4.7 Article

How to slash greenhouse gas emissions in the freight sector: Policy insights from a technology-adoption model of Canada

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111093

Keywords

Freight; Simulation model; Climate policy; Zero emission vehicle; Low carbon fuel standard; ZEV mandate; Carbon tax; Goods-movement

Funding

  1. Community Trust Endowment Fund (C rh.F) of Simon Fraser University
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada
  3. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Freight or goods-movement transportation accounts for 6% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 10% of emissions in our case study of Canada - mostly from heavy-duty trucks. Little research has explored the types of policies needed to achieve 2050 GHG mitigation goals in the land freight sector, i.e., 80% reductions from 2005 levels. We use a behaviourally-realistic technology-adoption model (CIMS-Freight) to simulate the GHG impacts of several climate policies, individually and in combinations, on the land freight sector (trucking and rail). Results indicate that current policies in Canada (including standards and carbon pricing) will not achieve GHG reduction targets for this sector - in fact, emissions continue to rise. Further, no individual policy has a high probability of achieving 2030 or 2050 GHG targets, including more stringent versions of the carbon tax, fuel efficiency standards, low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), or a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate for trucks. Finally, we identify several policy combinations that have a high probability of achieving 2050 goals, in particular a stringent ZEV mandate for trucks complemented by a stringent LCFS. While other effective policies and policy combinations are possible, Canada's present and proposed policies are not stringent enough to reach deep GHG targets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available