Transforming the transport sector for EVERYONE - How to achieve more socially just and environmentally friendly mobility
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
position // august 2020 Transforming the transport sector for EVERYONE How to achieve more socially just and environmentally friendly mobility German Environment Agency
Imprint
Publisher:
German Environment Agency
Section I 2.1 Environment and Transport;
I 1.4 Economic and Social Environmental
Issues, Sustainable Consumption;
II 1.1 General Aspects of Environment and Health
PO Box 14 06
D-06813 Dessau-Roßlau
Tel: +49 340-2103-0
buergerservice@uba.de
www.umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt
/umweltbundesamt
/umweltbundesamt
Authors:
Kilian Frey
Andreas Burger
Katrin Dziekan
Christiane Bunge
Benjamin Lünenbürger
Editorial revision:
Dipl.-Ing. Christa Friedl, science journalist, Krefeld
English by:
Nigel Pye, npservices4u@gmail.com
Typesetting and layout:
le-tex publishing ser vices GmbH
Publications as a pdf:
www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen
Photo credits:
Title: GettyImages/Dennis Joseph/EyeEm
As at: August 2020
ISSN 2363-8273position // august 2020 Transforming the transport sector for EVERYONE How to achieve more socially just and environmentally friendly mobility
Content
Content
In a nutshell������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
1. Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
2. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable������������������ 8
Status quo: no intergenerational justice?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Status quo: lack of environmental justice.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Status quo: violation of the polluter-pays principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Status quo: no participation for everyone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Status quo: lack of gender equality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Status quo: increasingly poor mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Status quo: unjust distribution of space – who owns the city?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Status quo: insufficient economic incentives for climate protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Status quo: wrong price signals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Status quo: social imbalance caused by environmentally harmful subsidies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility������������������������������������������� 18
Making the tax and levy system climate-friendly and socially acceptable��������������������������������������� 18
Promoting efficiency and innovation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19
Creating adaptation aids and avoiding hardship cases������������������������������������������������������������� 20
Abolishing environmentally harmful subsidies���������������������������������������������������������������������� 20
Expand public transport and make it more attractive��������������������������������������������������������������� 22
Promoting active forms of mobility������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 23
4. Conclusion: socially just transport transition is feasible���������������������������������������������� 26
5. Literature and sources���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28
5In a nutshell
In a nutshell
The transport sector is the only sector in Germany This UBA position paper sees several approaches to
where greenhouse gas emissions have remained this:
virtually unchanged,1 and it is one of those fields
of everyday life in which equal participation for ▸▸ an ambitious CO2 pricing for fuels, coupled with a
everyone is often not guaranteed. In other words, the reduction of the EEG levy and the introduction of
German transport system is in urgent need of reform, a climate premium in such a way that low-income
both from an ecological and social point of view. households are not burdened
The current equality gap in transport is large and ▸▸ a policy for increasing efficiency to encourage
has many facets: people on low incomes tend to be the development and sale of fuel-efficient vehicles,
more affected by transport-related air pollutants and e. g. through fleet limits
noise than those who are socially better off. Women,
children or elderly people for whom pedestrian travel ▸▸ abolishing environmentally harmful subsidies
plays an important role are disadvantaged in our such as company cars and diesel privilege
car-dominated cities. The specific environmental
costs of car transport are to a large extent not borne ▸▸ strengthening public transport coupled with a
by the polluters but passed on to society. Prices for reform of public transport financing
public transport have risen twice as much as the
cost of buying and maintaining cars. Company car ▸▸ development of pedestrian and cycle traffic
privileges, mileage allowance and energy tax rebate networks to give more space to active, healthy
for diesel fuel have negative distributional effects and and virtually emission-free mobility
they cost German taxpayers billions every year.
Who owns the town? And how do we want to be
Transport transition makes an essential contribution mobile in the future? These questions will be of great
to closing the equality gap. However, care must be concern to urban planners, local authorities, business
taken to ensure that transport transition does not and road users in the future.
create new social imbalances, for example through
rising fuel prices. Policy makers must take this Answers to these questions are urgently needed
concern seriously and find targeted simultaneous because everyone wants to continue to be mobile
solutions for a socially just and ecologically effective according to their needs. At the same time, the
organisation of transport transition. majority of the population wants transport to become
more environmentally and climate friendly. The shift
towards socially fairer and at the same time climate
friendly mobility requires a redistribution of scarce
public space in favour of pedestrian traffic, cycling
and public transport. Only concepts that fairly
distribute costs and benefits and enable sustainable
mobility for everyone will produce acceptance and
open up paths to the urgently needed transport
transition.
1 The paper was written before February 2020 – but remains valid despite the
current decline in transport.
61. Introduction
1. Introduction
The transport sector has not made sufficient contribu- prominent example. The main concern is that house-
tion to climate protection so far. It is the only sector holds with lower incomes or particularly affected
where greenhouse gas emissions have remained groups such as long-distance commuters could be
virtually unchanged in recent years.2 In 2018, disproportionately burdened. Politicians must take
greenhouse gas emissions in Germany amounted this concern seriously and plan the transport transi-
to 162 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents, which tion in a socially acceptable way.
corresponds to around one fifth of total German
greenhouse gas emissions [BMU 2019a]. According On the way toward socially just and environ-
to the German government’s latest projection report, mentally compatible mobility, the aim is to
emissions from the transport sector will only margin- avoid conflicts between environmental or climate
ally decrease to around 159 million tonnes of CO2 protection on the one hand and social objectives
equivalents if no additional climate protection efforts on the other as far as possible. There are concepts
are initiated [BMU 2019b]. In order to achieve the available for this that have been tested in practice. It
climate protection targets for transport (95 to 98 is at least as important to examine and use synergies
million tonnes of CO2 equivalents by 2030), there between the various objectives. There are numerous
is therefore a gap of at least 60 million tonnes of synergistic approaches for transitioning to sustain-
CO2 equivalents. able mobility which combine many advantages
such as better health protection, greater safety on the
The German Environment Agency (UBA), in its roads, a higher quality of life in traffic-stricken cities,
paper ‘No reason for a gap’, showed how greenhouse greater gender equality and a better supply of public
gas emissions from transport can be reduced [UBA transport to rural regions. Last but not least, the
2019c]. The new climate protection package [BuReg transition to sustainable mobility is the prerequisite
2019] aims to reduce or, in the best case, completely of ensuring prosperity and high quality of life for
close this gap. The focus here is on road transport as future generations.
it is responsible for the lion’s share of greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, this position paper primarily This position paper initially addresses the question
addresses road transport. of how the existing transport system should be
assessed from an environmental and social point of
The planned introduction of CO2 pricing in the view. It makes clear why reform is urgently needed. It
climate protection package signals that economic describes strategies and instruments that are suitable
instruments are essential for a change of direction in for combining the ecological and climate-friendly
the transport sector. The UBA paper ‘No reason for a transport transition with social goals and avoiding
gap’ also makes it clear that economic instruments conflicts of interest. The deliberations show that
play a key role in transport transition. However, social hardships can be largely avoided and that
large parts of the population have reservations about low-income households can even benefit financially if
measures which impose a burden on citizens in the mix of instruments is cleverly designed.
financial terms. The discussion on CO2 pricing is a
2 The paper was written before February 2020 – but remains valid despite the
current decline in transport. The current corona crisis must not lead to a situation
where the transport transition gets out of focus in both (sub-)urban and rural
areas.
72. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
2. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren
nor socially acceptable
Climate protection must be affordable for everyone. Climate change also leads to injustice on a global
This also applies to transport transition: only scale. People in many developing countries already
concepts that distribute costs and benefits equally suffer more from flooding, droughts or storms
and enable sustainable mobility for everyone can than industrialised countries (and will do so more
create the basis of broad acceptance and political frequently in the future), even though they emit
feasibility. significantly less greenhouse gases per capita. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The initial situation must first be clarified in order to writes: ‘People with the highest exposure and vulner-
develop suitable concepts, what are the impacts of the ability are often those having the smallest capacity to
current transport system and how far away is it from respond.’ [IPCC 2019]. People with high incomes have
ecological and social targets? It is usually assumed more opportunities to protect themselves against or
in current discussions about transport transition that avoid the negative consequences of climate change.
existing framework conditions lead to socially fair This is another reason why failure to protect the
results in road transport. As the following delibera- climate is unsocial.
tions show, this is wrong – the equality gap in
mobility currently is rather large. Therefore, there Status quo: lack of environmental justice
is a fundamental need for reform – due to environ-
mental and social reasons. Nationwide representative studies show that people
with low incomes tend to be more affected by traffic-
The following analysis of the status quo also shows induced air pollutants and noise than those who
that the social impacts of transport are extremely are better off in society. Respondents with a low
complex. A reform debate that focuses only on short- socioeconomic status stated much more frequently
term income effects and the costs of the necessary in UBA’s ‘German Environmental Survey’ and
investments is therefore too narrow and prevents the Robert Koch Institute’s (RKI) ‘German Health
targeted solutions. Interview and Examination Survey for Adults’ that
they live on a more heavily or extremely busy road
Status quo: no intergenerational justice? than respondents with a high socioeconomic status
[Bunge, Katzschner 2009], [Laußmann et al. 2013].
‘Why should we still go to school and learn for a In addition, people at risk of poverty more often state
future that for us, may not even exist anymore?’ that they feel stressed by traffic noise and that they
This is the question students all over the world ask are affected by traffic-induced environmental pollu-
themselves and are involved in Fridays for Future tion [Destatis 2019a]. The RKI report on the health
[FFF 2019]. of adults in Germany also confirms the connection
between low income and higher subjective exposure
Climate change is a gradual and self-accelerating to road traffic noise in the residential environment
process. Future generations will have to shoulder the [Laußmann et al. 2013].
burdens and impacts of current and past emissions
– even if they themselves emit nothing or hardly any Regional studies from Berlin, Dortmund and Frank-
greenhouse gases. This is a serious violation of the furt/Main support these surveys: the Berlin ‘Environ-
intergenerational equality principle [UBA 2019a]. mental Justice Monitoring’, for example, shows that a
Negative consequences for prosperity and quality large proportion of urban areas with a high density of
of life of future generations can only be limited and social problems is also affected by high health-influ-
controlled if the quantity of greenhouse gas emis- encing environmental pollution (noise, air, biocli-
sions is reduced as quickly as possible and as much matic pollution, scarce provision of green spaces)
as possible. [SenUVK 2019]. A study from Dortmund points to
higher levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter
82. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
(PM10) pollution in urban areas of Dortmund where a particularly far-reaching consequences in children.
particularly large number of socially disadvantaged For example, the acquisition of reading skills may be
population groups live [Flacke et al. 2016]. In a delayed by up to one month if the continuous noise
survey in Frankfurt, families with a low social status level increases by 10 dB(A) if the school is located in
rated air quality of their living environment as poorer a region exposed to aircraft noise for example [WHO
and felt more exposed to noise than families with a 2018b], [Klatte et al. 2014].
higher social status [Schade 2014].
Status quo: violation of the polluter-pays principle
Although data on the links between transport-related
environmental pollution, social factors and health On the path to socially equal mobility it is essential to
still need to be improved. The available empirical answer the question as to who benefits primarily from
evidence suggests that socially disadvantaged popu- motorised private transport (MPT) and who causes
lation groups are indeed, on average, more exposed how much environmental pollution. The figures for
and therefore have a higher health risk. car ownership among the various social groups in
Germany (cf. Figure 1) provide information on this.
Children are among the most vulnerable population While 53 % of very low-income households do not
groups. They absorb more pollutants in relation to own a car, this is only true for 8 % of households
their body weight through breathing than adults. A with a very high economic status. Just under half of
large number of negative health effects due to traffic- households with high and very high economic status
induced air pollutant exposures have been observed can even have two or more cars, while this proportion
both in children and in epidemiological studies in is much lower in the other status categories [BMVI
adults. The consequences include respiratory and 2019a].
cardiovascular diseases [Schulz et al. 2018]. Continu-
ous exposure to environmental noise can also have Also, the extent of car use increases with income.
Baden Württemberg figures show that the MPT
Figure 1 transport performance (driver and passenger) is 61 %
of the total transport performance in very low-income
Car ownership by economic status of households in households, while this proportion is between 70 %
Germany 2018 (status increasing from left to right) and 76 % in higher income households. The reverse
holds true for public transport: households with very
7% 10% low incomes use more buses and trains (the public
2%
transport share is 29 %) than higher income house-
1% 14%
41% 40% holds (the public transport share is 18 % to 24 %) [MV
10%
1% Ba-Wü 2019].
6%
63% The MPT specific environmental costs are much
52%
40% 42% 42% higher than those of public transport and a signifi-
cant part of theirs are not borne by the polluters but
10% 8% are passed on to society. High-income households
21% benefit well above average from this violation of the
37%
53% polluter-pays principle, while low-income households
and some particularly vulnerable groups of society
(e. g. children) suffer more than average from the
negative consequences of MPT.
Economic
Very low
Low
Medium
Very high
High
status of the
household
In the household... three cars and more two cars
one car no cars
Source: German Environment Agency, based on BMVI data (2019a), p. 11
92. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
Figure 2
CO2 emissions per person per year, differentiated by mode of transport and equivalised household income
4
3.5
3
t CO2 per person and year
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1st quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4 th quintile 5 th quintile
(≤ € 1300) (€ 1301–1700) (€ 1701–2050) (€ 2051–2550) (≥ € 2551)
MPT PT (railway & road) Aircraft Others
DLR (2019) based on UBA data
Well-off households produce more greenhouse gases Minimum walking widths are usually adhered to
per-capita than the average. This is confirmed not in municipalities, but pedestrian traffic is often
least by German Aerospace Center figures [DLR prevented by parking violators. A standard width of
2019]. DLR calculations show that transport-related 1.5 m has become established, but experts believe
per-capita CO2 emissions also rise when household that unhindered pedestrian travel is only possible
incomes increase (cf. Figure 2). on pavements that are at least 2.5 m wide [UBA
2018]. Questions of transport safety are closely
Status quo: no participation for everyone related to accessibility [VCD 2019a]. 458 pedestrians
were killed in traffic in Germany in 2018, often in
Transport does not only include car traffic. A accidents involving cars or lorries. This corresponds
transport system must ensure equal and accessible to over 15 % of the total of 3024 road deaths [Destatis
participation for everyone. However, both children 2019b]. More than half of 2018 fatalities were over 65
and older people are currently often disadvantaged. years old [VCD 2019b].
For example, pedestrian traffic plays an important
role for these two groups. Therefore, footpaths should Status quo: lack of gender equality
be attractive, free of detours, safe and accessible [UBA
2018]. The general need for accessibility in public Traffic behaviour varies according to gender. Men
spaces and in local and long-distance transport is travel an average of 46 kilometres per day, 13 kilo-
also urgently needed against the background of the metres more than women. Men drive significantly
demographic change [Altenburg et al. 2009]. Not more frequently while women are more likely to walk.
only do children and people with health impairments If differentiated according to age, the differences in
benefit from accessibility but everyone does [Dt. traffic behaviour begin to emerge from the age of 20,
Städtetag 2018]. become more pronounced in the middle age groups
and become clear in senior citizens with a decreasing
mobility level and seen in both genders (see Figure 3).
The gender-specific differences are largely due to the
102. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
different life contexts of men and women. Women In order to create more gender equality in mobility
living in households with children usually bear more design, more funds should be invested to ensure the
responsibility for the family. Part-time employment local supply in the ‘city and region of short distances’
is still a predominantly female phenomenon. Gender- model while also improving the feeling of security in
specific differences in traffic behaviour noticeably public spaces. Potential options can be shorter bus
prevail even after the family phase [BMVI 2019b]. frequencies, well-lit bus stops and closer to the place
of residence, safe footpaths and the development of
Women and men also behave differently when it safe cycling infrastructure. A gender-balanced and
comes to transport purposes. The main reason for this safe transport infrastructure improves mobility not
is that the ratio of business trips is three to four times only for women, but especially for older people and
higher for men, and there is a slightly higher ratio of children.
commuting. For women, other transport activities
take up a larger proportion of their time. For example, Status quo: increasingly poor mobility
depending on age group, they travel three times
as many accompanying trips as men, go shopping The car-centred transport system means that many
more often, or are more often on the road for leisure everyday destinations cannot be reached without a
activities [BMVI 2019b]. On average, women therefore car particularly in rural areas. The lack of alternative
cover significantly shorter distances than men means of transport can subsequently lead to ‘forced
completing a similar number of trips. Women walk car ownership’. Those who cannot drive a car or do
more often and are therefore especially subjected to not have one available are threatened by poor mobil-
unattractive conditions of pedestrian travel. ity. For example, those affected cannot accept job
offers, do their shopping or take advantage of leisure
Figure 3
Daily distance by means of transport, age and gender
62 63
58
11 9
49 11 3
46 3
43 43
10 4 41 41
8 6
37
33 6 13 8 6 3
6
28 29 6 30 29
7 24 8 9
24 47 5
9 10 45 8 4 22
3 2 10 40 2 19
10
29 31 32 10 5 3
12 3 11
18 20 13 22 23 20 19 8
18 3
14 12 12
5 4 6 5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total 0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70 to 79 80+
Age in years
46
On foot Bicycle MPT driver MPT passenger Public transport Daily route in km
Source: German Environment Agency based on BMVI data (2019b)
112. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
activities. If facilities can only be reached by car, time suffer more from traffic-related environmental
children, young people and the elderly depend on pollution than higher-income households [Rammler,
carpooling [VCÖ 2018]. Sweden 2018].
Dividing the population into five income groups Status quo: unjust distribution of space –
illustrates that, on average, people with the lowest who owns the city?
income only cover about half of the daily distance as
those with very high incomes (see Figure 4). Motorised private transport (MPT) takes up a very
large share of road space. This is unfair and affects
When it comes to the question of who is mobile and the quality of life, especially in cities. Mobility,
who is not, the example of Baden-Württemberg based primarily on motorised private transport, also
paints a similar picture. On an average day, 13 % of thwarts Germany’s climate protection goals since car
all people in Baden-Württemberg are immobile and traffic is currently by far the largest emitter of green-
do not leave their homes at all, whereas in poorer house gases in the transport sector.
households the figure is 21 % [MV Ba-Wü 2019].
And the problem is getting worse: the number of
The transport transition should therefore take into vehicles continues to rise, and the size of individual
account people’s individual mobility needs aiming vehicles is also growing rapidly. At the beginning
for an equal, social access to an environmentally of 2019, the number of cars in Germany reached
friendly transport system. This is currently not the a record of 47 million. The market share of space-
case for households with the lowest income [Daubitz consuming SUVs is also growing rapidly, from 12.7 %
2016], [Daubitz 2017] where a double equality gap to 18.3 % between 2016 and 2018 alone [Statista
currently reveals itself: low-income households are 2019] [KBA 2019b].
more often affected by poor mobility and at the same
Figure 4
Key mobility figures by economic status in Germany in 2017
Very min 74.2
low km 26.2
min 74.4
Low km 31.2
Economic status*
min 78.9
Middle km 36.6
min 83.3
High km 45.7
Very min 89.5
high km 51.4
0 20 40 60 80
Travel time in minutes/daily distance in kilometres
Average travel time in min Average daily distance in km
* Determined by household net income and weighted household size Source: Illustration by the German Environment Agency based on BMVI data [ed.]
(2018b): Mobility in Germany. Basic evaluation in tabular form. Germany, 2018
December edition
122. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
Figure 5
Example Amsterdam: Space requirements of means of transport
5 2
Car in operation with one person, at 50 km/h 7 Bicycle operating at 15 km/h Parked bicycle
140
Tram with 50 passengers
20 Parked car
2
0,5
Walking pedestrian Standing pedestrian
Source: German Environment Agency based on Mobility Atlas 2019/City of Amsterdam
The desired transition to a socially just and sustain- The comparison with other uses of the public space
able mobility behaviour requires a redistribution of shows that owners of private cars are clearly advan-
scarce public space in favour of pedestrian traffic, taged. Parking is significantly cheaper than other
cycling and public transport. In its publications uses of public space. In Munich, for example, parking
“Tomorrow’s cities” [UBA 2017] and “Let’s go!” a car (residents’ parking) costs eight cents (per day),
[UBA 2018], the German Environment Agency made whereas an open bar the size of a parking space in
concrete proposals for reducing the land-take of MPT front of a restaurant costs 1.50 euros and a compara-
in large cities. bly large vegetable stand at the weekly market costs
as much as 18 euros [Agora Verkehrswende 2018b].
Public transport, but especially cycling and pedes-
trian traffic, requires considerably less space per Status quo: insufficient economic incentives for
person than car traffic (see Figure 5). A rededication climate protection
of space would benefit everyone by increasing the
quality of life in cities, especially for those who Despite increasing transport performance and a
voluntarily or compulsorily walk or cycle. growing number of cars, the revenue from transport-
related taxes and charges is stagnating. At around 50
A major obstacle to a transport transition in cities is billion euros, the sum of nominal annual revenues
the low pricing of residents’ parking spaces and car from energy tax, vehicle tax and lorry tolls has
parks. It favours car drivers and hinders the transi- remained largely unchanged since 2003. Adjusted for
tion to alternative means of transport. Figure 6 shows inflation, the revenue has actually been declining for
how low the charges in Germany are in international many years. In addition, the economic incentives for
comparison. climate protection have also declined, aptly illus-
trated by the example of energy tax [FÖS 2015, 2017].
132. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
Figure 6
Comparison of urban annual fees for resident parking
Europe
Stockholm 1,230 €
Amsterdam 535 €
Copenhagen 210 €
Germany
Cottbus 31 €
Munich 30 €
Berlin 10 €
Source: UBA illustration based on data from the cities’ websites (as of October 2019)
The energy tax on fuels is a central lever for achieving If we compare the taxes on the purchase (VAT,
climate protection targets in transport. If the energy registration tax, registration fees), ownership (vehicle
tax rises, the incentive to save fuel increases, e. g. by tax, insurance tax) and use (energy tax and VAT) of
avoiding or shortening distances, buying more fuel- cars with other countries in Europe, Germany is in
efficient vehicles or switching to alternative means of the bottom third [DIW 2018]. This also shows that
transport [Agora Verkehrswende 2018a], [UBA 2010], owning and driving a car in Germany is too cheap.
[UBA 2019a]. Countries such as Norway, Denmark and the Nether-
lands show that cleverly designed tools can make car
However, this steering effect of energy tax has eroded traffic much more climate friendly.
over the years: since 2003 the tax has remained
unchanged at 47.04 cents per litre of diesel and In these countries, motor vehicle tax and company
65.45 cents per litre of petrol. Since the real, inflation- car taxes have a stronger environmental steering
adjusted tax rate has been decreasing since then (see effect. In addition, there is also the occasional
Figure 7), the economic incentives for climate protec- first-time registration tax spread according to envi-
tion are diminishing and are currently roughly at the ronmental criteria and/or a bonus-malus system for
level of the turn of the millennium. Energy taxation the purchase of new vehicles.
should therefore be regularly adjusted to the general
price increase [UBA 2019b].
142. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
More economic incentives are needed to make in Germany also shows that the cost of transport
progress in climate protection. If these incentives services has risen far more sharply than the cost of a
are not in place and the binding climate protection car since 2010. Prices for petrol and diesel have even
targets under European law are not met, the state, decreased in absolute terms between 2010 and 2017
and ultimately all citizens, will pay dearly (see info [BMVI 2018a].
box 1).
The trend in prices for public transport tickets and
Status quo: wrong price signals parking fees in Munich shows, for example, that local
public transport is becoming less attractive in terms
According to the Federal Statistical Office, the costs of price compared to motorised private transport: the
of buying and maintaining motor vehicles in 2018 cost of a monthly ticket rose by around 75 % between
were a good 36 % higher than the annual average 2003 and 2018, and that for a single ticket by over
in 2000. This sounds like a lot, but in comparison 40 %, while the parking fees remained the same.
it is very little: with an increase of almost 79 %, the
prices for local public transport increased more than These developments are fatal for climate and
twice as much. Rail ticket prices have also increased environmental protection in the transport sector,
much more significantly – by almost 57 % since as they contribute significantly to the fact that the
2000 [Destatis 2018] (see Figure 8). The price index move to public transport is not making progress. The
for the standard of living of all private households developments of the past two decades must be seen
Figure 7
Nominal and real* tax rate on petrol and diesel, in Euro/litre
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Euro per litre
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019
Year
Petrol in Euro/l nominal Petrol in Euro/l real
Diesel in Euro/l nominal Diesel in Euro/l real
* Inflation-adjusted to the 2003 price level, HICP to the 2015 base for Germany Source: UBA based on BMF 2001 and Eurostat
(Eurostat), 2003=100
152. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
Figure 8
INFOBOX 1
Price increases between 2000 and 2018
Failure to protect the climate is expensive
+79%
Climate protection goals can be of a non-binding PT –
character or alternatively, legally binding. Along- price
side the national climate protection targets
+57%
(e. g. for 2030), which are binding in the Climate
Protection Act, Germany also has legally binding Price –
climate protection obligations for the years 2020 rail transport
and 2030. Under EU law, Germany is obliged to
reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 38 % by
+36%
2030 compared to 2005, in sectors outside the
European emissions trading system. This applies Car purchase
primarily to the transport, building and agricultural and maintenance
sectors. If Germany does not achieve this target, 2000 2018
certificates from other Member States will have to
be purchased. PT = Public Transport Source: UBA illustration, Destatis figures
(2018)
For the period 2021 to 2030, there are indications
that the target will be missed by a considerable In addition, the more the state subsidises fossil fuel
margin unless countermeasures are taken with for motorised private transport, the more it has to
very decisive climate protection results. According grant subsidies in return so that a switch to more
to estimates by Agora Energiewende and Öko- environmentally friendly means of transport becomes
Institut, with prices of up to 100 EUR/certificate attractive. This places a double burden on taxpayers.
this could result in costs of EUR 30–60 billion for
the period 2021–2030 [Agora Energiewende, Agora Diesel privilege. So far, diesel has been subject to a
Verkehrswende 2018]. Hesitant action will therefore lower energy tax than petrol (47.04 ct/l vs. 65.45 ct/l).
cost German taxpayers dearly. From an ecological point of view, this sends the
wrong price signal, especially since diesel emits more
CO2 per litre than petrol. Since people from richer
households drive more cars, they benefit dispropor-
in a negative light from a social point of view also, as
tionately from the diesel privilege.
low-income households have been disproportionately
affected by the sharp rise in the price of public
Mileage allowance. The mileage allowance favours
transport.
long-distance commuting and promotes a growth in
the volume of traffic. On average, households with
Status quo: social imbalance caused
higher incomes commute farther and are subject to a
by environmentally harmful subsidies
higher income tax rate. For these reasons, they benefit
significantly more from the mileage allowance than
There are numerous environmentally harmful subsi-
low-income households.
dies in the transport sector [UBA 2016]. Company car
privilege, mileage allowance and energy tax rebate
Company car privilege. The company car privilege
on diesel fuel alone cost German taxpayers more than
also promotes the car as a means of transport and
15 billion euros every year (see Figure 9). Not only do
contributes to the environmental impact of road
they damage the environment, they are also nega-
traffic.
tive in social terms because households with high
incomes benefit from them most.
162. Road transport today: not suitable for grandchildren nor socially acceptable
Figure 9
Environmentally harmful subsidies in Germany
ET
A RG
L I M AT E T
C
Biofuels 2050 GA S
Flat rate taxation private US E T
use of company car
1.0 bn €
R E E N H O NS P O R
Building and G T R A
RA L NY
NEUT GER M A
3.1 bn € housing
2.3 bn € IN
Energy tax exemption Agriculture,
for inland shipping forestry and fishing
0.2 bn € 5.7 bn €
VAT exemption for
international flights Energy supply
4.8 bn € and use
20.3 bn €
28.6 bn €
IN TRANSPORT SECTOR
57 bn € ... e.g.
Energy tax exemption
for kerosene TO FINANCE
7.0 bn € ABOLISH... ENERGY AND
TRANSPORT
TRANSITION
Mileage allowance
5.1 bn €
Tax relief for diesel
7.4 bn €
Source: UBA illustration & figures – UBA (2016b)
For private use of a company car, 1 % of the vehicle for employees in higher income brackets, the regula-
list price is taxed monthly as a non-cash benefit tion violates the principle of vertical tax justice:
within the income tax framework. This flat-rate taxa- higher earners take advantage of tax privileges that
tion is an incentive to use the company car frequently are much less accessible to those on normal incomes.
for private trips. It is also a particularly obvious case A further problem is that women scarcely benefit at
of social injustice, since only a small, privileged all from the company car privilege – around 80 % of
section of the population benefits from this. Since company cars are provided for men [FiFo et al. 2011],
company cars are provided by companies primarily [Jacob et al. 2016].
173. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
3. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
The German transport system is in urgent need of This objection is justified, but it overlooks the fact
reform, both from an environmental and social point that the state can return the additional revenues in a
of view. But how could a reform be implemented that targeted form and thus prevent negative distribution
meets both environmental and social demands? How effects or even compensate for social inequalities.
can synergies be used and conflicts of objectives Relief can be provided, for example, by reducing
avoided? What strategies are available for this? This other taxes or by direct payment in the form of a
chapter presents the essential building blocks that climate bonus. This strategy is already being success-
are indispensable for steering the transport system fully implemented in Sweden and Switzerland (see
towards a sustainable future. Infobox 2).
Making the tax and levy system A redistribution of the revenue from an increase in
climate-friendly and socially acceptable energy tax or a CO2 price via a climate bonus could
Raising fuel prices, for example by increasing energy be combined with a reduction in electricity prices,
tax or pricing CO2 emissions, is a delicate and politi- for example by lowering the EEG (Renewable Energy
cally controversial measure. It is often argued that Act) levy. This would result in a shift of government-
rising energy prices have a negative distribution determined electricity price mechanisms for fossil
effect: if diesel and petrol become appreciably more fuels [Fiedler et al. 2018]. The reduction of the EEG
expensive, this will lead to losses, especially for levy uses electricity-based technologies such as elec-
low-income households. tromobility (including rail and electricity-based local
public transport), thus providing further benefits for
climate protection.
INFOBOX 2
The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW)
Eco-bonus in Switzerland calculated the distribution effects of a CO2 tax of 80
euro/tonne CO2 for 2023 and this showed that the tax
revenue would finance a climate bonus of 80 euros
Since 2008, Switzerland has levied a CO2 tax to per inhabitant and a reduction in the electricity tax
promote the economical use of fossil fuels, then and EEG levy [DIW 2019].
from 2018, the tax rate amounted to the equivalent
of around 87 euros per tonne of CO2 and totals The bottom line is that low-income households
around 1.1 billion euros per year. One third of the would experience a noticeable reduction in their
tax revenue goes into a support programme for burden. The financial situation would remain largely
the energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings, unchanged for middle-income households while
two thirds are returned via an eco-bonus. Each households with higher incomes would be burdened
person receives the same amount regardless of to a justifiable extent somewhat more than before (see
their energy consumption. This favours low-income Figure 10). There is therefore no reason to aban-
households as they consume less energy on aver- don an ambitious CO2 price for social reasons.
age than high-income households. The share of the
levy from industry and commerce is redistributed in From a social point of view, it also makes sense to
line with the companies’ wage bills [BAFU 2018]. gradually increase the CO2 price and give citizens the
highest possible degree of planning security. If this
is guaranteed, everyone could prepare themselves
early for rising CO2 prices. Misinvestments, e. g. the
purchase of vehicles with high fuel consumption
would be avoided and adaptation processes such as
switching to electric mobility would be encouraged.
183. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
Figure 10
Burden and relief for private households through an energy tax increase of 80 euros per tonne of CO2, intro-
duction of a climate bonus and reduction of the electricity tax and EEG levy in 2023
All households in percentage of net household income
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
–1.0
–2.0
–3.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Deciles of equivalence-weighted net household income
Natural gas Diesel Climate bonus Total
Light heating oil Otto fuel Relief electricity
Deciles of equivalence-weighted net household income
Source: German Environment Agency based on DIW (2019)
Promoting efficiency and innovation CO2 emissions and land use increases proportionally
Efficient vehicles relieve the environment and with the vehicles’ size, weight and fuel consumption.
conserve natural resources simultaneously reducing According to the International Energy Agency, the
fuel consumption and thus mobility costs. A policy of trend towards SUVs has been the second largest
increasing efficiency, which promotes the develop- driver of greenhouse gas emissions at a global level
ment and sale of fuel-efficient vehicles, for example [IEA 2019]. This development is worrying for environ-
through fleet limits, thus contributes both to climate mental and climate protection reasons.
protection and social objectives.
Another strategy for linking environmental and
Resource conservation and efficiency improvement social objectives is to promote technical and
have, however, been given low priority in the automo- social innovations that specifically strengthen
bile market so far. Instead, manufacturers have been less environmentally damaging forms of mobility.
developing ever larger, heavier and more powerful Car sharing is not a new concept, but it is still an
cars. effective one. It can act as an “enabler” and facilitate
more environmentally friendly transport behaviour
The increasing number of SUVs and minivans among [BCS 2018], [BMU 2018]. In addition, the number of
newly registered vehicles is fuelling this trend, digital mobility services in transport has increased
which, from an environmental point of view, points in in recent years. Many innovations make use of the
an entirely wrong direction. Resource consumption, Internet and are easy and convenient to use thanks
193. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
to apps. These include integrated mobility services It should provide targeted and exclusive support to
of ecomobility (transport associations etc.), ride households that are particularly affected by rising
sharing, ride hailing, digital ticketing, e-bikes and fuel costs [UBA 2016].
cargo bikes. Such innovations have great potential to
facilitate multi-modal mobility and reduce depend- Abolishing environmentally harmful
ence on one’s own car. Work forms such as vide- subsidies
oconferencing and cloud-based working also make The abolition of environmentally harmful subsidies
journeys unnecessary and avoid traffic. Automated creates a financial margin worth billions which
and networked driving can, in conjunction with the the state can use to relieve the burden on citizens
right framework conditions, also make transport and to promote sustainable mobility for everyone.
more environmentally friendly in the future [Fraun- The bottom line is that low-income households will
hofer ISI 2019], [KCW 2019b]. benefit. Households that switch to more environmen-
tally friendly forms of mobility will also benefit.
Creating adaptation aids and
avoiding hardship cases Mileage allowance. As already mentioned, the
Commuters from rural areas with inadequate public mileage allowance encourages the growth of trans-
transport connections are considered to be the losers port services and the trend towards long commuting
in CO2 pricing. The new climate package includes an distances and urban sprawl [UBA 2016]. If the mile-
increase in the mileage allowance as a compensation. age allowance is abolished in this legislative period,
According to this, the mileage allowance is to be emissions could be reduced by around 4 million
increased by five cents to 35 cents from 2021 from tonnes of CO2eq by 2030. The results of the research
the 21st kilometre and by a further three cents to a project ‘Distribution effects of environmental policy
total of 38 cents from 2024. The increase in mileage measures and instruments’ [Jacob et al. 2016] show
allowance is limited until the end of 2026, but from that those on high incomes benefit more than aver-
an environmental point of view it makes no sense age from the flat rate. Abolition places the greatest
to increase the mileage allowance when a CO2 price burden on the upper middle class with an average
is introduced. This thwarts the steering effect of the of 0.75 % of their income. By contrast, the income of
CO2 price, since the increased flat rate compensates low-income households will only fall by 0.33 % on
or even overcompensates for additional burdens. average, as they commute relatively little and receive
Environmentally harmful transport behaviour would only a small tax relief from the mileage allowance.
be no more expensive than today or would even
be rewarded. From a social point of view, too, the A hardship clause which would continue to allow
increase in the mileage allowance is problematic, as tax recognition of travel costs in exceptional cases
it favours households with high incomes more than could significantly reduce the burden on low-income
households with low incomes. households. If the additional tax revenues were used
to increase the basic personal tax allowance and to
Instead, it would make sense to provide adaptation subsidise public transport, low- and middle-income
assistance that sensibly links climate protection and households would actually receive a net relief on
social goals. These include premiums and interest- average (see Figure 11). The distribution effects are
free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, particularly positive if the additional tax revenues are
especially for commuters with low incomes who are used to subsidise public transport.
dependent on their own cars. It is equally important
and necessary that the expansion of public transport, Company car privilege. There are numerous
especially in rural areas, creates more climate- examples of less environmentally harmful company
friendly alternatives to motorised private transport. car taxation abroad. In other European countries,
a higher percentage is usually used to calculate the
However, the expansion of public transport can only monetary advantage than in Germany (see Table 1).
be implemented gradually and a switch to electric In other countries, the spread of the tax burden
cars is not immediately possible for all households. depending on environmentally relevant vehicle
Therefore, it makes sense to create a hardship clause characteristics (e. g. CO2 emissions, fuel consumption,
to supplement the abolition of the mileage allowance. incentives for electric vehicles) is also widespread
203. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
[FÖS 2018]. In the Netherlands, a change in the cars should be fully taken into account. The company
company car scheme has succeeded in significantly car privilege would thus be abolished because a
increasing the proportion of fuel-efficient vehicles company car would then no longer be more attractive
within a short period of time [Kok 2015]. in tax terms than a correspondingly higher salary
from the employer. The taxation of the monetary
In Germany, the Federal Climate Change Act gives advantage should be raised overall and spread much
higher support to battery electric vehicles. It was more widely at the same time depending on the vehi-
decided in the climate protection package to reduce cle’s CO2 emissions. Plus, private mileage should also
the monetary benefit to 0.5 % of the list price for a be taken into account: anyone who uses a company
subsidy for plug-in hybrid vehicles. car more often for private purposes, should also pay
tax for a higher monetary advantage.
It is important to note that plug-in hybrid vehicles
only receive a subsidy if they have very low overall Diesel privilege. So far, diesel has been subject to a
emissions, which is by no means the case for all lower energy tax than petrol (47.04 ct/l vs. 65.45 ct/l).
hybrid models. For purely electric vehicles, only It would be important to gradually align the energy
0.25 % of the list price (if this does not exceed 60,000 tax on diesel with that of petrol, as the subsidy for
euros) is taxable each month. diesel is not justified from an environmental point
of view. Diesel fuel produces about 13 % more CO2
Any reform of the company car privilege should be emissions per litre when burnt than petrol. Alignment
guided by the objective of tax neutrality, i. e. the at the same level of taxation would correspond to an
monetary benefit from the private use of company
Figure 11
Distribution effects from a reform of the mileage allowance (MA)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Percentage change in income
0.2
0
–0.2
–0.4
–0.6
–0.8
–1
Abolition of MA Abolition of MA, Abolition of MA,
hardship clause, hardship clause,
increase of basic personal tax allowance subsidising public transport
Income quintiles 1 (poorest 20%) 2 3 4 5 (richest 20%)
Source: UBA illustration based on figures from Jacob et al. (2016)
213. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
Table 1
Taxable monetary advantage of company cars in Germany and other countries
Calculation of the annual monetary advantage Battery Middle class Luxury
Country
(BEV) electric vehicle car car
25 % of the purchase price up to 40,000 €
(min. 21,500 €)
5,500 €
Denmark 20 % on the rest of the car price 6,160 € 16,500 €
+ green tax
+ Green tax (CO2-dependent; kW-dependent
for BEV)
12 % of the gross list price (equivalent to 1 %
per month)
Germany 0.25 % monthly for electric cars 700 € 2,520 € 5,670 €
Alternative: individual calculation using a
logbook
The 22 % of the list price
Nether- 4 % for zero-emission vehicles 880 € 4,400 € 9,900 €
lands Only if more than 500 km are driven privately
16–37 % of the list price, depending on
UK CO2 emissions, annual adjustment of rates 3,520 € 5,000 € 16,650 €
and CO2 steps
Source: Öko-Institut/FÖS/Klinski (i. E.) based on ACEA data (2019)
Figures are based on Renault Zoe (battery electric vehicle), Golf Trendline 1.0 TSI OPF (middle class car), Mercedes E 400 d 4MATIC (luxury car)
increase in the energy tax on diesel by 18.41 cents/l. very different specific emissions. Cars and aircraft
At the same time the car tax on diesel would be score particularly poorly in terms of climate damage.
reduced accordingly. The picture is similar for air pollutants: on average,
buses and trains do less damage to the environment
Expand public transport and make it more than cars and aircraft.
attractive
Public transport is a key component of transport The success of public transport increases and falls
transition. It is an essential part of public services with its attractiveness. Diversity and quality of the
and an important prerequisite for equal living condi- offer, solid infrastructure, short intervals, high speed
tions [BMI 2019] in town and country. It is therefore and low costs are decisive in this respect. A modern
urgently necessary to reduce deficits in this area for and sound ecomobility also increases the acceptance
economic, social and environmental reasons. and effectiveness of other instruments such as CO2
pricing or the abolition of the mileage allowance.
Public transport must be affordable for everyone. It
is necessary to put an end to the long-standing trend The Federal Climate Change Act plans to give more
that the prices of public transport rise much more support to public transport, for example by increasing
than the cost of car use. The aim should be to reverse regionalisation funds, which may only be used for
this trend. A first step is the reduction of VAT on rail public transport. These funds are made available
tickets agreed upon in the new climate package. In by the Federal Government to the states (Länder) to
addition, the shift from car journeys to less environ- finance public transport. This is an important first
mentally and climate-damaging means of transport step.
of ecomobility (public transport, cycling and walk-
ing) is indispensable to achieve the climate protection Since public transport in Germany makes an impor-
goals. Public transport, walking and cycling are the tant contribution to public services, participation and
more climate-friendly choices for short and medium environmental protection, it must be co-financed by
distances, and railway and bus for long distances. As public funds. The cost recovery ratio, i. e. the propor-
Table 2 shows, the various means of transport have tion of costs that can be covered by ticket prices,
223. Strategies and instruments for more sustainable mobility
is generally much higher in conurbations than in The challenges for public transport are particularly
rural areas. On average, approximately 40 % of the great in very sparsely populated areas. Private
total public transport budget is generated by ticket transport will continue to play a role in these regions.
revenues [KCW 2019a]. Electromobility can help make MPT more environ-
mentally friendly in rural areas.
An UBA research project illustrates the extent to
which networked mobility concepts can contribute Promoting active forms of mobility
to reducing CO2 emissions in particular in small and Cycling and walking are healthy, environmentally
medium-sized towns and in rural areas [Herget et al. friendly, climate-friendly, cheap, fast over short
2019]. Modern app-based services and transport distances and therefore a mainstay of transport
offers can support and accelerate development. In any transition.
case, a reform of public transport funding is neces-
sary to ensure the provision of public transport in the The current study ‘Mobility in Germany’ [BMVI
area [Herget et al. 2019]. Public transport is a state 2019b] found that around 40 % of car journeys are
responsibility and will continue to need to be publicly shorter than five kilometres. This puts them in a
funded to a large extent. To this end, in the future the distance range where bicycles are often the fastest
state could make greater use of levies and taxes on means of transport (see Figure 12). Many car journeys
car and air traffic and use additional tax revenues by are so short that they could easily be made by walk-
abolishing environmentally harmful subsidies. ing. In conurbations, up to 30 % of car journeys can
be shifted to cycling.
Table 2
Comparison of average emissions from various means of passenger transport (2018)
Railway, Tram,
Railway,
long- Long- S-bahn
Aircraft, Other local
Car distance distance Bus and
Germany coaches6 trans-
trans- bus under-
port
port ground
Green-
house g/pkm 147 2303 322 29 31 57 80 58
gases1
Carbon
g/pkm 1.00 0.48 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04
monoxide
Volatile
hydrocar- g/pkm 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
bons4
Nitrogen
g/pkm 0.43 1.01 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.32 0.05
oxides
Particles5 g/pkm 0.007 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.002
1.5
Workload persons/ 71 % 56 % 55 % 64 % 28 % 19 % 19 %
car
g/pkm = grams per passenger kilometre, including emissions from the provision and conversion of energy sources into electricity, petrol, diesel and paraffin
1
CO2, CH4, and N2O given in CO2 equivalents
2
The emission factors for railways shown in the table are based on data on the average electricity mix in Germany. Emission factors based on company- or sector-related
electricity consumption (see, for example, the ’Umweltmobilcheck’ of Deutsche Bahn AG – German Railways) therefore differ from the values shown in the table.
3
including non-CO2 effects
4
without methane
5
without abrasion of tyres, road surface, brakes, overhead lines
6
Group trips, day trips (e. g. bus tours, school trips, “coffee trips”)
Source: TREMOD 6.03
German Environment Agency, 01/2020
23You can also read
