Skip to main content

Regional Transport will up CO2 emissions dangerously in the East

For Rupert's Readers, from the good people at Transition Norwich:
 


EEDA has just published an important study – the first of its kind in the UK called East of England Transport and Carbon Study: Assessing transport's contribution to a low carbon economy in the East of England. The study was undertaken by Atkins in collaboration with the University of Aberdeen. The findings ought to ring alarm bells and if taken seriously by decision makers, should lead to a radical reassessment of regional transport policies.
 
 The main findings are:

·   In 2007 road transport emissions in the East of England accounted for almost 33 per cent of local CO2 emissions

·  under Business as Usual, (planned growth in population etc), the region's transport sector CO2 emissions will grow a further 33% between 2006 and 2031 if no other action is taken.  
 
This huge growth goes in completely the opposite direction of what is required. The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (on 1990 levels).  EEDA's Regional Economic Strategy commits the East of England to reducing emissions by 60% across all sectors by 2031.  
 
The study assessed three carbon reduction scenarios. Even under a radical Scenario 3 "The national and regional shift", (includes pricing, strong investment in behavioural change, walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure and changes to land use planning practices), emissions would only fall by 27% on 2006 levels. This would take the region's transport sector emissions back to below 1990 levels, but it wouldn't achieve a 60% cut on 1990 levels. Other sectors would have to take a bigger cut.      
 
Please take the time to read http://www.eeda.org.uk/files/TRACS_Executive_Summary.pdf  circulate to colleagues.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more