The earth has all the time in the world. Humanity doesn't.

I had the privilege of participating at the Transport Knowledge Hub national workshop ‘Decarbonising Transport’ in London today. The exam question panellists were set in the session I contributed to was as follows:

“What would be a credible and politically deliverable framework for the decarbonisation of transport that will deliver the necessary emissions reductions in the shortest time possible whilst mitigating any negative social impacts?”

There are some very significant elements to note in the question:

·      credible – capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful

·      politically deliverable – able to steer a course away from business as usual

·      necessary emissions reductions – helping to deliver a net zero economy

·      shortest possible time – helping hit a deadline of 2050 and interim carbon budgets

·      mitigating negative social impacts – achieving inclusive decarbonisation

Simple then? By the way, this is the only question in the exam paper and it is worth 100% of the marks. And an answer of ‘there isn’t one’ or ‘I don’t know’ scores very poorly indeed.

I should say that at the time of writing I’m working with others in supporting the Department for Transport in assessing the question of how to reduce and remove ‘tailpipe’ emissions across all modes of domestic transport over the next 30 years using candidate technology solutions including battery electric vehicles, hydrogen, route electrification and alternative fuel mixes. This work has given me a much better appreciation of the art of the possible but also emphasised the important distinction between possible and deliverable.

With 10 minutes to respond to the exam question above, I had the following to say:

Transitioning away from business as usual towards a net zero economy requires being very clear about the direction of travel and the speed of travel. Rushing in the wrong direction or ambling in the right direction will not get us to our destination on time.

With 30 years….No, with only 30 years to reach net zero, clarity over velocity for all those affected is key – yet clarity also risks being elusive, especially in the short-term – there are contested views, unanswered questions and big assumptions at play. Therefore every effort is needed to quickly identify the candidate directions of travel as well as make preparations for potential route changes over time.

The framework must also recognise the top speeds we are able to achieve on our journey as well as our acceleration capability. How quickly can new infrastructure be commissioned and rolled out? How quickly can vehicle fleets turnover? How quickly can the makeup of travel demand be changed? We are already at risk of being late for a very important date.

When we each hear ‘decarbonising transport’ are we picturing the same thing?

Does it include international travel? Does it include only tailpipe emissions? Or are emissions from producing, maintaining and disposing of vehicles and from building and maintaining infrastructure included? Are emissions from energy generation and distribution included? Does transport have to be completely decarbonised, or are there concessions possible for transport provided that a net zero economy overall is achieved? Is the outcome to be achieved a stretch target that encourages best endeavours or, as we currently understand it, a legally binding hard deadline? Does ‘politically deliverable’ mean being able to move the goalposts if necessary?

If unanswered now, any of these questions serve to highlight ambiguity in the outcome we need to achieve. Ambiguity does not serve us well and may act as an excuse for inertia and indecision that we can ill afford.

With matters of velocity and ambiguity in check and understood, attention turns to deliverability in political terms. This is closely related to political will and appetite for making decisions that are unavoidably difficult because they disrupt business as usual.

These decisions will need to be taken promptly and be supported over the longer term as their consequences play out. There will be challenging trade-offs to come to terms with and vocal objection as well as support. Political will can be boosted when votes have been stacked in your favour but may be weakened if the polls signal dissatisfaction with the leadership being shown. As such, fostering cross party support helps to assure a continuity of conviction to see through the uncomfortable change required.

If political will is lacking, deliverability of the change that is needed diminishes. Political will may, of course, be energised if the public’s concerns over climate change grow stronger.

In my book, Greta Thunberg is an outstanding communicator. She does her homework and sets out clear, digestible messages. By explaining the need for change from business as usual she has been an amplifier of public concern but also of a public appetite to play a part in the change that is needed. She has 4M Twitter followers and is fast approaching the 5.5M followers of the UK Prime Minister. But her message remains heard by the few rather than by the many.

There is a need to devote greater attention and resource to an ongoing programme of widespread communication and education that helps bring and keep the public and businesses on side with the change that is required. They need to understand why change is needed, how change is being delivered and what it looks like – during and beyond the transition. They need to understand what it will mean for them, including the pain points and how they can adapt their behaviours.

It might be tempting to assume that we can decarbonise business as usual with technological solutions - to assume we can continue as we are in terms of the makeup and scale of movement of people and goods on our transport networks. Technological solutions are indeed fundamentally important. Yet even they require substantial behaviour change - behaviour change from public and private sector organisations responsible for bringing solutions to market and scaling those solutions – the move from invention to innovation. And behaviour change from consumers in terms of the take up of those solutions.

But, especially during the transitional decades ahead, the speed of change may well not be enough to avoid being late for the very important date. Therefore it must be expected that travel behaviours will need to change. Carbon intensive modes should be used less. More walkable journeys should be walked. Existing zero carbon modes such as cycles and e-bikes should take a greater share of trip making. Digital connectivity has also grown massively as a lowe(er) carbon alternative to travel in terms of gaining access remotely to people, goods, services and opportunities. Fiscal and regulatory measures will be needed to help encourage behaviour change in all these forms.

A longstanding proposition has been the notion that the external costs of transport should be internalised. In the face of the decarbonisation challenge, this now seems more compelling than ever. We already have mobility pricing across modes but it comes in forms that are relatively blunt in terms of accounting for external costs - and it does not necessarily amount to fully internalising those costs.

It can also be blunt in terms of lacking discrimination according to means to pay. Put bluntly, the rich can afford to be profligate in their mobility choices while the poor have less choice and feel more pain with pricing increases. Urgent consideration should be given to how today’s digitally connected society and technological means could support personalised mobility pricing.

There needs to be a means to dial down certain carbon emitting mobility behaviours where low carbon technologies are progressing too slowly in cleaning up transport, and a means that does not exacerbate social inequity. Dialling down motorised mobility does not need to amount to dialling down accessibility. Greater use of active travel modes for shorter journeys and greater use of digital connectivity instead of physical mobility can allow continued economic and social activity in society.

Decarbonising transport by 2050 is looking to achieve multiple regime transitions in mobility. In 30 years. This is an unprecedented task.

Achieving it will require speed and endurance. Yet, in the face of inertia, changing complex systems takes time and huge ingenuity. Political will, technological innovation and influencing and winning the hearts and minds of businesses and individuals must all excel.

And while transport’s greatest challenge may be to decarbonise, addressing this challenge will unfold in the context of multiple further aspects of change over time socially, technologically, economically, environmentally and politically. I’d suggest that by comparison, putting the first man on the moon was easy.