Possible sources of EU funding
There are several key sources to fund the transformation of the transport sector. While each is focusing on a different aspect of EU policy, all of them may be partly applicable to transport projects:
- The EU’s cohesion funds dedicate a significant part of the budget to reducing disparities between Member States, which can be leveraged to reduce transport disparities.
- The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), is the channel through which the European Commission directly supports transport projects.
- Interreg aims to develop European Territorial Cooperation.
- The Recovery and Resilience Fund (RRF) is a recent mechanism intended to reduce the burden of the economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and which includes significant funding.
- The European Investment Bank (EIB) gives direct loans and has other financial services, also for transport infrastructure projects.
- NetZeroCities supports European cities to drastically cut down greenhouse gas emissions.
Emissions reduction projects are at a competitive disadvantage
The EU’s current funding system must change significantly and regulatory change is needed to make the decarbonisation of transport a success. The EUKI funded project Towards a Climate Neutral EU: Efficient Allocation of EU Funds
conducted a survey of CSO, which identified 14 core regulatory issues that are reflected in the state of funding for emissions reductions
Key issues include:
- In many cases, EU money has been spent on activities that contradict the EU’s declared aims, including investments that directly or indirectly supported the use of fossil fuels and/or destruction of biodiversity.
- EU money is allocated for so-called development, i.e. overwhelmingly physical investments. At the same time, there are often serious deficiencies in the operation and maintenance of important public services (education, public transport etc.). In the long term, the new investments will not be sufficient (even if they are implemented properly) without the efficient operation of important public services. Moreover, it does not make much sense to pour money into new physical developments while important sectors (education, public transport, etc.) are grossly underperforming.
- “Free” EU money in some cases resulted in investments that subsequently proved to be useless.
- Indicators measuring the effects of EU funding, including climate tracking methodology, are often inappropriate. Among others, the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from EU funded projects, and nationally funded projects, is practically non-existent.
One major reason why projects that hinder climate goals are often funded is the outdated structure of the application evaluation process. When it comes to investments that will obviously reduce carbon emissions, the decision on whether a project is eligible for EU support is usually made using a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
The biggest problem is that when CBAs are carried out, the importance of the journey time reduction that a project can achieve is over-weighted. An over emphasis on journey time reductions often fails to account for the fact that shorter trip times mean individuals may take more trips, increasing carbon dioxide emissions unless emissions intensity is also reduced.
Another problem with journey time reduction as a criterion is that it can only be estimated with great error, and it is difficult to detect if an applicant exaggerates its extent in order to obtain funding. As it stands, projects with less ambitious CO2 emissions reduction impacts often win over projects which may have more significant CO2 emissions reduction impacts due to the over-weighting of the journey time-savings metric.
As the most important benefit of a project for us is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, it is clear we must redesign the project evaluation process in favour of decarbonisation over the CBA currently in use – especially with regards to the superficial journey time estimates. The main objective must be to reduce CO2 emissions and include relevant associated projects which support investment viability and impact over time.
Unabated: the Carbon Capture and Storage 86 billion tonne carbon bomb aimed at derailing a fossil phase out
The climate talks at COP28 have centred around the need for a fossil fuel phase out. Our analysis quantifies the risk posed by restricting a phase out commitment to only ‘unabated’ fossil fuels.
No change to warming as fossil fuel endgame brings focus onto false solutions
The CAT's annual warming estimate has risen by 0.1˚C to 2.5˚C. The estimate is largely influenced by weak existing targets rather than shifts triggered by updated Nationally Determined Contributions.
When will global greenhouse gas emissions peak?
The IPCC says peaking before 2025 is a critical step to keep the 1.5°C limit within reach. With emissions set to rise in 2023, this leaves limited time to act. To assess if we can meet this milestone, we look at when global emissions might peak, as well as what we can do to get there in time.
Wind and solar benchmarks for a 1.5°C world
This report presents a detailed methodology for determining the amount of wind and solar capacity that is required for a country to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature goal. While the focus of the report is the method, it includes illustrative benchmarks for Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Germany, South Africa.
A 1.5°C future is possible: getting fossil fuels out of the Philippine power sector
The Philippines is also one of the fastest-growing developing countries: poverty is in decline, access to energy is rising and, with that, demand for energy services. However, fossil fuels still dominate the energy system, accounting for 78% of power generation in 2022. This report sets out what the Philippines government needs to do to get the country’s power sector onto a 1.5˚C compatible emissions pathway, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Production Gap Report 2023
Governments, in aggregate, still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. The persistence of the global production gap puts a well-managed and equitable energy transition at risk.
Emissions impossible: Unpacking CSIRO GISERA Beetaloo Middle Arm fossil gas emissions estimates
This report provides an independent evaluation of the CSIRO and GISERA assessments of the potential greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the exploitation of the Beetaloo fossil shale gas reserves.
Adjusting 1.5°C climate change mitigation pathways in light of adverse new information
This study uses an integrated assessment model to explore how 1.5°C pathways could adjust in light of new adverse information, such as a reduced 1.5°C carbon budget, or slower-than-expected low-carbon technology deployment.
Railway development: lessons for the EU
This paper analyses how EU railway policy for a low-carbon future can be enhanced, drawing insights from Japan and Switzerland.
Ramping up energy storage: lessons for the EU
This paper explores how the EU can enhance its policy for a low-carbon future by learning from successful energy storage approaches in California, South Korea, and Australia.