Choosing between Global and Local Emission Control Strategies in Urban Transport Sector, Which way to go?
AbstractCities are engrossed with response strategies for the control of local pollution from transport sector. However, as the transport sector has been growing as major GHG contributor, and there is an increasing scope for investment and support from the international financial institutions, cities often get into confusion on whether to go by local emission control strategies (LEMS) or adopt GHG mitigation strategies (GEMS). This paper presents a comparison between GHG mitigation strategies and local emission control strategies and their potential in controlling non-target pollutant emissions in concurrence with their economic performance. Comparative analysis based on multiple constraint optimization model for Mumbai transport system planning for the next 20 years and incremental cost analysis had revealed that strategies targeting the mitigation of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) could also reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (as non-target emission) and vice-versa. Co-benefits of emission reduction from local emission control strategies are higher compared to that of GHG mitigation strategies. In the incremental cost analysis, both GHG mitigation strategies and local emission control strategies were found performing comparably. Thus, local emission control strategies with better emission reduction potential and also better local acceptance are more favourable than GHG mitigation strategies in long term transportation planning. Therefore, it is recommended that the development projects in urban transportation planning and management may consider local emission control strategies rather than GHG mitigation strategies. The co-benefits (CO2 reduction) of local emission control strategies would still play the attraction for international funding agencies to invest in transport sector and also for CDM opportunities.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by East Asian Bureau of Economic Research in its series Development Economics Working Papers with number 22352.
Date of creation: Jan 2007
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: JG Crawford Building #13, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, ACT 0200
Web page: http://www.eaber.org
More information through EDIRC
Co-benefits; GHG mitigation; incremental cost analysis; local emission control; transportation planning; total suspended particulates;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
- Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Michaelis, Laurie & Davidson, Ogunlade, 1996. "GHG mitigation in the transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(10-11), pages 969-984.
- Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian & Andersson, Bjorn A., 2003. "Global energy scenarios meeting stringent CO2 constraints--cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 961-976, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shiro Armstrong).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.