Very nice! Consider adding embedded carbon in vehicle production (not to mention the infrastructure needed to move them). Also, with reducing emissions, rate of change matters as much or more than final target. Some demand side measures that reduce VMT, like higher fuel prices, can work quite rapidly, whereas energy supply and vehicle fleet transitions take time. Also, IPCC has noted that without deep energy demand reduction, a wider range of technologies, including unproven ones like carbon capture and storage, will be needed to achieve mitigation targets.
Tom - thanks for the thoughtful comment. Agree on trying to wrap our heads around embodied energy in the production of vehicles. It's a missing piece of most practical analyses of this problem.
Useful framework - thanks for sharing! I think adding a 'weighting' to each variable can help show where to focus. To the point you made in the Boston post - the last variable (CO2/energy) is by far the largest lever.
It certainly can be, but I think there are some strong views on which variable is the most 'important'. The Avoid-Shift-Improve puts things like electrification 'last' in the hierarchy, while as you say most published plans on the issue tend to show much more impact from changes in car technology than anything else.
Very nice! Consider adding embedded carbon in vehicle production (not to mention the infrastructure needed to move them). Also, with reducing emissions, rate of change matters as much or more than final target. Some demand side measures that reduce VMT, like higher fuel prices, can work quite rapidly, whereas energy supply and vehicle fleet transitions take time. Also, IPCC has noted that without deep energy demand reduction, a wider range of technologies, including unproven ones like carbon capture and storage, will be needed to achieve mitigation targets.
Tom - thanks for the thoughtful comment. Agree on trying to wrap our heads around embodied energy in the production of vehicles. It's a missing piece of most practical analyses of this problem.
Useful framework - thanks for sharing! I think adding a 'weighting' to each variable can help show where to focus. To the point you made in the Boston post - the last variable (CO2/energy) is by far the largest lever.
It certainly can be, but I think there are some strong views on which variable is the most 'important'. The Avoid-Shift-Improve puts things like electrification 'last' in the hierarchy, while as you say most published plans on the issue tend to show much more impact from changes in car technology than anything else.