Blog

Much has been made of rising aspirations of the middle class in developing countries, with the implication that this must mean literally hundreds of millions of cars — and hundreds of millions of tonnes of oil use and a resulting CO₂ emissions increase. Last month the Asian Development Bank held its first “Transport Week,” hosting key stakeholders from most Asian nations from Turkey eastward, including several pacific island states. Not surprisingly sessions on CO₂ attracted a large audience on the first day. At the next big confab, “Better Air Quality ‘08” in Bangkok, in November about 1,000 Asian experts and decision makers are expected to develop policies and techniques to transform the discussion into real policies to change how Asia develops.

Getting real stakeholders to the table is the only way to clear the air and reduce CO₂ emissions from transport. With the lack of any real initiative matching the national level programs in the US, engaging the leaders of nations representing close to three billion people in Asia may be a more viable strategy since, with few exceptions, Asia has only started to bury itself in CO₂-intensive development — yet. But time is short. The exceptions — the hopelessly snarled mega-cities of the continent — are attracting more and more people to perennial gridlock. Since so few people in Asia own cars, it may not be too late to change course.

I was asked to prepare much of the background material on such a strategy, based on my 20 years working in India, China and Viet Nam, as well as Mexico and other developing countries. Common wisdom is that unless Indians, Chinese, and everyone else get cars they won’t have the same opportunities of mobility we had as we developed.

In fact those opportunities are already lost. Traffic in almost all large Asian cities has ground to a polluting halt, even when only one trip in 10 is made by car or taxi (versus eight in 10 in the US and six in 10 in Europe). Beijing, where only drastic action kept the streets (but not the air) clear for the Olympics, is the most current example of the mess in Asian cities. Manila, where this meeting is being hosted, and Bangkok, where the next key meeting will be — and everywhere else (except Singapore) — is non functional. Even with millions of gasoline or electric two-wheelers darting in and out, life on wheels is slow, smelly, and dangerous. Fatalities-per-mile-traveled in Asia is much higher than in the US or Europe, and those killed are almost as likely to be pedestrians or cyclists ad those traveling in vehicles. As the small minority of travelers who are car users take most of the oil and road space, everyone else whether on foot, pedaling, or on buses, get slowed down even more. Since most travel in Asia is outdoors — foot, pedals, two-wheelers, or buses with open windows — the pollution is “in your face.” In fact, the air is almost as deadly as the streets since everyone (not just travelers) breathes it in all of the time.

What a surprise, then, when the Honorable Minister Shri Jaipal Reddy, Minister of Urban Development in India pointed to the unsustainability of the present patterns of transport in India, not to mention the forecasted boom in cars there and elsewhere in Asia. He got full bragging rights for the Nehru Urban Renewal Mission, which has made billions of dollars available for strong urban transport systems — principally for bus rapid transit and, where appropriate and affordable, underground and surface rail. The challenge was repeated by ADB’s Manmohan Parkash, who also pointed to the impossibility of trends in car use and oil consumption. Adding a single car to the streets of Asian cities slows everyone down and no one wins. And while studies on Beijing showed the effectiveness of the traffic shutdown during the Olympics, no one has figured out how to make the improvements permanent.

Can national and local authorities, together with private initiative, change the situation? The fact that over a half billion new urban residents are expected in Indian and Chinese cities by 2030 says “maybe.” With good land use planning, congestion pricing, and fast transit systems complemented by walkable and cycle-able neighborhoods, the utility of private cars could become marginalized before growth in use of those cars for a minority marginalizes the mobility of the majority.

The implications of this change for CO₂ emissions is enormous. My own work suggest that this double-barreled approach of land use planning and transport infrastructure (including disincentives to car use) might cut growth in oil use and CO₂ by 50-75% over the present trends — i.e., lead to only a doubling of emissions by the 2020-2030 decade. (A recent summary of China’s situation I prepared for the US Congress China Commission can be found here. Work on Viet Nam and India will emerge shortly elsewhere.). Mexico City made this dramatic shift in the past five years and the changes impressed Asian observers. This kind of change breaks the carbon-transport link more than any other step that can be taken. And the transport community of Asia — including the lenders at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and major NGOs — understand this. The rising share of local air pollution from transportation is also an impetus for thinking about better transport and cleaner fuels.

The key point is that neither CO₂ nor oil is the main driver of this change in thinking, rather it is the prospect of shorter travel times, safer journeys, healthier lungs, less noise and walkable streets. Above all, authorities realize that the necessary actions will raise the cost of using individual vehicles while reducing the space on the roads these can use. Just putting more buses on the street and railcars underground alone won’t clean up the mess. At the same time this will raise the capacity and speed of existing space to move more people more comfortably on public transport or under their own power. If they pull this off the world will be that much better off because of the restrained growth in oil demand and CO₂ emissions.

You don’t need to “reduce” CO₂ you have not yet emitted. You do need to develop livable cities. And if Asia pulls it off, maybe we can learn from them.