Framework for Robust, Multi-stakeholder Choices

In the prior section, we provided our first cut at what the key transitional and end-point issues would be for the immediate group of stakeholders involved in the auto/fuel component of our society. These issues tie into a much broader set of economic, environmental, and societal issues. The second phase of this project will focus on trying to elucidate these issues by actual involvement of stakeholder representatives to address the following issues along a time line extending out, say, fifty years. We have planned a meeting at MIT in October 2000 to engage representative stakeholders in a first cut at defining the issues and developing a methodology.

First it is important to define a general long-term objective, which might be along the following lines:

Finding robust pathways to future personal transportation options that are: • Widely acceptable and affordable to the public (locally and

globally)

• Environmentally responsible (toward zero emissions – and with minimal depletion of non-renewable –or non-substitutable – resources, including land)

• Without unduly disruptive transient economic and institutional impacts (both in the transport sector and more broadly)

• On a path to a sustainable global communication and transportation architecture

Subsequent meetings with stakeholder groups would be used to further modify or refine the general objective and the major bounding constraints. We would start with US stakeholder groups and then apply the methodology, if feasible, to other parts of the world.

• What are the particular issues of concern and how are they ranked in

importance to each representative stakeholder group?

o Essential factors

o Desired factors

o Adverse factors

o Unacceptable factors

• What are the interactions and interconnections with the other major

5-27

• How do the major technology pathways fit the particular stakeholder

concerns?

• How does the stakeholder value short term economic benefits and longer term

environmental or societal gains? (This provides a measure similar to risk taking or risk aversion in decision models.)

• How does the stakeholder value (monetize?) new technology?

Next we would explore potential methodologies for a strategic framework. Perhaps a decision analytical or systems dynamics model could be used to describe the interactions and feedbacks. Perhaps some techniques from game theory could be used to explore the interactions. Of course, all the alternatives are subject to growing uncertainty in cost and performance as technologies are projected out into the future. Therefore, some measures of probability of technological success and costs that incorporate uncertainty will be needed. At this point, a clear methodology is not apparent since this is a non-linear, complex problem fraught with uncertainty and behavioral variables that are perhaps even more uncertain than the technological predictions. However, we see Phase 2 of this project as the start of the exploration of an important issue that may spawn additional research and creative thinking about this challenge.

If the world decides that we need to reduce GHG emissions significantly, there are many alternatives that could be considered. Uncertainties in our knowledge about the

consequences of our emissions on climate make it difficult to know how major an action is needed and on what time scale. Some reductions can be achieved now at fairly low cost, but it is important to keep a longer-range view in mind before making major infrastructure

investments that are inconsistent with longer-term goals and options. Figure 5.4 presents a preliminary cartoon of what future options may be from a Year 2000 perspective. As you look at this figure, imagine what someone in 1900 might have sketched in guessing at our technologies and life style today. There will be many surprises over the next century; this is a first guess. However, a framework of this sort may be useful in making short term decisions about major changes that will establish transportation sector infrastructure lasting many decades.

In the developed world, we have become accustomed to a life style that is largely fueled by our relatively inexpensive and plentiful fossil reserves. Developing countries also have considerable reserves of fossil fuel and plan to use these to facilitate their development. In the absence of GHG concerns, it is likely that fossil fuel use would continue to grow along with global development. Local pollution problems would be resolved as living standards increased globally. Eventually, depletion of reserves might become an issue, but the rate at which new reserves are being accessed through technological improvements puts depletion concerns at least decades in the future.

However, GHG concerns are causing a reexamination of our unlimited use of fossil fuels. The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was ratified by the UN members in 1994 and included a commitment to:

5-28

“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. “

While the Kyoto Protocol sets target reductions in GHG emissions for Annex 1 countries (the developed countries), it remains unratified. Some industries and governments are trying to meet goals voluntarily, but so far the only significant GHG reductions since 1990 have been associated with areas that have undergone economic collapse. There still is much uncertainty about the issues of climate change and the appropriate timing and extent of mitigating

actions. However, the options that seem available to reduce emissions in a world of growing energy demand, include efficiency improvements, decarbonization of the fuel supply, and changes in our usage of energy. If required, the least costly and disruptive of these options will be applied first – then options that involve more change in infrastructure and technology – and finally those that are very expensive or require major changes in life style.

With increasing global population and a growing number of megacities, mobility and personal transportation demands will continue to grow. Urban population densities will require the availability of concentrated fuel sources – if they are to be met by renewable energy sources, the footprint of energy collection outside the urban area will need to be greatly larger than the urban area itself.

Figure 5.4 examines some of the possibilities and their implications for the future. Over the next century, there will be technological and environmental surprises that will modify this picture. However, it is important to start thinking about the possibilities and challenges ahead and their implications for the future of transportation as we know it today. In the next phase of this project, we hope to expand our understanding of frameworks and options for the future.

5.7 Conclusions

The results of this study depend importantly on the methodologies and assumptions we chose. The following broad conclusions apply to specific combinations of technology as used in mid-size passenger cars operated over traditional urban/highway driving cycles. All our quantitative results are subject to the uncertainties expected in projecting 20 years into the future, and those uncertainties are larger for rapidly developing technologies like fuel cells and new batteries.

• A valid comparison of future technologies for passenger cars must be based on life

cycle analysis for the total system, which includes assessment of fuel and vehicle manufacture and distribution in addition to assessment of vehicle performance on the road.

5-29

Figure 5.4 Decision Options for a Sustainable Mobility Future: Some Preliminary Thoughts

Driver Response Consequences Typical Life-style

Oil World High personal mobility & consumption

Natural Gas World Moderate mobility – reduced consumption

Electric world

Consumption based on electricity supply cost Renewables World Frugal Consumption

2020 2050 2100 ??

Notes: 1.Time line for action shortens with faster climate change 2. New environmental or social issues (e.g., depletion, social equity) can cause down shift 3. New technology can cause new options – changes up or down in consumption? 4. Equity for developing countries increases rate of change

4. Ultimate zero emissions transport fuels seem to be electricity or hydrogen. Making hydrogen from emission free electricity involves some energy loss;