150
Climate-Resilient Investment in Transport
Figure 4.7 Average Particulate Matter Emissions, 10 Micrometers or Less, 2006
PM10 (micrograms per cubic meter)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 High-income countries
Upper-middleLower-middleincome countries income countries
Low-income countries
Source: World Bank 2011. Note: PM = particulate matter.
measure that has proved effective in Mumbai. Based on observation of p assengers, a 5–10 percent increase in bus fares could cover the cost of converting all 3,400 Mumbai buses, which travel 240 million km a year. It would reduce PM10 by 662 tons a year (Takeuchi and others 2007), as well as reduce CO2 emissions. In Madrid, one of the most polluted cities in the European Union (EU), a new metro line, Arganda, that came into service in 1999 has reduced a number of pollutants (CO, NOx, SO2, and particulates) by more than 20 percent and also reduced emission intensity. Although the number of vehicles on alternative roads has increased, that increment is smaller, and the slowdown is 2–16 percent less than it would have been without the Arganda (Zamorano and others 2006).
Generating New Resources Addressing negative externalities like congestion and local pollution is good for economies and helps justify funding of transport, but it does not create the additional fiscal space needed for mitigation and adaptation.
Reducing Harmful Subsidies Removing fuel subsidies can create significant financial resources (Nash and others 2002) and be accomplished at fairly low cost. The IEA estimates 2008 fossil fuel subsidies at $557 billion, where the implicit subsidy is the difference between a reference price and the actual end-user price. Oil products received $312 billion in subsidies and natural gas $204 billion, with the rest going to coal (IEA, OECD, and World Bank 2010). Turning the Right Corner • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9835-7