Commentary by Tessa R. Salazar
We know it’s urgent and long overdue. But change, especially on a global scale, takes time. In fact, the more drastic the change, the longer the time it’ll take.
Take, for instance, the change from one energy source to a completely different one. It took almost all of the 19th century before biofuels like wood were replaced by fossil fuels (mainly coal) as the major global energy source. The reason the change takes that long is that, when the energy source becomes the dominant supply, an entire infrastructure is built around it—infrastructure that serves to produce, refine, market, and distribute it. And then you need to formulate the public policies, regulations, and legislature needed to legitimize the production, use, and sale of that energy source. So, when a new and supposedly better source of energy comes along, well, it’s not enough to just throw that product into the socioeconomic mix. The entire process must be undertaken again.
So, even as clean energy is supposedly the way towards clearing up our emissions woes, we can’t hasten this change more than can be safely—and properly—done. This isn’t, and cannot, be an overnight transition.
However, though the change may require some time (hopefully not a century like the transition from biofuels to fossil fuels), that doesn’t mean the change can only come from one source. From a policy perspective, Earth Policy Institute president Lester R. Brown wrote in his book “World on the Edge,” that carbon emissions can be cut by systematically raising world energy efficiency, by restructuring transport systems, and by shifting from burning fossil fuels to tapping the earth’s wealth of wind, solar, and geothermal energy.
“The transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy can be driven primarily by tax restructuring: Steadily lowering income taxes and offsetting this reduction with a rise in the tax on carbon.”
Complicating the future
Brown said that further complicating our future is that the world may be reaching peak water at more or less the same time that it hits peak oil.
Fatih Birol, chief economist with the International Energy Agency, has said: “We should leave oil before it leaves us.”
Brown added, “If we can phase out the use of oil quickly enough to stabilize climate, it will also facilitate an orderly, managed transition to a carbon-free renewable energy economy. Otherwise we face intensifying competition among countries for dwindling oil supplies and continued vulnerability to soaring oil prices. And with our recently developed capacity to convert grain into oil (that is, ethanol), the price of grain is now tied to that of oil. Rising oil prices mean rising food prices.”
Governments and societies are doing what they can to help humanity ease less painfully into this new way of fossil fuel-less living. In Copenhagen, for instance, citizens and visitors are being offered a single digital subscription service that makes it easy for users to travel by multiple modes: Bus, metro, train, bike share, car share and taxi. In Nordhaven, a new development in the city, urban planners are creating the “five-minute city,” where car traffic is minimized by making shopping, day care, and other essentials all readily available within a five-minute walk.
“Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet,” written by climate experts Owen Gaffney and Johan Rockstrom, reported that Denmark has plans to be independent of fossil fuels by 2050. “If Copenhagen succeeds by 2025, we think the Danish transformation will come significantly earlier than this. Maybe by 2040 or even 2035,” wrote the authors.
But can the Copenhagen example be applied to the Asian setting? Gaffney and Rockstrom reveals, “There are more than 425,000 electric buses in China today. China cities account for 99% of the global fleet of electric buses. Opposite Hong Kong on the Chinese mainland, Shenzhen, a city of 12 million people, operates the largest electric bus fleet in the world. With more than 16,000 vehicles, the city’s buses are 100% electric. Taxis will soon follow suit. If you happen to visit a university in Beijing in the early morning, when students are hurrying to lectures, what really strikes us is the silence. Why? Well, transport is now dominated by electric mopeds.”
Gaffney and Rockstrom predict that cities will change much faster than most predictions show. “They are on exponential, not incremental, trajectories, and we have reached an inflection point.” They cited cities like Copenhagen as showing the world that transformation is good for innovation, health, jobs, pollution, happiness and well-being. Other cities will not want to be left behind, they said.
“In 2019, when we were in New York for the United Nations Climate Summit, we found the most efficient way to get around the city was by bike. Hiring a bike is cheap, simple, and fast. We sailed through the gridlock, in contrast to previous visits when we dreaded even thinking about traveling around the metropolis,” they wrote.
Private cars perpetuate the illusion that using them would make travel in the cities faster. In fact, many congested cities around the world have shown that, by using alternative means of transport other than cars, these cities are actually pedestrian-friendly. I myself have walked in the streets of Paris, Prague, Salzburg, Innsbruck, Geneva and in urban Asian settings such as Singapore, Tokyo and Chiang Mai, and have experienced how easy it is to go from one destination to another without using a private car.
Metro Manila, the capital of my native country, leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the use of alternative modes of transport, as well as the adoption of new-energy vehicles for both private and public transport. Buses and jeepneys, in particular, are the furthest behind in new-energy adoption.
Metro Manila can learn a thing or two from the Chinese experience. In many of China’s largest cities, air pollution from the proliferation of fossil fuel-powered transport has become such a serious health problem that 12% of deaths in China have been attributed to indoor and outdoor air pollution. John Doer—in his book “Speed & Scale: An Action Plan for Solving Our Climate Crisis Now”—cited how the rise of BYD, a manufacturer in the city of Shenzhen on China’s central coast, shows how far a green company can go when savvy entrepreneurship gets rewarded with government support.
Doer wrote that under BYD founder and chief executive Wang Chuanfu’s climate action leadership, BYD responded by developing electric buses at the same time as its budget-priced compact car. The company has eventually succeeded in taking thousands of diesel-powered buses off China’s roadways.
“The story of China’s e-bus market shows how public policy can accelerate innovation and adoption. To overcome limited battery life and a shortage of charging stations, the government channeled more than $1 billion in grants and subsidies to BYD, alongside financial incentives to EV consumers. The company has grown into a centerpiece of Beijing’s $50-billion bid to become the world leader in electric vehicles, a core component of the ‘Made in China 2025’ strategic plan. Shenzhen, with a population of 13 million, boasts a fleet of 100% e-buses and e-taxis and is closing in on 100% e-delivery vehicles,” said Doer.
Can the “BYD magic” work in the public transport sector in the Philippines, now that the Chinese EV maker has signified its seriousness to be a major player in the local automotive market, and partnering up with the one of the country’s oldest (and most capital-rich) conglomerates? Here’s hoping they see this hard-to-miss opportunity, and act on it, as soon as possible.
Above photo shows the electric-powered BYD SkyRail, a straddle-beam monorail system (Photo by bydglobal.com)