WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.455 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:02.455 --> 00:00:03.437 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:03.437 --> 00:00:05.892 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:05.892 --> 00:00:10.307 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.307 --> 00:00:11.640 align:middle line:90% DAVID HSU: My name is David Hsu. 00:00:11.640 --> 00:00:14.850 align:middle line:84% I'm a Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT. 00:00:14.850 --> 00:00:18.120 align:middle line:84% This is another installment of my class on Urban Energy 00:00:18.120 --> 00:00:19.740 align:middle line:90% Systems and Policy. 00:00:19.740 --> 00:00:20.877 align:middle line:90% Thank you for joining me. 00:00:20.877 --> 00:00:22.710 align:middle line:84% Today, we're going to give the third lecture 00:00:22.710 --> 00:00:24.810 align:middle line:84% on transportation, and I'm going to talk 00:00:24.810 --> 00:00:26.700 align:middle line:90% about transportation systems. 00:00:26.700 --> 00:00:29.010 align:middle line:84% In the first lecture, we talked about transportation 00:00:29.010 --> 00:00:31.970 align:middle line:84% technologies from a personal transport standpoint. 00:00:31.970 --> 00:00:33.720 align:middle line:84% We used that to build up our understanding 00:00:33.720 --> 00:00:35.460 align:middle line:90% of the technologies involved. 00:00:35.460 --> 00:00:38.850 align:middle line:84% In the last class, I talked about policy analysis 00:00:38.850 --> 00:00:41.520 align:middle line:84% and how to analyze transportation systems. 00:00:41.520 --> 00:00:44.040 align:middle line:84% We talked about it mostly on an equity basis. 00:00:44.040 --> 00:00:47.760 align:middle line:84% Today, I want to talk about it on an efficiency basis and use 00:00:47.760 --> 00:00:50.580 align:middle line:84% efficiency to talk about what cities can do, 00:00:50.580 --> 00:00:54.390 align:middle line:84% what cities can do to affect a transportation system that 00:00:54.390 --> 00:00:56.640 align:middle line:84% is governed at the local level, but also, 00:00:56.640 --> 00:01:00.570 align:middle line:84% the regional, state, and federal level, also. 00:01:00.570 --> 00:01:02.720 align:middle line:84% So the materials for today are on the syllabus. 00:01:02.720 --> 00:01:04.470 align:middle line:84% I'm going to spend most of my time talking 00:01:04.470 --> 00:01:07.590 align:middle line:84% about fourth bullet point, which was not a reading I assigned 00:01:07.590 --> 00:01:08.550 align:middle line:90% for this class. 00:01:08.550 --> 00:01:12.100 align:middle line:84% It's a report by Cambridge Systematics and the Urban Land 00:01:12.100 --> 00:01:12.600 align:middle line:90% Institute. 00:01:12.600 --> 00:01:14.580 align:middle line:84% It's titled, "Moving Cooler, an Analysis 00:01:14.580 --> 00:01:17.070 align:middle line:84% of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 00:01:17.070 --> 00:01:18.120 align:middle line:90% Emissions." 00:01:18.120 --> 00:01:21.330 align:middle line:84% I'll tell you a little bit why I didn't assign it as a reading, 00:01:21.330 --> 00:01:23.830 align:middle line:84% but at the same time, I'll spend most of the lecture talking 00:01:23.830 --> 00:01:28.590 align:middle line:84% about it, so you won't necessarily find this lecture-- 00:01:28.590 --> 00:01:30.600 align:middle line:84% or it's not a part of our assigned reading, 00:01:30.600 --> 00:01:32.790 align:middle line:84% but I encourage you to listen to the video lecture 00:01:32.790 --> 00:01:34.498 align:middle line:84% because there's things I want to pull out 00:01:34.498 --> 00:01:38.050 align:middle line:84% of that lecture for class discussion on Thursday. 00:01:38.050 --> 00:01:40.780 align:middle line:84% Just to remind you, what can cities do? 00:01:40.780 --> 00:01:42.235 align:middle line:84% Why is that an important question? 00:01:42.235 --> 00:01:44.110 align:middle line:84% I'll remind you that we're focusing on cities 00:01:44.110 --> 00:01:45.710 align:middle line:90% because of population. 00:01:45.710 --> 00:01:47.920 align:middle line:84% Majority of human beings globally 00:01:47.920 --> 00:01:50.950 align:middle line:84% and in almost all countries or all regions of the world 00:01:50.950 --> 00:01:52.480 align:middle line:90% live in cities. 00:01:52.480 --> 00:01:55.000 align:middle line:84% With that population, we have a very high degree 00:01:55.000 --> 00:01:56.740 align:middle line:90% of economic activity. 00:01:56.740 --> 00:01:59.200 align:middle line:84% And of course, cities are centers of consumption. 00:01:59.200 --> 00:02:02.590 align:middle line:84% While we do have cities that produce energy and materials 00:02:02.590 --> 00:02:05.360 align:middle line:84% and goods, in general, in urban areas, 00:02:05.360 --> 00:02:08.620 align:middle line:84% we consume things from the outside, like food, 00:02:08.620 --> 00:02:10.605 align:middle line:90% like materials, like fuels. 00:02:10.605 --> 00:02:11.980 align:middle line:84% And so our cities are our centers 00:02:11.980 --> 00:02:13.770 align:middle line:90% of consumption, not production. 00:02:13.770 --> 00:02:16.270 align:middle line:84% And so we have to think about the role of cities 00:02:16.270 --> 00:02:19.300 align:middle line:84% in reducing consumption to achieve our decarbonization 00:02:19.300 --> 00:02:20.710 align:middle line:90% goals. 00:02:20.710 --> 00:02:22.240 align:middle line:84% This raises questions about how we 00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:24.370 align:middle line:84% are going to make the necessary changes in cities. 00:02:24.370 --> 00:02:27.220 align:middle line:84% We know that cities are composed of the land use and the built 00:02:27.220 --> 00:02:28.330 align:middle line:90% environment. 00:02:28.330 --> 00:02:30.640 align:middle line:84% I've just made the point to you that cities 00:02:30.640 --> 00:02:32.470 align:middle line:90% are connected to outside areas. 00:02:32.470 --> 00:02:37.030 align:middle line:84% Basically, all outside areas, we import materials, foods, 00:02:37.030 --> 00:02:38.810 align:middle line:90% and fuel into cities. 00:02:38.810 --> 00:02:40.600 align:middle line:84% So how do we think about changing 00:02:40.600 --> 00:02:45.150 align:middle line:84% cities, or what can cities do in a larger transportation system? 00:02:45.150 --> 00:02:47.940 align:middle line:84% And we also know that while urban life seems 00:02:47.940 --> 00:02:50.730 align:middle line:84% very fast-paced, we also know that buildings 00:02:50.730 --> 00:02:55.020 align:middle line:84% and the shape of cities are also long-lived, durable, 00:02:55.020 --> 00:02:57.400 align:middle line:90% and seemingly slow to change. 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:00.990 align:middle line:84% So the question is, can we make changes at the urban scale 00:03:00.990 --> 00:03:02.880 align:middle line:90% fast enough or broadly enough? 00:03:02.880 --> 00:03:06.093 align:middle line:84% Who's going to do it and how are we going to make these changes? 00:03:06.093 --> 00:03:08.010 align:middle line:84% And of course, from an efficiency perspective, 00:03:08.010 --> 00:03:10.320 align:middle line:84% we have to ask, what should we do first 00:03:10.320 --> 00:03:13.380 align:middle line:84% to try to achieve better environmental sustainability 00:03:13.380 --> 00:03:16.020 align:middle line:90% or decarbonization? 00:03:16.020 --> 00:03:18.060 align:middle line:84% And I just want to emphasize that a lot 00:03:18.060 --> 00:03:20.550 align:middle line:84% of the characteristics we are concerned about in cities 00:03:20.550 --> 00:03:22.800 align:middle line:84% or why we think cities are harder to change quickly 00:03:22.800 --> 00:03:25.230 align:middle line:84% are similar characteristics to infrastructure. 00:03:25.230 --> 00:03:28.050 align:middle line:84% To put it simply, infrastructure is really big. 00:03:28.050 --> 00:03:30.810 align:middle line:84% It is also a long-lived, durable, and seemingly slow 00:03:30.810 --> 00:03:32.190 align:middle line:90% to change. 00:03:32.190 --> 00:03:34.080 align:middle line:84% Infrastructure is really expensive. 00:03:34.080 --> 00:03:36.510 align:middle line:84% It's composed a lot of assets and investment. 00:03:36.510 --> 00:03:40.650 align:middle line:84% It's often debt financed over long periods of time. 00:03:40.650 --> 00:03:42.600 align:middle line:84% It's debt financed over long periods of time 00:03:42.600 --> 00:03:45.180 align:middle line:84% because infrastructure is assumed to operate 00:03:45.180 --> 00:03:46.680 align:middle line:90% on a fairly continuous basis. 00:03:46.680 --> 00:03:48.720 align:middle line:90% We move large volumes of things. 00:03:48.720 --> 00:03:50.730 align:middle line:84% We have continuous operations, and they 00:03:50.730 --> 00:03:52.890 align:middle line:90% connect to global systems. 00:03:52.890 --> 00:03:55.680 align:middle line:84% In other words, our supply chains that we have seen 00:03:55.680 --> 00:03:58.140 align:middle line:84% stressed over the last couple of years. 00:03:58.140 --> 00:03:59.790 align:middle line:84% We know that infrastructure physically 00:03:59.790 --> 00:04:03.790 align:middle line:84% has very large footprints and areas and impact. 00:04:03.790 --> 00:04:06.300 align:middle line:84% And we know that we have environmental justice concerns. 00:04:06.300 --> 00:04:08.670 align:middle line:84% The Bullard article, I think, quite convincingly 00:04:08.670 --> 00:04:11.430 align:middle line:84% argues that infrastructure, such as transportation, 00:04:11.430 --> 00:04:12.607 align:middle line:90% is often cited-- 00:04:12.607 --> 00:04:14.190 align:middle line:84% apologies for that misspelling there-- 00:04:14.190 --> 00:04:17.100 align:middle line:84% cited near poor and minority communities. 00:04:17.100 --> 00:04:19.320 align:middle line:84% The article examines why, but also, 00:04:19.320 --> 00:04:21.390 align:middle line:84% examines why the environmental burdens 00:04:21.390 --> 00:04:25.200 align:middle line:84% of these infrastructures are quite often cited 00:04:25.200 --> 00:04:28.152 align:middle line:84% near poor and minority communities. 00:04:28.152 --> 00:04:29.610 align:middle line:84% One last thing I want to talk about 00:04:29.610 --> 00:04:32.580 align:middle line:84% before we talk about analyzing transportation systems 00:04:32.580 --> 00:04:34.560 align:middle line:84% and understanding what cities do is 00:04:34.560 --> 00:04:36.420 align:middle line:90% the concept of energy density. 00:04:36.420 --> 00:04:38.880 align:middle line:84% We know that energy can be measured 00:04:38.880 --> 00:04:41.640 align:middle line:84% in terms of the sheer amount of energy, 00:04:41.640 --> 00:04:43.980 align:middle line:84% but more useful for certain kinds of systems, 00:04:43.980 --> 00:04:45.640 align:middle line:84% it's good to analyze certain metrics. 00:04:45.640 --> 00:04:47.550 align:middle line:84% So in terms of weight, we might think 00:04:47.550 --> 00:04:50.220 align:middle line:84% about how much energy certain technologies store, 00:04:50.220 --> 00:04:52.650 align:middle line:84% like kilowatt hours per kilogram. 00:04:52.650 --> 00:04:55.440 align:middle line:84% Critical applications are planes, cars, and e-bikes, 00:04:55.440 --> 00:04:57.510 align:middle line:84% because we know the batteries themselves 00:04:57.510 --> 00:04:59.820 align:middle line:84% or the fuel tank is a really large portion 00:04:59.820 --> 00:05:01.770 align:middle line:90% of the vehicle weight itself. 00:05:01.770 --> 00:05:03.540 align:middle line:84% It's hard to keep planes in the air. 00:05:03.540 --> 00:05:07.200 align:middle line:84% A heavy car or heavy bicycle doesn't perform similarly 00:05:07.200 --> 00:05:09.822 align:middle line:84% to a lighter bicycle or a lighter car. 00:05:09.822 --> 00:05:11.280 align:middle line:84% We can also measure things in terms 00:05:11.280 --> 00:05:14.250 align:middle line:84% of energy required to ship a certain amount of weight, 00:05:14.250 --> 00:05:16.050 align:middle line:90% kilowatt hours per ton. 00:05:16.050 --> 00:05:18.810 align:middle line:84% That matters for planes, but also, ships, trucks, 00:05:18.810 --> 00:05:20.010 align:middle line:90% and trains. 00:05:20.010 --> 00:05:23.340 align:middle line:84% We can measure energy in terms of kilowatt hours per liter 00:05:23.340 --> 00:05:25.800 align:middle line:84% of volume in terms of the fuel tank. 00:05:25.800 --> 00:05:29.370 align:middle line:84% Planes, cars, trucks, you know that the fuel tank is not 00:05:29.370 --> 00:05:33.170 align:middle line:84% a small portion of the vehicle volume. 00:05:33.170 --> 00:05:35.690 align:middle line:84% And of course, we can measure how much freight volume we can 00:05:35.690 --> 00:05:38.810 align:middle line:84% move for large amounts of commodities in planes, ships, 00:05:38.810 --> 00:05:40.220 align:middle line:90% trucks, and trains. 00:05:40.220 --> 00:05:43.070 align:middle line:84% We can measure energy in terms of land area. 00:05:43.070 --> 00:05:46.280 align:middle line:84% For example, the kilowatt hours produced per acre, let's say, 00:05:46.280 --> 00:05:47.000 align:middle line:90% biomass. 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:49.130 align:middle line:84% We can go-- we're going to need biomass to produce 00:05:49.130 --> 00:05:52.655 align:middle line:84% liquid fuels and hydrogen. Or kilowatt hours per acre 00:05:52.655 --> 00:05:56.150 align:middle line:84% to generate solar and wind, producing electricity. 00:05:56.150 --> 00:05:57.830 align:middle line:84% And finally, there's the energy density 00:05:57.830 --> 00:06:02.490 align:middle line:84% of-- energy density per money, or kilowatt hours per dollar. 00:06:02.490 --> 00:06:04.865 align:middle line:84% We obviously need to know that for pretty much everything 00:06:04.865 --> 00:06:08.090 align:middle line:84% to deploy different technologies. 00:06:08.090 --> 00:06:10.460 align:middle line:84% This brings us to the Moving Cooler strategy report. 00:06:10.460 --> 00:06:12.620 align:middle line:90% It was written in 2009. 00:06:12.620 --> 00:06:16.400 align:middle line:84% It was written by this entire group of different agencies 00:06:16.400 --> 00:06:19.160 align:middle line:84% and environmental groups, ranging from the American 00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:21.590 align:middle line:84% Public Transportation Association, the Intelligent 00:06:21.590 --> 00:06:23.150 align:middle line:84% Transportation Society of America, 00:06:23.150 --> 00:06:26.030 align:middle line:84% and the Shell Oil Company, to the Environmental Defense 00:06:26.030 --> 00:06:28.430 align:middle line:84% Fund, the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 00:06:28.430 --> 00:06:31.310 align:middle line:84% Administration, and the US Environment Protection Agency, 00:06:31.310 --> 00:06:33.657 align:middle line:84% and a few other groups and agencies. 00:06:33.657 --> 00:06:35.240 align:middle line:84% The key point is that this is actually 00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:36.830 align:middle line:90% a fairly unusual report. 00:06:36.830 --> 00:06:39.350 align:middle line:84% It was meant to bring together a lot of disparate groups 00:06:39.350 --> 00:06:42.530 align:middle line:84% to think about how to reduce greenhouse gas 00:06:42.530 --> 00:06:44.960 align:middle line:84% emissions in the transportation system, which 00:06:44.960 --> 00:06:46.820 align:middle line:90% is very much tied up to-- 00:06:46.820 --> 00:06:48.627 align:middle line:84% tied up with our urban life, which 00:06:48.627 --> 00:06:50.210 align:middle line:84% is why the Urban Land institute helped 00:06:50.210 --> 00:06:53.680 align:middle line:84% convene this report and workshop. 00:06:53.680 --> 00:06:55.660 align:middle line:84% And it's important to note why, I guess, 00:06:55.660 --> 00:06:57.400 align:middle line:84% I didn't assign it as reading this year. 00:06:57.400 --> 00:06:59.230 align:middle line:84% I've assigned it in previous years. 00:06:59.230 --> 00:07:01.780 align:middle line:84% It's a 2009 report, and, honestly, it 00:07:01.780 --> 00:07:03.700 align:middle line:84% gets very technical in places, so I decided 00:07:03.700 --> 00:07:04.957 align:middle line:90% not to assign it this year. 00:07:04.957 --> 00:07:06.790 align:middle line:84% But I want to highlight some of the findings 00:07:06.790 --> 00:07:08.362 align:middle line:90% in this video lecture. 00:07:08.362 --> 00:07:10.570 align:middle line:84% It's important to note what the report does have that 00:07:10.570 --> 00:07:12.100 align:middle line:90% makes it a really good report. 00:07:12.100 --> 00:07:14.290 align:middle line:84% It does have a consideration of telework 00:07:14.290 --> 00:07:16.690 align:middle line:90% or less work days at the office. 00:07:16.690 --> 00:07:19.810 align:middle line:84% Now, we know, after two years of Zoom, this is possible, 00:07:19.810 --> 00:07:21.910 align:middle line:84% and perhaps, even preferable now. 00:07:21.910 --> 00:07:24.940 align:middle line:84% It does include changes in vehicle technology, fuel 00:07:24.940 --> 00:07:28.630 align:middle line:84% technology, travel activity, vehicle system operations, 00:07:28.630 --> 00:07:30.760 align:middle line:84% and crucially, includes all different modes 00:07:30.760 --> 00:07:34.240 align:middle line:84% of transportation, passenger modes, transit modes, 00:07:34.240 --> 00:07:37.210 align:middle line:84% freight modes, shipping modes, to aviation modes. 00:07:37.210 --> 00:07:40.030 align:middle line:84% What it doesn't have: It's a 2009 report, 00:07:40.030 --> 00:07:42.310 align:middle line:84% but it doesn't actually have shared vehicles. 00:07:42.310 --> 00:07:45.670 align:middle line:84% Zipcar was the business model where you could share vehicles 00:07:45.670 --> 00:07:46.860 align:middle line:90% in your neighborhood. 00:07:46.860 --> 00:07:49.090 align:middle line:84% I think it has since been bought by Hertz. 00:07:49.090 --> 00:07:51.100 align:middle line:84% And I'm not sure if Hertz still offers 00:07:51.100 --> 00:07:53.830 align:middle line:84% the vehicle-based shared vehicles. 00:07:53.830 --> 00:07:55.810 align:middle line:84% The report written in 2009, which 00:07:55.810 --> 00:07:58.270 align:middle line:84% is the same year that Uber starts ride sharing, 00:07:58.270 --> 00:08:00.730 align:middle line:84% and Lyft follows three years later. 00:08:00.730 --> 00:08:02.680 align:middle line:84% It doesn't include autonomous vehicles. 00:08:02.680 --> 00:08:05.560 align:middle line:84% Arguably, autonomous vehicles may be a few more years 00:08:05.560 --> 00:08:07.030 align:middle line:90% off now than we think they are. 00:08:07.030 --> 00:08:08.530 align:middle line:84% But it also doesn't include the fact 00:08:08.530 --> 00:08:11.070 align:middle line:84% that electric vehicle costs have greatly decreased, 00:08:11.070 --> 00:08:13.600 align:middle line:84% that we're seeing increases in micromobility, 00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:15.820 align:middle line:84% like scooters and electric bikes. 00:08:15.820 --> 00:08:18.130 align:middle line:84% It does include bike sharing, which was 00:08:18.130 --> 00:08:20.540 align:middle line:90% started in Amsterdam in 1965. 00:08:20.540 --> 00:08:23.650 align:middle line:84% It was deployed at Portland, Oregon in 1995. 00:08:23.650 --> 00:08:27.560 align:middle line:84% And dockless bikes started being deployed in 1998. 00:08:27.560 --> 00:08:29.575 align:middle line:90% So this report has good aspects. 00:08:29.575 --> 00:08:32.590 align:middle line:90% It also lacks other aspects. 00:08:32.590 --> 00:08:34.809 align:middle line:84% It also considers performance outcomes. 00:08:34.809 --> 00:08:37.000 align:middle line:84% It does look at greenhouse gas reductions. 00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:40.039 align:middle line:84% It looks at the implementation costs, which is important. 00:08:40.039 --> 00:08:42.549 align:middle line:84% It looks at the change in vehicle costs required 00:08:42.549 --> 00:08:44.410 align:middle line:84% to achieve the performance outcomes, 00:08:44.410 --> 00:08:46.930 align:middle line:90% and it looks at equity effects. 00:08:46.930 --> 00:08:49.270 align:middle line:84% It doesn't necessarily look at travel times, 00:08:49.270 --> 00:08:52.330 align:middle line:84% one of the reasons why we care about transportation. 00:08:52.330 --> 00:08:54.250 align:middle line:84% Like in the pie graph before, we care 00:08:54.250 --> 00:08:56.350 align:middle line:84% about how fast these modes are, even if they use 00:08:56.350 --> 00:08:58.090 align:middle line:90% different amounts of energy. 00:08:58.090 --> 00:09:01.220 align:middle line:84% It does not, I think, look at the positive, 00:09:01.220 --> 00:09:04.090 align:middle line:84% which is if we would expand options, reduce congestion, 00:09:04.090 --> 00:09:06.880 align:middle line:90% or enable greater accessibility. 00:09:06.880 --> 00:09:08.950 align:middle line:84% It doesn't look at improving safety, which 00:09:08.950 --> 00:09:10.690 align:middle line:84% is something we care about in, let's say, 00:09:10.690 --> 00:09:12.400 align:middle line:90% our vision zero plans. 00:09:12.400 --> 00:09:14.680 align:middle line:84% And it does not include improvements 00:09:14.680 --> 00:09:17.470 align:middle line:84% in livability, equity, improved local environment quality, 00:09:17.470 --> 00:09:19.055 align:middle line:90% and enhanced public health. 00:09:19.055 --> 00:09:20.680 align:middle line:84% For example, I don't think it considers 00:09:20.680 --> 00:09:25.280 align:middle line:84% the impacts of air pollution on asthma or chronic pulmonary 00:09:25.280 --> 00:09:27.280 align:middle line:84% and heart disease, which we know are really 00:09:27.280 --> 00:09:30.430 align:middle line:84% big impacts of our transportation system now. 00:09:30.430 --> 00:09:34.720 align:middle line:84% But most important thing about this from a policy perspective 00:09:34.720 --> 00:09:36.280 align:middle line:84% for cities is that it does include 00:09:36.280 --> 00:09:37.990 align:middle line:84% many different strategies that cities 00:09:37.990 --> 00:09:40.360 align:middle line:84% can implement in various ways, and includes 00:09:40.360 --> 00:09:43.660 align:middle line:84% many kinds of pricing and taxes, ranging from parking pricing, 00:09:43.660 --> 00:09:46.090 align:middle line:90% to road or congestion pricing. 00:09:46.090 --> 00:09:49.310 align:middle line:84% It includes land use and smart growth policies, 00:09:49.310 --> 00:09:51.670 align:middle line:84% includes non-motorized transportation, 00:09:51.670 --> 00:09:54.190 align:middle line:84% includes improvements to public transportation, 00:09:54.190 --> 00:09:57.160 align:middle line:84% includes ride sharing and car sharing and other community 00:09:57.160 --> 00:09:57.980 align:middle line:90% strategies. 00:09:57.980 --> 00:10:00.430 align:middle line:84% I think they're referring mostly to carpooling, not 00:10:00.430 --> 00:10:01.780 align:middle line:90% to ride hailing services. 00:10:01.780 --> 00:10:04.180 align:middle line:84% But you can imagine that some of those results 00:10:04.180 --> 00:10:06.880 align:middle line:84% might extend to ride hailing services. 00:10:06.880 --> 00:10:09.820 align:middle line:84% Includes regulatory strategies, operational and intelligent 00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:11.560 align:middle line:84% transportation strategies, things 00:10:11.560 --> 00:10:13.780 align:middle line:84% that probably have expanded in the last 13 years 00:10:13.780 --> 00:10:16.090 align:middle line:84% since the report was written because the growth 00:10:16.090 --> 00:10:18.280 align:middle line:84% of telecommunications infrastructure. 00:10:18.280 --> 00:10:20.380 align:middle line:84% Just to put this in perspective, this report 00:10:20.380 --> 00:10:23.290 align:middle line:84% was written one year after the iPhone was introduced. 00:10:23.290 --> 00:10:26.080 align:middle line:84% And yet, we probably all use various mapping applications 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:28.960 align:middle line:84% on our phones every day now to figure out the quickest way 00:10:28.960 --> 00:10:31.250 align:middle line:90% to a certain place or to work. 00:10:31.250 --> 00:10:34.180 align:middle line:84% And finally, the capacity expansion bottleneck 00:10:34.180 --> 00:10:37.030 align:middle line:84% relief, multimodal freight sector strategies, 00:10:37.030 --> 00:10:39.280 align:middle line:84% I would argue, are things that, as urban planners, 00:10:39.280 --> 00:10:42.870 align:middle line:90% we don't look at very often. 00:10:42.870 --> 00:10:46.980 align:middle line:84% It also considers different levels of deployment. 00:10:46.980 --> 00:10:49.860 align:middle line:84% Expanded current practice focuses mostly 00:10:49.860 --> 00:10:51.750 align:middle line:90% on major metro areas. 00:10:51.750 --> 00:10:53.940 align:middle line:84% And aggressive level of deployment 00:10:53.940 --> 00:10:56.940 align:middle line:84% does this sooner and more broadly geographically deployed 00:10:56.940 --> 00:10:59.700 align:middle line:84% through smaller or medium-sized metro areas. 00:10:59.700 --> 00:11:03.310 align:middle line:84% And the maximum effort assumes the maximum national, regional, 00:11:03.310 --> 00:11:05.970 align:middle line:84% and local focus on trying to reduce greenhouse gas 00:11:05.970 --> 00:11:08.170 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:11:08.170 --> 00:11:10.110 align:middle line:84% Finally, they categorize these things 00:11:10.110 --> 00:11:11.550 align:middle line:90% into different strategy bundles. 00:11:11.550 --> 00:11:13.600 align:middle line:84% They look at near-term early results. 00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:15.390 align:middle line:84% They look at long-term maximum results. 00:11:15.390 --> 00:11:19.000 align:middle line:84% They look at land use, transit, and a non-motorized bundle. 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:21.060 align:middle line:84% And they look at a system driver-- 00:11:21.060 --> 00:11:23.370 align:middle line:84% system and driver efficiency bundle, 00:11:23.370 --> 00:11:25.980 align:middle line:84% a bundle that improves transportation facilities 00:11:25.980 --> 00:11:28.260 align:middle line:84% themselves, and finally, and importantly, 00:11:28.260 --> 00:11:30.600 align:middle line:84% a low-cost bundle, looking at what 00:11:30.600 --> 00:11:33.660 align:middle line:84% are the lowest cost things we can do to reduce greenhouse gas 00:11:33.660 --> 00:11:35.550 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:11:35.550 --> 00:11:37.700 align:middle line:84% So if you look at some of the results, 00:11:37.700 --> 00:11:40.040 align:middle line:84% they measure things against the study baseline. 00:11:40.040 --> 00:11:42.380 align:middle line:84% They do a sensitivity analysis according 00:11:42.380 --> 00:11:45.230 align:middle line:84% to different kinds of assumptions around fuel prices, 00:11:45.230 --> 00:11:48.650 align:middle line:84% vehicle miles traveled, an Obama administration proposal 00:11:48.650 --> 00:11:50.103 align:middle line:90% at the time. 00:11:50.103 --> 00:11:51.770 align:middle line:84% Crucially, though, and this is something 00:11:51.770 --> 00:11:53.353 align:middle line:84% that we found a little depressing when 00:11:53.353 --> 00:11:55.550 align:middle line:84% I taught this report in class, is 00:11:55.550 --> 00:11:57.230 align:middle line:84% that if you look at these six strategy 00:11:57.230 --> 00:12:00.650 align:middle line:84% bundles at the maximum and aggressive deployment levels, 00:12:00.650 --> 00:12:03.410 align:middle line:84% you can see that the most max, the maximum range 00:12:03.410 --> 00:12:06.260 align:middle line:84% full of national, regional, and local effort 00:12:06.260 --> 00:12:10.260 align:middle line:84% only gets this about a 24% reduction in greenhouse gas 00:12:10.260 --> 00:12:10.760 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:12:10.760 --> 00:12:12.920 align:middle line:90% The report was written in 2009. 00:12:12.920 --> 00:12:16.350 align:middle line:84% They had a 4% decline already baked in-- 00:12:16.350 --> 00:12:18.960 align:middle line:84% I assume, largely from vehicle efficiency standards. 00:12:18.960 --> 00:12:21.380 align:middle line:84% But if we do everything in the report that they analyze, 00:12:21.380 --> 00:12:25.280 align:middle line:84% which we'll talk more about, you only get to a 24% reduction. 00:12:25.280 --> 00:12:27.890 align:middle line:84% Of course, a 24% reduction in transportation, 00:12:27.890 --> 00:12:31.190 align:middle line:84% which is about 30% of our total greenhouse gas emissions, 00:12:31.190 --> 00:12:32.330 align:middle line:90% is not nothing. 00:12:32.330 --> 00:12:34.700 align:middle line:84% That's about a 7% or 8% reduction 00:12:34.700 --> 00:12:37.220 align:middle line:84% in our total greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. 00:12:37.220 --> 00:12:39.110 align:middle line:84% But obviously, a small drop in the bucket 00:12:39.110 --> 00:12:42.690 align:middle line:84% towards where we need to go in 2050. 00:12:42.690 --> 00:12:45.040 align:middle line:84% And if we just maybe highlight that again, 00:12:45.040 --> 00:12:47.040 align:middle line:84% you can see that the maximum level of deployment 00:12:47.040 --> 00:12:51.000 align:middle line:84% reduces millions of barrels per year by 11. 00:12:51.000 --> 00:12:54.630 align:middle line:84% Maybe 110 to 470 million barrels per year. 00:12:54.630 --> 00:12:58.810 align:middle line:84% But the consumption in the US is 5.7 million barrels per day. 00:12:58.810 --> 00:13:02.310 align:middle line:84% So in other words, this range is only about 19 or 82 days 00:13:02.310 --> 00:13:04.813 align:middle line:84% per year in the transportation system alone. 00:13:04.813 --> 00:13:06.480 align:middle line:84% These assumptions, of course, could have 00:13:06.480 --> 00:13:08.160 align:middle line:90% changed in the last 13 years-- 00:13:08.160 --> 00:13:10.350 align:middle line:84% the last 13 years, but I think this just 00:13:10.350 --> 00:13:13.680 align:middle line:84% highlights that transportation is a really hard to decarbonize 00:13:13.680 --> 00:13:15.390 align:middle line:90% sector. 00:13:15.390 --> 00:13:17.610 align:middle line:84% Now, there's one point that I want to make about all 00:13:17.610 --> 00:13:20.017 align:middle line:90% of these different strategies. 00:13:20.017 --> 00:13:21.850 align:middle line:84% And I think it's an important point to make. 00:13:21.850 --> 00:13:25.050 align:middle line:84% Which is, we can have these six different approaches 00:13:25.050 --> 00:13:27.180 align:middle line:84% to trying to reduce our greenhouse gas assumptions 00:13:27.180 --> 00:13:28.620 align:middle line:90% in this first column. 00:13:28.620 --> 00:13:31.590 align:middle line:84% They all have varying degrees of greenhouse gas reduction. 00:13:31.590 --> 00:13:33.750 align:middle line:84% They also have positive implementation costs. 00:13:33.750 --> 00:13:35.530 align:middle line:84% You can see they cost different amounts. 00:13:35.530 --> 00:13:39.960 align:middle line:84% The system and driver efficiency, perhaps, efforts 00:13:39.960 --> 00:13:41.760 align:middle line:90% are relatively expensive. 00:13:41.760 --> 00:13:44.850 align:middle line:84% The long-term maximum results and facility pricing 00:13:44.850 --> 00:13:46.230 align:middle line:90% are relatively expensive. 00:13:46.230 --> 00:13:48.210 align:middle line:84% But the point is all of the implementation 00:13:48.210 --> 00:13:51.540 align:middle line:84% costs are positive, but the changes in vehicle costs 00:13:51.540 --> 00:13:53.620 align:middle line:84% are all negative and much larger. 00:13:53.620 --> 00:13:57.850 align:middle line:84% Which is to say that vehicle costs in footnote B says, 00:13:57.850 --> 00:13:59.475 align:middle line:84% it's the estimated cumulative reduction 00:13:59.475 --> 00:14:01.410 align:middle line:84% in the cost of owning and operating 00:14:01.410 --> 00:14:03.960 align:middle line:84% vehicles from a societal perspective, which 00:14:03.960 --> 00:14:06.600 align:middle line:84% would result in reduction in vehicle miles traveled 00:14:06.600 --> 00:14:07.600 align:middle line:90% and fuel consumption. 00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:10.320 align:middle line:84% In other words, even though the implementation cost 00:14:10.320 --> 00:14:12.060 align:middle line:84% for all these strategies is positive, 00:14:12.060 --> 00:14:14.930 align:middle line:84% the change in vehicle costs is negative and much larger. 00:14:14.930 --> 00:14:16.680 align:middle line:84% Which means if you take the implementation 00:14:16.680 --> 00:14:19.110 align:middle line:84% costs minus vehicle costs, you can see, 00:14:19.110 --> 00:14:22.150 align:middle line:84% in almost all these cases, five out of six cases, 00:14:22.150 --> 00:14:26.100 align:middle line:84% we actually save a lot of money over the forecast 00:14:26.100 --> 00:14:28.470 align:middle line:90% for these different strategies. 00:14:28.470 --> 00:14:30.930 align:middle line:84% This is at the aggressive level of deployment. 00:14:30.930 --> 00:14:32.910 align:middle line:84% If you look at maximum level of deployment, 00:14:32.910 --> 00:14:35.190 align:middle line:84% again, five out of these six strategies 00:14:35.190 --> 00:14:37.180 align:middle line:90% are actually negative cost. 00:14:37.180 --> 00:14:40.500 align:middle line:84% So if we look at the greenhouse gas reductions that results, 00:14:40.500 --> 00:14:43.050 align:middle line:84% they actually have a negative cost per ton. 00:14:43.050 --> 00:14:45.930 align:middle line:84% Which is to say that not only do you save money, 00:14:45.930 --> 00:14:48.160 align:middle line:84% you can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 00:14:48.160 --> 00:14:50.700 align:middle line:84% And that's true for five out of the six strategies 00:14:50.700 --> 00:14:52.200 align:middle line:84% at the aggressive deployment level, 00:14:52.200 --> 00:14:54.720 align:middle line:84% and then, it's true four out of the six strategies 00:14:54.720 --> 00:14:56.400 align:middle line:90% at the maximum deployment level. 00:14:56.400 --> 00:14:59.550 align:middle line:84% This is not taking into account the cost 00:14:59.550 --> 00:15:03.150 align:middle line:84% of actually reducing carbon or the social cost of carbon. 00:15:03.150 --> 00:15:08.280 align:middle line:84% For example, the net cost of reducing a ton of gas emissions 00:15:08.280 --> 00:15:12.570 align:middle line:84% in the near term or early results is negative $410 00:15:12.570 --> 00:15:15.450 align:middle line:84% per ton at maximum deployment level, which 00:15:15.450 --> 00:15:16.860 align:middle line:84% means that we would actually save 00:15:16.860 --> 00:15:20.010 align:middle line:84% $400 for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions we're saving. 00:15:20.010 --> 00:15:21.540 align:middle line:84% That's not even including excluding 00:15:21.540 --> 00:15:25.080 align:middle line:84% the $51 the federal government says every ton of greenhouse 00:15:25.080 --> 00:15:27.870 align:middle line:84% gas emissions costs us, or the $150 00:15:27.870 --> 00:15:31.480 align:middle line:84% that the most recent studies say is the social cost of carbon. 00:15:31.480 --> 00:15:34.460 align:middle line:84% So this is to say that we should try to do the negative cost 00:15:34.460 --> 00:15:36.960 align:middle line:84% stuff because we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 00:15:36.960 --> 00:15:40.540 align:middle line:84% and save ourselves money in fuel anyways. 00:15:40.540 --> 00:15:42.430 align:middle line:84% Just to show you this graphically, 00:15:42.430 --> 00:15:44.530 align:middle line:84% this is for the near-term early results 00:15:44.530 --> 00:15:46.510 align:middle line:90% bundle, aggressive deployment. 00:15:46.510 --> 00:15:49.600 align:middle line:84% It costs about $20 billion in 2008 00:15:49.600 --> 00:15:52.870 align:middle line:84% to implement, between 2008 and 2050, 00:15:52.870 --> 00:15:55.510 align:middle line:84% but you can see the vehicle cost savings is worth that. 00:15:55.510 --> 00:15:58.330 align:middle line:84% At their high point, they're about five times more 00:15:58.330 --> 00:16:01.150 align:middle line:84% than the implementation cost that year. 00:16:01.150 --> 00:16:04.120 align:middle line:84% And even at their lowest point, in 2050, 00:16:04.120 --> 00:16:06.700 align:middle line:84% they're about four times the operating cost. 00:16:06.700 --> 00:16:10.280 align:middle line:84% This is to say, if we make policy changes 00:16:10.280 --> 00:16:12.910 align:middle line:84% and change infrastructure, we can reduce greenhouse gas 00:16:12.910 --> 00:16:15.400 align:middle line:84% emissions and save money in the long term 00:16:15.400 --> 00:16:18.765 align:middle line:84% throughout almost the entire life of this bundle. 00:16:18.765 --> 00:16:20.890 align:middle line:84% And if you look at what that bundle is composed of, 00:16:20.890 --> 00:16:22.723 align:middle line:84% you can see that these different categories. 00:16:22.723 --> 00:16:25.420 align:middle line:84% This is composed of pricing strategies, 00:16:25.420 --> 00:16:29.440 align:middle line:84% for example, a price on parking in central business districts, 00:16:29.440 --> 00:16:32.590 align:middle line:84% a price on parking for free private parking, 00:16:32.590 --> 00:16:35.470 align:middle line:84% residential parking permits, and congestion pricing. 00:16:35.470 --> 00:16:36.940 align:middle line:84% Public transportation strategies, 00:16:36.940 --> 00:16:40.150 align:middle line:84% we have commuting strategies, regulatory strategies, 00:16:40.150 --> 00:16:42.830 align:middle line:84% system operational strategies, and multimodal freight 00:16:42.830 --> 00:16:43.460 align:middle line:90% strategies. 00:16:43.460 --> 00:16:47.350 align:middle line:84% All of these things together get us a 14% decrease 00:16:47.350 --> 00:16:50.050 align:middle line:84% in greenhouse gas emissions from just the near term 00:16:50.050 --> 00:16:51.490 align:middle line:90% or early results bundle. 00:16:51.490 --> 00:16:55.240 align:middle line:84% But also, crucially, it is saving us money in this bundle 00:16:55.240 --> 00:16:57.590 align:middle line:84% throughout the lifetime of the bundle. 00:16:57.590 --> 00:17:00.820 align:middle line:84% If we do the long term or maximal results bundle 00:17:00.820 --> 00:17:02.710 align:middle line:84% at aggressive levels of deployment, 00:17:02.710 --> 00:17:05.710 align:middle line:84% you can see that our implementation costs start off 00:17:05.710 --> 00:17:08.440 align:middle line:90% much higher, around $80 billion. 00:17:08.440 --> 00:17:12.050 align:middle line:84% Goes down to $60 billion a year in 2050. 00:17:12.050 --> 00:17:15.670 align:middle line:84% But our vehicle cost savings are still almost a factor of 2 or 3 00:17:15.670 --> 00:17:17.630 align:middle line:84% higher than our implementation costs, 00:17:17.630 --> 00:17:19.030 align:middle line:84% which is to say that we are going 00:17:19.030 --> 00:17:22.460 align:middle line:84% to save money through the lifetime of this analysis. 00:17:22.460 --> 00:17:24.700 align:middle line:84% And you can see that to get to our maximum level 00:17:24.700 --> 00:17:27.410 align:middle line:84% of deployment, that's our 24% reduction, 00:17:27.410 --> 00:17:30.100 align:middle line:84% we have to do many more things over the long term 00:17:30.100 --> 00:17:31.690 align:middle line:90% to get our maximum results. 00:17:31.690 --> 00:17:33.640 align:middle line:84% I'll let you dive into the report 00:17:33.640 --> 00:17:35.920 align:middle line:84% to understand what some of these policies are. 00:17:35.920 --> 00:17:37.540 align:middle line:84% But all these policies are the things 00:17:37.540 --> 00:17:40.860 align:middle line:84% that you can work on in your careers. 00:17:40.860 --> 00:17:45.290 align:middle line:84% If you look at the same bundle in terms of the graphics, 00:17:45.290 --> 00:17:46.850 align:middle line:90% you can see that it starts off-- 00:17:46.850 --> 00:17:49.370 align:middle line:84% I think this one might actually be repeated from before. 00:17:49.370 --> 00:17:50.870 align:middle line:90% Apologies. 00:17:50.870 --> 00:17:54.860 align:middle line:84% But the crucial thing is here's all of the strategies 00:17:54.860 --> 00:17:56.910 align:middle line:90% that comprise this bundle. 00:17:56.910 --> 00:17:58.880 align:middle line:84% And you can see the land use transit 00:17:58.880 --> 00:18:00.860 align:middle line:84% and non-motorized application bundle, 00:18:00.860 --> 00:18:03.650 align:middle line:84% which is something that planners focus on quite a bit. 00:18:03.650 --> 00:18:05.660 align:middle line:84% The implementation costs are slightly higher 00:18:05.660 --> 00:18:08.660 align:middle line:84% than our near-term results, but, again, our vehicle cost savings 00:18:08.660 --> 00:18:10.970 align:middle line:84% are roughly two or three times what our implementation 00:18:10.970 --> 00:18:11.807 align:middle line:90% costs are. 00:18:11.807 --> 00:18:14.390 align:middle line:84% And you can see that there are many things that urban planners 00:18:14.390 --> 00:18:17.450 align:middle line:84% love, ranging from pricing strategies, 00:18:17.450 --> 00:18:20.780 align:middle line:84% to transportation, to land use and smart growth strategies, 00:18:20.780 --> 00:18:22.790 align:middle line:84% to public transportation strategies, 00:18:22.790 --> 00:18:26.130 align:middle line:84% to regulatory strategies, and so on. 00:18:26.130 --> 00:18:29.060 align:middle line:84% So this brings you to the idea of marginal abatement. 00:18:29.060 --> 00:18:33.140 align:middle line:84% This is a very famous graph done in 2008 by McKinsey. 00:18:33.140 --> 00:18:36.320 align:middle line:84% McKinsey didn't invent the marginal abatement cost curve, 00:18:36.320 --> 00:18:37.790 align:middle line:84% but they certainly popularized it 00:18:37.790 --> 00:18:41.610 align:middle line:84% in a 2008 report that was studying the cost 00:18:41.610 --> 00:18:43.790 align:middle line:84% to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the US 00:18:43.790 --> 00:18:44.690 align:middle line:90% economy. 00:18:44.690 --> 00:18:47.600 align:middle line:84% Arguably, the 2008 report by McKinsey 00:18:47.600 --> 00:18:50.820 align:middle line:84% inspired the Moving Cooler report in 2009. 00:18:50.820 --> 00:18:52.910 align:middle line:84% But the key thing here is that what you do 00:18:52.910 --> 00:18:54.900 align:middle line:84% is you graph on the horizontal axis 00:18:54.900 --> 00:18:58.070 align:middle line:84% the potential savings in terms of gigatons of carbon dioxide 00:18:58.070 --> 00:18:59.150 align:middle line:90% equivalent per year. 00:18:59.150 --> 00:19:01.250 align:middle line:84% The width of each of these bars tells you 00:19:01.250 --> 00:19:03.650 align:middle line:84% how much potential is associated with each 00:19:03.650 --> 00:19:06.470 align:middle line:84% of these different technologies or policies. 00:19:06.470 --> 00:19:09.050 align:middle line:84% The crucial thing here is on the vertical axis. 00:19:09.050 --> 00:19:10.970 align:middle line:84% You can see that some things cost 00:19:10.970 --> 00:19:14.120 align:middle line:84% money to reduce a ton of greenhouse gas emissions, 00:19:14.120 --> 00:19:17.030 align:middle line:84% and some things, like our Moving Cooler report, are negative. 00:19:17.030 --> 00:19:19.640 align:middle line:84% You actually save money and you reduce greenhouse gas 00:19:19.640 --> 00:19:20.420 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:19:20.420 --> 00:19:23.000 align:middle line:84% My unsolicited career advice to all of you 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:25.670 align:middle line:84% is that you want to be on the left-hand side of this curve. 00:19:25.670 --> 00:19:27.890 align:middle line:84% The left-hand side of the curve are all things 00:19:27.890 --> 00:19:29.810 align:middle line:84% that are essentially free for people, 00:19:29.810 --> 00:19:31.830 align:middle line:84% and they achieve our environmental goals. 00:19:31.830 --> 00:19:34.400 align:middle line:84% So it is much easier to sell, let's say, 00:19:34.400 --> 00:19:37.040 align:middle line:84% changes in commercial buildings and residential buildings 00:19:37.040 --> 00:19:40.190 align:middle line:84% and fuel economy packages than it will be to do things 00:19:40.190 --> 00:19:45.470 align:middle line:84% like concentrating solar power, solar CSP, which 00:19:45.470 --> 00:19:48.230 align:middle line:84% was a very hot topic in 2008, but we've 00:19:48.230 --> 00:19:50.750 align:middle line:84% proven over the last 10 years that those costs have never 00:19:50.750 --> 00:19:53.810 align:middle line:84% gone down as much as solar panels have. 00:19:53.810 --> 00:19:56.270 align:middle line:84% And this is probably out of date. 00:19:56.270 --> 00:19:59.210 align:middle line:84% Distributed solar PV has become much cheaper. 00:19:59.210 --> 00:20:01.460 align:middle line:84% But even if you compare this to solar, 00:20:01.460 --> 00:20:03.740 align:middle line:84% distributed PV is relatively expensive 00:20:03.740 --> 00:20:06.518 align:middle line:84% compared to utility scale photovoltaics. 00:20:06.518 --> 00:20:08.060 align:middle line:84% But of course, those things are still 00:20:08.060 --> 00:20:10.460 align:middle line:84% more expensive than residential water heaters. 00:20:10.460 --> 00:20:13.550 align:middle line:84% Not the sexiest topic, but a place where you can actually 00:20:13.550 --> 00:20:17.150 align:middle line:84% have significant impact if it has a negative cost and it 00:20:17.150 --> 00:20:18.830 align:middle line:90% has a significant potential. 00:20:18.830 --> 00:20:21.780 align:middle line:84% Combined heat power, residential building lighting, 00:20:21.780 --> 00:20:23.330 align:middle line:84% these are fundamental changes we can 00:20:23.330 --> 00:20:25.070 align:middle line:84% make in buildings which we'll talk about 00:20:25.070 --> 00:20:26.810 align:middle line:90% in the next few lectures. 00:20:26.810 --> 00:20:28.430 align:middle line:84% The point of this is that you can 00:20:28.430 --> 00:20:30.470 align:middle line:84% be trying to do things that have negative costs 00:20:30.470 --> 00:20:32.570 align:middle line:84% and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which 00:20:32.570 --> 00:20:35.840 align:middle line:84% is something we can analyze on the Moving Cooler report. 00:20:35.840 --> 00:20:38.015 align:middle line:84% If you look at the Moving Cooler report, 00:20:38.015 --> 00:20:41.600 align:middle line:84% around page 47 or so, you can see different categories 00:20:41.600 --> 00:20:43.970 align:middle line:84% of how much potential there is to reduce greenhouse gas 00:20:43.970 --> 00:20:44.760 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:20:44.760 --> 00:20:48.875 align:middle line:84% This is the expanded, aggressive, and maximum levels. 00:20:48.875 --> 00:20:51.742 align:middle line:84% And you can see, on a categorized basis, 00:20:51.742 --> 00:20:54.200 align:middle line:84% that pricing strategies are basically as much as everything 00:20:54.200 --> 00:20:55.860 align:middle line:90% else put together. 00:20:55.860 --> 00:21:01.870 align:middle line:84% However, on a per unit basis, or on a cost basis, 00:21:01.870 --> 00:21:05.748 align:middle line:84% you can also see that the negative costs are red. 00:21:05.748 --> 00:21:07.290 align:middle line:84% Our public transportation strategies, 00:21:07.290 --> 00:21:09.690 align:middle line:84% as we talked about in class, are relatively expensive. 00:21:09.690 --> 00:21:11.220 align:middle line:90% They don't always recover. 00:21:11.220 --> 00:21:12.930 align:middle line:84% They don't have fare box recovery 00:21:12.930 --> 00:21:15.600 align:middle line:84% or they don't cover their full cost through the fare box. 00:21:15.600 --> 00:21:17.430 align:middle line:84% But we may invest in public transportation 00:21:17.430 --> 00:21:18.880 align:middle line:90% as a public good. 00:21:18.880 --> 00:21:21.540 align:middle line:84% It also has benefits and livability and safety 00:21:21.540 --> 00:21:24.750 align:middle line:84% and access, the things that this report doesn't necessarily 00:21:24.750 --> 00:21:25.488 align:middle line:90% include. 00:21:25.488 --> 00:21:27.780 align:middle line:84% But it's also worth noting there's lots of other things 00:21:27.780 --> 00:21:31.470 align:middle line:84% we can do that essentially have a negative economic cost. 00:21:31.470 --> 00:21:33.120 align:middle line:84% They probably have beneficial costs 00:21:33.120 --> 00:21:35.460 align:middle line:90% in terms of safety and health. 00:21:35.460 --> 00:21:37.300 align:middle line:84% They're just not included in this report. 00:21:37.300 --> 00:21:40.830 align:middle line:84% So everything here in red at almost all levels of deployment 00:21:40.830 --> 00:21:43.350 align:middle line:84% is a negative cost, and they reduce greenhouse gas 00:21:43.350 --> 00:21:43.930 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:21:43.930 --> 00:21:47.655 align:middle line:90% This is a cost of-- 00:21:47.655 --> 00:21:51.385 align:middle line:84% a cost of reducing a ton of greenhouse gas emissions. 00:21:51.385 --> 00:21:53.010 align:middle line:84% You can see that, in the data analysis, 00:21:53.010 --> 00:21:57.253 align:middle line:84% I looked at the total reduction divided by the net cost. 00:21:57.253 --> 00:21:59.420 align:middle line:84% And if we break it down into the various strategies, 00:21:59.420 --> 00:22:02.090 align:middle line:84% you can see that the category of system of operations 00:22:02.090 --> 00:22:04.217 align:middle line:84% and management is composed of active traffic 00:22:04.217 --> 00:22:06.800 align:middle line:84% management, integrated corridor management, and signal control 00:22:06.800 --> 00:22:07.700 align:middle line:90% management. 00:22:07.700 --> 00:22:11.060 align:middle line:84% These all have a maximum level of deployment, 00:22:11.060 --> 00:22:15.680 align:middle line:84% a cost to reduce a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. 00:22:15.680 --> 00:22:19.070 align:middle line:90% These are all positive costs. 00:22:19.070 --> 00:22:21.950 align:middle line:84% You can see that if we move one page down, 00:22:21.950 --> 00:22:24.260 align:middle line:84% you can see lots of other things have negative costs. 00:22:24.260 --> 00:22:26.060 align:middle line:84% I would argue to you negative costs 00:22:26.060 --> 00:22:30.170 align:middle line:84% are the things that should be easiest to sell in your career. 00:22:30.170 --> 00:22:32.300 align:middle line:84% And, of course, if you look at something 00:22:32.300 --> 00:22:35.330 align:middle line:84% that is not very glamorous, incident management, 00:22:35.330 --> 00:22:38.570 align:middle line:84% incident management looks like, on a per cost basis, basically 00:22:38.570 --> 00:22:40.850 align:middle line:84% almost the equivalent of everything else put together. 00:22:40.850 --> 00:22:42.890 align:middle line:84% So I would argue that this is the first thing 00:22:42.890 --> 00:22:45.080 align:middle line:84% we should be doing to try to reduce greenhouse gas 00:22:45.080 --> 00:22:46.590 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:22:46.590 --> 00:22:49.090 align:middle line:84% If we look at the expanded, aggressive, 00:22:49.090 --> 00:22:51.332 align:middle line:84% and maximum levels of effort, just 00:22:51.332 --> 00:22:52.790 align:middle line:84% to talk about it a little bit more, 00:22:52.790 --> 00:22:55.120 align:middle line:84% expanding current practice is basically 00:22:55.120 --> 00:22:59.860 align:middle line:84% in large urban areas that already have transit, medium 00:22:59.860 --> 00:23:02.200 align:middle line:84% urban areas that have transit, and small areas that 00:23:02.200 --> 00:23:03.520 align:middle line:90% have transit already. 00:23:03.520 --> 00:23:05.110 align:middle line:84% And then, in the future, we'll try 00:23:05.110 --> 00:23:07.900 align:middle line:84% to improve the larger urban areas, medium urban areas, 00:23:07.900 --> 00:23:10.020 align:middle line:84% and small urban areas that have transit. 00:23:10.020 --> 00:23:11.830 align:middle line:84% We want to be more aggressive, we'll 00:23:11.830 --> 00:23:15.310 align:middle line:84% start doing this faster for all these categories 00:23:15.310 --> 00:23:16.780 align:middle line:90% and bring them up in time. 00:23:16.780 --> 00:23:18.310 align:middle line:84% And a maximum effort would have been 00:23:18.310 --> 00:23:21.940 align:middle line:84% to start 10 years ago, in 2010 or so, to try 00:23:21.940 --> 00:23:27.010 align:middle line:84% to do all of our metro areas or all of our urban areas 00:23:27.010 --> 00:23:31.300 align:middle line:84% with these transportation interventions. 00:23:31.300 --> 00:23:34.150 align:middle line:84% I finally got around to making a marginal abatement cost 00:23:34.150 --> 00:23:36.555 align:middle line:84% curve from the Moving Cooler report itself. 00:23:36.555 --> 00:23:38.680 align:middle line:84% You're going to see these nine different categories 00:23:38.680 --> 00:23:40.090 align:middle line:90% or strategy types. 00:23:40.090 --> 00:23:42.430 align:middle line:84% I think there's a very thin sliver over here 00:23:42.430 --> 00:23:45.800 align:middle line:84% is probably the incident management I mentioned before. 00:23:45.800 --> 00:23:48.190 align:middle line:84% And you can see the system operations and management 00:23:48.190 --> 00:23:51.160 align:middle line:84% strategies are relatively cost effective. 00:23:51.160 --> 00:23:54.452 align:middle line:84% They're negative cost, but have really large potential. 00:23:54.452 --> 00:23:56.410 align:middle line:84% You can see that much of our negative potential 00:23:56.410 --> 00:24:00.040 align:middle line:84% here is composed of pricing strategies, which 00:24:00.040 --> 00:24:02.890 align:middle line:84% is going to be politically very difficult, but worthwhile. 00:24:02.890 --> 00:24:06.760 align:middle line:84% But we can also get a lot of changes in our transportation 00:24:06.760 --> 00:24:08.680 align:middle line:84% system emissions simply by changing 00:24:08.680 --> 00:24:10.150 align:middle line:90% our regulatory strategies. 00:24:10.150 --> 00:24:13.750 align:middle line:84% And I'll let you look at the report to see what those are. 00:24:13.750 --> 00:24:18.400 align:middle line:84% We do love our land use and smart growth strategies. 00:24:18.400 --> 00:24:20.920 align:middle line:90% It's the very small box here. 00:24:20.920 --> 00:24:23.830 align:middle line:84% And public transportation strategies, as I said before, 00:24:23.830 --> 00:24:26.500 align:middle line:84% tend to have a positive cost, but actually do 00:24:26.500 --> 00:24:27.950 align:middle line:90% reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 00:24:27.950 --> 00:24:30.010 align:middle line:84% But you can see that all the things we often 00:24:30.010 --> 00:24:33.630 align:middle line:84% talk about as urban planners are relatively small in potential. 00:24:33.630 --> 00:24:35.380 align:middle line:84% There's lots of things we can do over here 00:24:35.380 --> 00:24:38.042 align:middle line:84% in pricing strategy and regulatory measures, 00:24:38.042 --> 00:24:40.000 align:middle line:84% but I would argue we don't talk about it enough 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:41.560 align:middle line:90% in urban planning. 00:24:41.560 --> 00:24:45.920 align:middle line:84% HOV, carpool vanpool commute strategies, this blue box right 00:24:45.920 --> 00:24:47.610 align:middle line:90% there in the middle. 00:24:47.610 --> 00:24:49.500 align:middle line:84% We go to an aggressive level, I've 00:24:49.500 --> 00:24:51.840 align:middle line:84% replotted this with the social cost of carbon 00:24:51.840 --> 00:24:55.055 align:middle line:90% at $150 per million-- 00:24:55.055 --> 00:24:58.980 align:middle line:84% sorry, $150 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. 00:24:58.980 --> 00:25:01.330 align:middle line:84% You can see that, in almost every case, 00:25:01.330 --> 00:25:03.660 align:middle line:84% everything is cheaper than letting greenhouse gas 00:25:03.660 --> 00:25:06.060 align:middle line:84% emissions continue unchecked, or everything 00:25:06.060 --> 00:25:07.540 align:middle line:90% is cheaper than climate change. 00:25:07.540 --> 00:25:09.550 align:middle line:84% So from a social cost of carbon perspective, 00:25:09.550 --> 00:25:11.970 align:middle line:84% we should just make all these transportation efforts 00:25:11.970 --> 00:25:14.290 align:middle line:90% as soon as possible. 00:25:14.290 --> 00:25:16.110 align:middle line:84% And, of course, at the maximum level, 00:25:16.110 --> 00:25:18.690 align:middle line:84% you can see that, at the maximum level, some things-- 00:25:18.690 --> 00:25:21.090 align:middle line:84% I think that's incident management-- is incredibly 00:25:21.090 --> 00:25:23.250 align:middle line:84% beneficial from a cost perspective 00:25:23.250 --> 00:25:26.340 align:middle line:84% and a greenhouse gas values perspective. 00:25:26.340 --> 00:25:28.530 align:middle line:84% But pretty much everything else here is small. 00:25:28.530 --> 00:25:30.120 align:middle line:84% And the point is, at a maximum level, 00:25:30.120 --> 00:25:32.310 align:middle line:84% everything is less than total cost of carbon. 00:25:32.310 --> 00:25:35.880 align:middle line:84% Again, a good argument for trying to reduce greenhouse gas 00:25:35.880 --> 00:25:38.095 align:middle line:90% emissions anyways. 00:25:38.095 --> 00:25:40.345 align:middle line:84% Just to bring us back to the Daniel Sperling identity, 00:25:40.345 --> 00:25:42.112 align:middle line:90% I said before, this is-- 00:25:42.112 --> 00:25:44.320 align:middle line:84% I want to highlight the different parts of the system 00:25:44.320 --> 00:25:45.695 align:middle line:84% and how to break down the system. 00:25:45.695 --> 00:25:49.140 align:middle line:84% There's mobility, the demand we have for transportation, 00:25:49.140 --> 00:25:52.620 align:middle line:84% vehicle miles traveled, there's the vehicle energy efficiency, 00:25:52.620 --> 00:25:55.470 align:middle line:84% and there's the carbon intensity of the energy itself. 00:25:55.470 --> 00:25:57.790 align:middle line:84% Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy. 00:25:57.790 --> 00:26:00.630 align:middle line:84% And that is what gives us greenhouse gas emissions. 00:26:00.630 --> 00:26:03.210 align:middle line:84% The reason why I say that is because if you look 00:26:03.210 --> 00:26:07.020 align:middle line:84% at the existing Sankey diagram, you can see that, in the US 00:26:07.020 --> 00:26:10.350 align:middle line:84% now, we have a very small fraction of hydrogen production 00:26:10.350 --> 00:26:12.240 align:middle line:84% and it almost entirely goes to industry. 00:26:12.240 --> 00:26:13.950 align:middle line:84% Almost all of our transportation energy 00:26:13.950 --> 00:26:16.470 align:middle line:84% comes from liquid fuels, petroleum, 00:26:16.470 --> 00:26:19.520 align:middle line:90% and petroleum sources. 00:26:19.520 --> 00:26:23.015 align:middle line:84% But if you want to reach a fully decarbonized economy-- 00:26:23.015 --> 00:26:24.140 align:middle line:90% this is the Williams et al. 00:26:24.140 --> 00:26:25.430 align:middle line:90% 2020 paper. 00:26:25.430 --> 00:26:27.720 align:middle line:84% For 100% renewable energy matrix, 00:26:27.720 --> 00:26:30.290 align:middle line:84% it basically forecasts that transportation 00:26:30.290 --> 00:26:33.920 align:middle line:84% will come from liquid fuels that are derived, originally, 00:26:33.920 --> 00:26:36.890 align:middle line:84% from hydrogen. And from that hydrogen, 00:26:36.890 --> 00:26:39.470 align:middle line:84% with renewable resources like solar and wind. 00:26:39.470 --> 00:26:40.920 align:middle line:90% How are we going to get there? 00:26:40.920 --> 00:26:42.380 align:middle line:90% And what does that mean? 00:26:42.380 --> 00:26:46.820 align:middle line:84% The MIT team led by Steven Barrett in Aero Astro, 00:26:46.820 --> 00:26:49.400 align:middle line:84% and Bill Green in Chemical Engineering, 00:26:49.400 --> 00:26:52.280 align:middle line:84% put together a proposal for the Climate Grand Challenge. 00:26:52.280 --> 00:26:54.050 align:middle line:84% They called it the tough-to-decarbonize 00:26:54.050 --> 00:26:56.720 align:middle line:84% transportation initiative in 2021. 00:26:56.720 --> 00:26:59.950 align:middle line:84% The key finding from these system engineers 00:26:59.950 --> 00:27:01.610 align:middle line:84% and from these chemical engineers 00:27:01.610 --> 00:27:04.870 align:middle line:84% was that we're going to need new vehicles, new fuels, 00:27:04.870 --> 00:27:07.870 align:middle line:84% and an entirely new hydrogen system in order 00:27:07.870 --> 00:27:10.850 align:middle line:90% to decarbonize transportation. 00:27:10.850 --> 00:27:13.490 align:middle line:84% Below greenhouse gas carbon-based fuels, 00:27:13.490 --> 00:27:15.590 align:middle line:84% the main challenge is the huge scale 00:27:15.590 --> 00:27:17.660 align:middle line:90% of fuel production needed. 00:27:17.660 --> 00:27:20.960 align:middle line:84% All of our low greenhouse gas fuel options, even biofuels, 00:27:20.960 --> 00:27:24.020 align:middle line:84% depend on a huge scale production of low greenhouse 00:27:24.020 --> 00:27:27.860 align:middle line:84% gas hydrogen. And the cost of low greenhouse gas hydrogen 00:27:27.860 --> 00:27:29.750 align:middle line:84% is often the largest part of the cost 00:27:29.750 --> 00:27:33.680 align:middle line:84% of the finished low greenhouse gas-emitting fuel. 00:27:33.680 --> 00:27:35.870 align:middle line:84% And they find a number of key findings 00:27:35.870 --> 00:27:37.160 align:middle line:90% in the executive summary. 00:27:37.160 --> 00:27:40.340 align:middle line:84% First, long distance vehicles in the tough-to-decarbonize 00:27:40.340 --> 00:27:43.760 align:middle line:84% transportation sectors, aviation, shipping, and trucks. 00:27:43.760 --> 00:27:46.950 align:middle line:84% All those long distance vehicles carry their own energy, 00:27:46.950 --> 00:27:48.710 align:middle line:84% so the energy density is crucial. 00:27:48.710 --> 00:27:52.070 align:middle line:84% But more weight and more volume of a fuel or battery you carry 00:27:52.070 --> 00:27:54.270 align:middle line:84% reduces the payload for the vehicle, 00:27:54.270 --> 00:27:57.080 align:middle line:84% which is the purpose of the trip in and of itself. 00:27:57.080 --> 00:27:59.480 align:middle line:84% The alternatives we have with hydrocarbons 00:27:59.480 --> 00:28:04.458 align:middle line:84% are two to three times heavier and require greater volumes. 00:28:04.458 --> 00:28:06.000 align:middle line:84% They also point out a major challenge 00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:08.010 align:middle line:84% is going to be the scale of achieving this fuel 00:28:08.010 --> 00:28:08.910 align:middle line:90% infrastructure. 00:28:08.910 --> 00:28:11.670 align:middle line:84% Today, only fossil fuels are available at the huge scale 00:28:11.670 --> 00:28:13.930 align:middle line:84% needed, about a billion tons per year. 00:28:13.930 --> 00:28:17.070 align:middle line:84% And realistically, only a few low-carbon alternatives 00:28:17.070 --> 00:28:19.940 align:middle line:84% could reach the needed scale by 2050. 00:28:19.940 --> 00:28:21.650 align:middle line:84% Existing vehicles are all designed 00:28:21.650 --> 00:28:24.080 align:middle line:84% to use hydrocarbon fuels, so we either 00:28:24.080 --> 00:28:26.180 align:middle line:84% need a carbon fuel that doesn't increase 00:28:26.180 --> 00:28:28.940 align:middle line:84% gas emissions, a, quote unquote, drop in fuel, 00:28:28.940 --> 00:28:31.490 align:middle line:84% or we make a liquid fuel like gasoline 00:28:31.490 --> 00:28:34.760 align:middle line:84% from renewable resources, like solar or wind, 00:28:34.760 --> 00:28:36.720 align:middle line:84% instead of pulling it out of the ground. 00:28:36.720 --> 00:28:38.810 align:middle line:84% And we're also going to need new vehicles, 00:28:38.810 --> 00:28:41.630 align:middle line:84% or we need new vehicles to use new fuels. 00:28:41.630 --> 00:28:44.450 align:middle line:84% Those vehicle lifetimes are long, 20 to 30 years, 00:28:44.450 --> 00:28:46.800 align:middle line:84% and new vehicle development is very slow. 00:28:46.800 --> 00:28:49.400 align:middle line:84% So if we want to achieve decarbonization by 2050, 00:28:49.400 --> 00:28:51.860 align:middle line:84% we need to start developing new vehicles now. 00:28:51.860 --> 00:28:53.840 align:middle line:84% The good news, as you know from the news, 00:28:53.840 --> 00:28:58.400 align:middle line:84% we have many new vehicles, many new trucks being developed now. 00:28:58.400 --> 00:29:01.010 align:middle line:84% We probably arguably have fewer options for shipping 00:29:01.010 --> 00:29:03.560 align:middle line:84% and aviation, so shipping is one sector 00:29:03.560 --> 00:29:06.110 align:middle line:84% that seems to be quite engaged in reducing its greenhouse gas 00:29:06.110 --> 00:29:07.400 align:middle line:90% emissions. 00:29:07.400 --> 00:29:10.490 align:middle line:84% The cost of the fuel itself is a significant part 00:29:10.490 --> 00:29:13.640 align:middle line:84% of the total cost of transportation services. 00:29:13.640 --> 00:29:15.290 align:middle line:84% The fuels for the sector currently 00:29:15.290 --> 00:29:17.430 align:middle line:84% costs about $1,000,000,000,000 per year. 00:29:17.430 --> 00:29:20.190 align:middle line:84% And expensive infrastructure adds additional costs. 00:29:20.190 --> 00:29:22.485 align:middle line:84% So if we want to build a new fuel infrastructure, 00:29:22.485 --> 00:29:24.110 align:middle line:84% we're going to need new infrastructure, 00:29:24.110 --> 00:29:25.970 align:middle line:84% and we're going to have to achieve that 00:29:25.970 --> 00:29:28.642 align:middle line:90% on a cost competitive basis. 00:29:28.642 --> 00:29:30.350 align:middle line:84% And of course, there's the practicalities 00:29:30.350 --> 00:29:31.743 align:middle line:90% of fuel infrastructure. 00:29:31.743 --> 00:29:33.410 align:middle line:84% Room temperature liquids are much easier 00:29:33.410 --> 00:29:36.320 align:middle line:84% to distribute and store than gases or solids. 00:29:36.320 --> 00:29:39.560 align:middle line:84% Fast refueling and recharging is important for some vehicles. 00:29:39.560 --> 00:29:41.870 align:middle line:84% On a very practical level, that new fuel 00:29:41.870 --> 00:29:44.990 align:middle line:84% has to be available at 800 ports, 17,000 airports, 00:29:44.990 --> 00:29:48.840 align:middle line:84% and more than 100,000 truck stops in the US. 00:29:48.840 --> 00:29:51.300 align:middle line:84% Another summary slide from these sectors 00:29:51.300 --> 00:29:54.450 align:middle line:84% that this team identified as tough to decarbonize, 00:29:54.450 --> 00:29:56.490 align:middle line:84% trucking, shipping, and aviation. 00:29:56.490 --> 00:30:00.850 align:middle line:84% They all constitute about 1 to 1.25 gigatons per year. 00:30:00.850 --> 00:30:04.650 align:middle line:84% That's about 3.25 gigatons a year, about 1/10 00:30:04.650 --> 00:30:07.903 align:middle line:84% of all of the greenhouse gas emissions for the world. 00:30:07.903 --> 00:30:09.570 align:middle line:84% You can see that all these vehicles have 00:30:09.570 --> 00:30:13.680 align:middle line:84% very different vehicle intensity of greenhouse gas 00:30:13.680 --> 00:30:15.750 align:middle line:90% emissions per use. 00:30:15.750 --> 00:30:17.880 align:middle line:84% The engines themselves are different. 00:30:17.880 --> 00:30:19.420 align:middle line:90% They use different fuels. 00:30:19.420 --> 00:30:21.420 align:middle line:84% And they have very different power requirements. 00:30:21.420 --> 00:30:24.450 align:middle line:84% It requires a lot more power to lift a plane into the air 00:30:24.450 --> 00:30:27.480 align:middle line:84% than it does to move a truck along a road or a ship 00:30:27.480 --> 00:30:29.020 align:middle line:90% through water. 00:30:29.020 --> 00:30:31.270 align:middle line:84% The state of electrification is that, trucking, 00:30:31.270 --> 00:30:33.720 align:middle line:84% we can achieve at relatively high cost. 00:30:33.720 --> 00:30:35.868 align:middle line:84% It looks very challenging for shipping. 00:30:35.868 --> 00:30:37.410 align:middle line:84% And for aviation, it's basically been 00:30:37.410 --> 00:30:40.110 align:middle line:84% deemed fairly impossible over large distances 00:30:40.110 --> 00:30:42.720 align:middle line:84% because the batteries themselves weigh so much, 00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:45.180 align:middle line:84% they would displace the passengers, 00:30:45.180 --> 00:30:48.360 align:middle line:84% or simply weigh too much for the plane at all. 00:30:48.360 --> 00:30:50.310 align:middle line:84% Fuel cell options where we use a chemical 00:30:50.310 --> 00:30:53.010 align:middle line:84% battery are relatively high cost for trucking and shipping. 00:30:53.010 --> 00:30:55.050 align:middle line:90% Not possible for aviation. 00:30:55.050 --> 00:30:56.490 align:middle line:84% If you summarize these things, we 00:30:56.490 --> 00:30:58.293 align:middle line:84% have a few different viable pathways 00:30:58.293 --> 00:30:59.460 align:middle line:90% that we have to focus in on. 00:30:59.460 --> 00:31:02.170 align:middle line:84% We have many different viable pathways for trucking. 00:31:02.170 --> 00:31:05.580 align:middle line:84% We have a few options for shipping, carbon-based fuels, 00:31:05.580 --> 00:31:08.430 align:middle line:84% ammonia or hydrogen. And for aviation, we 00:31:08.430 --> 00:31:11.130 align:middle line:84% need the energy density of carbon-based fuels. 00:31:11.130 --> 00:31:13.500 align:middle line:84% They have low weight and low volume compared 00:31:13.500 --> 00:31:16.080 align:middle line:84% to how much energy carbon-based fuels pack in, 00:31:16.080 --> 00:31:18.630 align:middle line:84% so we need to think about aviation fuels that 00:31:18.630 --> 00:31:23.010 align:middle line:84% will be low carbon in order to continue flying. 00:31:23.010 --> 00:31:24.943 align:middle line:84% This is to point out that, again, 00:31:24.943 --> 00:31:26.610 align:middle line:84% if you look at the Moving Cooler report, 00:31:26.610 --> 00:31:28.818 align:middle line:84% you look at these tough to decarbonize transportation 00:31:28.818 --> 00:31:31.530 align:middle line:84% sectors, urban planners can do a lot. 00:31:31.530 --> 00:31:33.750 align:middle line:90% They have jurisdiction. 00:31:33.750 --> 00:31:36.870 align:middle line:84% They have authority to help plan new infrastructure. 00:31:36.870 --> 00:31:39.600 align:middle line:84% They have authority to plan freight infrastructure, which 00:31:39.600 --> 00:31:40.853 align:middle line:90% we don't look at very often. 00:31:40.853 --> 00:31:42.270 align:middle line:84% But I would argue to you that this 00:31:42.270 --> 00:31:44.370 align:middle line:84% is kind of an unexplored area for urban planners 00:31:44.370 --> 00:31:46.580 align:middle line:90% to try to affect. 00:31:46.580 --> 00:31:55.000 align:middle line:90%