate change issues, and the February EU summit in Brussels looked how far energy policy could be overhauled. But after a hefty debate on various measures to revamp infrastructure and improve efficiency, are EU leaders ready to take the plunge on alternative fuels for transport and other energy users?

Despite the ever-volatile Euro crisis and the street protests in Egypt, it was energy that was the headline issue for the European Union’s one-day summit in Brussels on February 4. The so-called ‘Energy Summit’ was aimed at addressing a number of issues: the EU’s dependency on foreign fuel, often from unpredictable partners (like Russia and the Middle East); rising European and world energy use; the incomplete internal energy market which allows semi-monopolistic national markets; deteriorating infrastructure; and emissions cuts. It’s a heavy agenda, but EU leaders have recognized that energy efficiency - in whatever form – is critical for Europe’s economic and environmental future.

This debate on energy has a huge impact on transport. Fuel is a key expense for all transport modes, which have an interest in seeing costs cut, while securing supply. And transport is a contributor to greenhouse gases, and is under pressure to find ways to cut its emission, notably through alternative fuels.

The EU’s 20-20-20 goal set in 2008 calls for a 20% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020, compared with 1990 levels; a 20% increase in the share of renewables in the energy mix; and a 20% cut in energy consumption. But how will that happen?

The summit heard that huge investment is needed to modernize Europe's energy infrastructure: about €1 trillion over the next 10 years, the European Commission says. The aim of this investment is to make the EU's diverse economies more joined up, to reduce their reliance on imported oil and gas and to increase the share of renewables in the energy mix.

The difficulty for the EU is that it has not yet agreed on how to deploy alternatives to oil on a sufficient scale to meet its objectives. Progress towards a greener, more energy-efficient Europe is painfully slow, and the economic downturn has not only forced governments to cut budgets, but hampered many companies hoping to get credit from banks. Governments and consumers are slow to embrace energy-efficient technology.

If Europeans could become more energy-efficient then the pressure on decreasing resources would be eased and greenhouse gas missions would also decline. Yet the Commission had a bleak message on that front. Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger earlier published a progress report on plan to get 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020, saying spending on renewable energy had to double to €70 billion per year if the EU is to meet its targets. He also revealed that EU member states had largely failed to meet the intermediary electricity and transport targets they had set themselves for 2010.

However, if this sounds like a heavy burden, there were more uplifting messages from the private sector. The week before the summit, a major panel of industry and environmental experts declared that transport in the EU could be free of the need to use oil as its basic fuel by 2050 if governments and business invest enough in alternative sources now. The Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels - including automotive manufacturers' association ACEA the European Petroleum Industry Association, Greenpeace and WWF -looked at ways of replacing oil-based fuels with new, sustainable alternatives. Brought together by the Commission, it noted that oil “is currently expected to reach depletion on the 2050 perspective,” but said the expected future energy demand in transport “can most likely not be met by one single fuel,” which could mean, for example, a mixture of electric cars for short commutes, hydrogen power for medium distances, biofuels for long distances and aviation, electric railways and nuclear or liquid-gas powered ocean-going transport.

Separately, a declaration by 20 European energy companies and associations - including Enel, EON, GE Energy, Siemens, and Vattenfall – called on EU leaders to create a single market in electricity. It said a properly functioning European market in electricity would have many benefits: increased competition leading to lower electricity prices; improved security of supply; and the possibility to reap the full advantages of fuel-free, pollution-free renewables.

It is worth mentioning that another declaration was issued at the same time by more than 200 companies, as well as 30 MEPs, the WWF, the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, and the European Wind Energy Association called for a 100% renewable target by 2050 for European energy policy. While this may seem a far-fetched ambition compared to the other targets, the fact that it was being made suggests that momentum is building for more alternative energy sources.

The summit itself ended with a commitment to a broad sweep of market reforms, linking national and regional electricity grids and gas pipelines by 2014 to allow power to circulate freely and cheaply, from those who produce it and have surpluses to those who don't and need it.  This could have another impact on transport too, if the hoped-for surge in electric and hybrid vehicles takes place, as the summit called on the Commission to develop strategies for financing an overhaul of the energy grid, as well as standards for charging electric cars.

It all adds up to a huge challenge, which will have to take place on many fronts, and over a long timescale. But it is something that everyone in the transport sector needs to follow closely.

Many people blame the road sector for climate change, citing its trucks and buses with their fuel-thirsty engines. However, the International Road transport Union (IRU), which represents hauliers and coaches, says it has been unfairly cast as the villain in the debate about global warming. In fact, says the IRU’s General Delegate to the EU Michael Nielsen, the road sector represents only a tiny fraction of emissions, and is making huge efforts to cut its share down.

Trucks provide a potent symbol of global warming for the man on the street: even after years of technical innovation, the sound of the engine, the smell of the exhaust, and the sight of the fumes all combine to conjure an impression of planet-heating emissions. But is this fair or even accurate? Not according to the road sector. The International Road transport Union (IRU), which represents road freight and passenger transport, says it has been unjustly tarred as the worst offender whenever political leaders debate climate action.

“We’re an easy target. We’re very visible. We’re somebody, people imagine, they do not need,” says Michael Nielsen, who heads the IRU’s representation to the EU. He is well aware of the charges laid at the IRU’s door. After all, greenhouse-gas emissions from transport in Europe have been going up – by 27% between 1990 and 2006, and on current trends, with no offsetting policies, emissions from transport would be 74% higher in 2050 than in 1990, according to a report by AEA Technology.

But Nielsen insists that these figures should be put in perspective. He points out that some 30-35% of greenhouse gases are caused by transport, and just 3-5% is caused by heavy goods vehicles. “That’s not a lot,” he says. “And if you look at the burning of oil, which is causing the greenhouses, 72% is caused by fixed installations today, for heating or electricity, for example. But that’s quite invisible. So it is a lot easier to say transport is the cause.”

Indeed, Nielsen argues that not only does the road sector use far less oil than generally assumed, but it needs it more. He says the road sector is currently 100% dependent on oil and has no other economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, yet oil – a finite resource - is still is wasted on stationary applications such as heating, electricity or paper production, where economically viable alternatives to oil exist.

His defense of the road sector is part of the IRU’s attempt to overhaul its image. “We want to remove the perception of road transport as cruel and evil,” Nielsen says, pointing out that road transport carries more than 70% of EU trade by volume and more than 90% by value. “We want to show people the service we provide and let them know what would happen if we were not around.”

Indeed, one IRU publication last year, entitled ‘A Week Without Truck Transport’, outlines what would happen to a country if road haulage was grounded: food supplies would run out, hospitals would be without medicine, fuel would not be delivered, waste would pile up, schools would close, and the entire economy and community would effectively shut down. And Nielsen points to the recent phenomenon of low CO2 zones sprouting up. “They did it recently in a small Danish city, but the first reaction they got was from the fire chief saying they would not be able to put out any fires in that zone because none of their fire trucks complied. That goes to buses and coaches as well as haulage,” he says.

There have been attempts to force a modal shift in transport, mainly from road to rail, but Nielsen says forcing the pace creates incentives for other modes without having the right infrastructure in place to handle the traffic. “We have instead to make sure the various modes to work together better. We need railways to liberalize, creating more options for competition,” he says.

Last October, EU transport ministers agreed a revised ‘Eurovignette’ scheme which would set special emissions and noise fees for heavy goods vehicles. “The Eurovignette made us a scapegoat,” Nielsen says, calling the scheme a simple tax rather than an environmental measure. “Private cars also emit pollutants – why are they not included?” He says the IRU will continue to lobby against it, as it passes the European Parliament’s second reading.

As for emissions, Nielsen accepts that road transport contributes, but he insists that it is doing its part to address it. “We don’t mind doing something to reduce carbon dioxide,” he says. “We represent the operators, not the manufacturers, and every litre of diesel saved is money in the bank for us. We recently adopted a resolution where we committed to save 30% of CO2 by 2030.”

What can the IRU actually do, then? Nielsen says the organization has put pressure on manufacturers so they develop new vehicles – not so much that they meet the new Euro-norms, but focus on fuel efficiency. The IRU’s Danish member published a brochure in 2009 with the Danish Chamber of Commerce outlining the transport sector’s climate plans, that includes 49 suggestions to save fuel, from aluminium wheel rims to synthetic oil, spoilers and cruise control. Nielsen also calls on infrastructure operators to help, for example by ensuring that asphalt offers low-rolling resistance. And authorities can help by letting people know when there is free-flowing traffic. “We ourselves can do a lot too, training our drivers to drive in an eco-friendly manner, and we have an academy for this,” Neilsen says.

The IRU also wants to change road logistics. “We can carry more with less,” Nielsen says. “Airlines do that with the Airbus 380, container ships do that with longer vessels, railways do that with longer trains. We want to do that with modular vehicles. Some call them monster trucks, but we think of them as environmentally friendly trucks. If the European Modular Concept is allowed, there will be fewer vehicles on the road, as you would with one truck be able to carry three seven-meter containers instead of two. There is a lot of commotion with this, even though it seems acceptable when the other modes do it. So it tells you something about the image we have to work with.”

Photo © IRU: Michael Nielsen