Print this page

Published: 22 September 2014

‘Low-car diet’ could save trillions of $$$ and megatons of CO2


A global 40 per cent cut in urban passenger transport emissions would save more than US$100 trillion in cumulative public and private spending, and eliminate 1700 megatons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050, according to a new report. Instead, more people would use public transport, walking and cycling.

Around 1.4 million early deaths associated with transport pollution could be avoided annually if national leaders committed to a global policy roadmap of strong vehicle pollution controls.
Around 1.4 million early deaths associated with transport pollution could be avoided annually if national leaders committed to a global policy roadmap of strong vehicle pollution controls.
Credit: Cyclotourist under CC BY-NC 2.0

The US-based report was carried out by researchers at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) Institution of Transportation Studies and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP).

The authors say an estimated 1.4 million early deaths could be avoided annually by 2050 if governments mandate the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels.

‘Transportation, driven by rapid growth in car use, has been the fastest growing source of CO2 in the world, says Michael Replogle, an ITDP co-author.

‘An affordable, but largely overlooked, way to cut that pollution is to give people clean options to use public transportation, walking and cycling, expanding mobility options especially for the poor and curbing air pollution from traffic.’

The report’s authors calculated CO2 emissions in 2050 under two scenarios: business-as-usual, and a ‘high-shift’ scenario. In the latter, governments would significantly increase rail and clean bus transport, especially Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and help urban areas provide infrastructure to ensure safe walking, bicycling and other active forms of transportation.

The projections also include moving investments away from road construction, parking garages and other ways that encourage car ownership.

Under the high-shift scenario, not only would CO2 emissions plummet, but the net financial impact of this shift would be an enormous savings over the next 35 years, covering construction, operating, vehicle and fuel-related costs. Further, mass transit access is projected to more than triple for the lowest income groups and more than double for the second lowest groups. The overall mobility evens out between income groups, providing those more impoverished with better access to employment and services that can improve their family livelihoods.

‘Unmanaged growth in motor vehicle use threatens to exacerbate growing income inequality and environmental ills, while more sustainable transport delivers access for all, reducing these ills,’ noted Replogle.

‘This report's findings should help support wider agreement on climate policy, where costs and equity of the cleanup burden between rich and poor are key issues.’

Exposure to vehicle tailpipe emissions is associated with increased risk of early death from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, as well as respiratory infections in children. Car and diesel exhaust also increases the risk of non-fatal health outcomes, including asthma and cardiovascular disease.

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) has evaluated the impacts of urban travel by cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses on the number of early deaths from exposure to soot emitted directly from vehicle tailpipes.

‘Future growth in vehicle activity could produce a four-fold increase in associated early deaths by 2050, even with a global shift to mass transit,’ said ICCT's Joshua Miller, a contributor to the transport emissions study.

‘We could avoid about 1.4 million early deaths annually if national leaders committed to a global policy roadmap that requires the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels.’ He says cleaner buses alone would account for 20 per cent of these benefits.

Source: UC Davis







Published: 4 July 2011

Assured sustainability reporting – navigating obligations

Nick Fleming

As the way in which organisations address environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues comes under increasing scrutiny, sustainability reporting is gathering importance and momentum. Yet reporting must be seen as a product of sustainable business practices, not the focus of it.

Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Credit: iStockphoto

While sustainability reporting is new territory for some organisations, many leading businesses have been engaged in reporting for over a decade. Indeed, sustainability reporting is typically one of the first vehicles for engagement with the topic and issues of sustainability, often at the encouragement of a few passionate staff.

However, the call for greater organisational accountability and transparency is growing. An increasing number of shareholder resolutions are placing pressure on company boards to ensure they are effectively identifying, disclosing and addressing ESG risks. Institutional investors are already using ESG data to differentiate firms and guide investment decisions.1

Powerful customers are also forcing their suppliers to become more transparent. The classic example is Walmart, which launched a supplier sustainability initiative in July 2009. Locally, Woolworths recently announced its own Sustainable Fish Sourcing Strategy.2

There is also an expectation for assurance. This reflects a stakeholder desire for reports to be relevant, reliable and free from bias, while the reporting organisation wishes to build a case for lower costs for finance and insurance. This all takes time and money; reporting can be a costly exercise and carries risks.

The banking sector provides an insight to the challenges posed by sustainability reporting. In Australia, banks have typically lead sustainability reporting and have performed well against international benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Yet this year, the big four banks have been publically criticised over their involvement with coal-fired power stations.3 People ask how an organisation that receives sustainability accolades can also finance environmental pollution. This questions the connectivity between sustainability reporting and governance.

Scrutiny is also being applied by the regulators. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has prosecuted cases against companies such as GM Holden and Prime Carbon for overstating their ‘green’ credentials. It’s clear that inaccurate communication on ESG matters presents serious risks to an organisation’s reputation – and that of the rating or assurance agency.

These issues have been behind recent reviews of reporting guidelines and benchmarking methods.4,5 The reviews found that ratings and reporting tend to be backward-looking measures of compliance with ‘good practice’, failing to enable a meaningful assessment of an organisation’s ability to create and sustain value, in the short and longer term.

What’s lacking is adequate interrogation and reporting of the strategic capabilities and the core competencies required to underpin business continuity and delivery of sustainable outcomes; that is, a truly sustainable enterprise.

However, the push for integrated financial and non-financial (sustainability) reporting may offer a silver lining – the trigger to focus conversations among executives and boards about the things that will drive genuine business continuity, profitability and sustainability. Without these conversations, there will neither be the understanding, focus nor commitment to cultivate truly sustainable enterprises.

The adage ‘What gets measured gets managed’ remains true; as does ‘It’s what you do, not what you say, that counts’. Reporting without subsequent actions to manage risks and create value is meaningless, and arguably harmful.

While there are growing market and stakeholder pressures for integrated reporting of financial and ESG matters, reporting should only be entered into with an eye on:

  1. material business risks

  2. core competencies for organisational continuity

  3. a core set of meaningful performance measures that offer real insight

  4. integrating reporting into governance

  5. commitment to real action in response to identified risks and opportunities.

Organisations that assume this approach take sustainability reporting beyond a ‘nice?to?have’ PR exercise to a ‘must?have’ business improvement tool. It’s a factor in the superior financial performance demonstrated by ethical and sustainable organisations. Getting it right is good for business – and good for communities.

Dr Nick Fleming is Chief Sustainability Officer Sinclair Knight Merz, leading the application of sustainability thinking in business operations and client services. Through his Sustainable Enterprise column, Nick provides insight to how businesses and organisations are effectively putting sustainability theory into practice.


1 Ernst & Young (2011). Shareholders press boards on social and environmental risks. tinyurl.com/social-environmental-risks
2 tinyurl.com/sustainable-fish
3 Greenpeace (2011). Pillars of pollution. www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/GI-profundo.php
4 Eccles RG, Cheng B, Saltzman D (Eds) (2010). The landscape of integrated reporting: reflections and next steps. Harvard Business School. tinyurl.com/integrated-reporting
5 SustainAbility (2011). Rate the raters: uncovering best practices. www.sustainability.com/library/rate-the-raters-phase-one




ECOS Archive

Welcome to the ECOS Archive site which brings together 40 years of sustainability articles from 1974-2014.

For more recent ECOS articles visit the blog. You can also sign up to the email alert or RSS feed