Postscript - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 430

25.2 A holistic view: behavioural change not business as usual
At present the strategic debate on transport tends to be dominated by the climate
change agenda and the extent to which we in Great Britain could or should develop
policies to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and cut transport's contribution to CO 2
emissions. This is a rather precarious basis on which to conceive a long-term strategy
because the costs and timescales involved in moving to widely available alternative
technologies are very uncertain. As far as regulation and consumer behaviour is
concerned the issue is also clouded by uncertainty over whether there will be political
support for measures which appear to run counter to our short-term interests,
individually and collectively. This is especially so if, as seems probable, there is a lack
of global agreement to cut emissions with the result that we are faced with making
'sacrifices' unilaterally.
Arguably even more significant is the uncertainty which surrounds the availability
and price of oil over the medium term. The fact that work undertaken using the
National Transport Model for the 2004 White Paper adopted fuel costs of $16 a barrel
for the 2030 reference case and that within only four years market prices had risen to
$120 ought of itself to inject a much greater sense of precaution into strategic planning!
Even if over the longer term technological and behavioural changes globally were to
reduce demand for oil such that its price abated there is clearly a very uncertain and
prolonged interim period. During this time the vulnerability of the British economy
and individual lifestyles to the effects of intermediate shortages - possibly occasioned
by international political upheaval - is very unsettling. In this context, to construct any
strategy (as do the Eddington and the RAC Foundation reports) on the assumption
of greatly increased vehicle use, and investing billions in road-building accordingly,
appears reckless in the extreme.
The bizarre feature of the risks involved in these strategies is that planning for such
increases is both unnecessary and undesirable. Considering sustainability more broadly
than simply CO 2 emissions and energy sources there are a host of good reasons for
pursuing a strategy based on less intensive car use:
Transport policies that are the best to tackle it [global climate change] are, on
the whole, the policies we ought to be pursuing for other reasons, even if the
carbon problem were solved by a wonderful new chemistry tomorrow. It is a
hugely fortunate irony. The reason why the transport sector may well be able to
make a decisive contribution to carbon reduction is because there are other, less
important, reasons for doing so.
(P Goodwin in LTT 494)
The 'less important' reasons have to be put in the context of possible global
catastrophe - not because they are unimportant by any ordinary standards. For example
the long-term future of the nation's cities and countryside is at stake (see below) whilst
inactive travel behaviour is a contributory factor threatening severe medical problems
amongst a predominantly obese population by 2050 (DIUS 2007).
Goodwin points out that, even if nobody else did the same, we would not damage
ourselves by choosing the low carbon route:
Quite the reverse. Just imagine what would happen to fossil fuel prices if the world
as a whole does not limit its dependence. In that case the minority of countries