Transport accounts for 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and its impact has been growing. Between 1990 and 2007, its CO2 output rose 45 per cent – mostly because of a big increase in road traffic. By 2030, it could rise another 40 per cent, according to the OECD.

For companies looking to cut carbon and make financial savings, transport has rich potential. From shipments of materials and finished goods, to car fleets and door-to-door deliveries, the possibilities are endless.

And the good news is that not all of the best ways to reduce cost and carbon are painful. Experts say there are often simple things that companies can do, with benefits for the environment and the bottom line.

“You are finding that the same tools are being used not only for cost modelling, but also for carbon optimisation,” says Ed Weenk, head of the QuSL logistics consultancy in Barcelona. “There are many situations where costs and carbon go together.”

With fuel costs high and climate change on the agenda, many have been exploring new transport ideas – sometimes with quirky results.

Ten years ago, few would have predicted food giants running trucks on cooking oil, shippers putting sails on cargo vessels, or logistics firms delivering packages with all-electric vehicles. And yet such things are now normal. In the next few years, we might see a substantially different business transport system emerge.

Eliminating distance
Sustainable transport starts with reducing both the miles travelled and the miles travelled “empty”, says Alan Braithwaite, chairman of LCP Consulting, a green logistics specialist.

“If you make sure you are running the maximum amount of miles with the maximum payload, and with the minimum empty running, these things can save vast sums of money, but also take a huge amount of carbon out of the supply chain.”

Route-planning platforms, such as Paragon and Llamasoft, now include carbon calculation components. And Weenk says such software has led retailers and consumer goods companies to increase the number of warehouses as a way of decreasing the distances they need to travel.

Some are even thinking of bringing production closer to home. “Twenty years ago, everyone moved to Asia. Now, some are considering whether to come back. Nobody knows what is going to happen to oil prices. If they can have production closer, it will be cheaper, and there’s a collateral benefit of being greener,” Weenk says.

L’Oréal has brought some of its supply chain in house as it tries to save costs. Four factories – in France, Belgium, Italy and the US – have so far participated in its “Wall to Wall” programme. At its Florence facility in Kentucky, L’Oréal estimates it will eliminate 400,000 freight miles this year by producing 70 million Garnier Fructis bottles on-site, generating 200 tonnes less of CO2 in the process.

Packaging in different ways can make a big difference. Recently, Treasury Wine Estates, a major wine company, switched from importing wine to the UK pre-bottled, to importing it in tankers and bottling locally. By doing so, Braithwaite says it has cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent.

Alternative modes
Others are switching transport modes. Philips now uses freight barges, instead of Dutch roads, to get its goods to the heavily congested Rotterdam port, working out of an inland terminal at Moerdijk. As a result, it claims to be eliminating 80,000 road kilometres every year, and saving 200 tonnes of CO2.

Tesco famously uses the Manchester Ship Canal to transport wine between Liverpool and Manchester, cutting its carbon emissions by 80 per cent for the same cargo. Across its supply chain, it is hoping to reduce its CO2 output by 50 per cent by 2012, compared to 2007 levels.

Rail is another option. For example, Tesco carries stock between distribution centres in Daventry and Livingston in the UK. In Spain, SEAT has rebuilt a short trunk line, so it can transport cars from its Martorell factory to the port of Barcelona, 30km away. Using two trains a day, it can transport 80,000 cars a year, and eliminate the need for 25,000 truck trips.

Still, rail’s usefulness is limited to specific routes and uses, logistics experts say. “It’s very difficult to buy,” says Braithwaite. “Most companies can’t fill a train every day. You need to create the train, run it every day, and put the containers on to it, and the traditional railway industry hasn’t been very good at it.”

The most consequential modal shift has been from air and road to sea, which is by far the cleanest mode of transport, carrying 90 per cent of the world trade, but emitting only three to four per cent of global emissions.

That means companies planning further ahead, and having longer lead times, says Dexter Galvin, director of supply chain at the Carbon Disclosure Project, which oversees CO2 reporting for more than 1,500 companies worldwide.

“If they can plan their shipments over a longer period of time and reduce the urgent shipments, they can reduce emissions associated with their transportation significantly,” he says.

Shipping lines have been further reducing costs and emissions through so-called “slow steaming”. Maersk, for example, estimates that taking 20 per cent longer than normal reduces fuel by as much as 40 per cent. It needs to add vessels to provide the same level of service. But it estimates that this cuts CO2 by seven per cent per container.

Slower speeds also introduce greater flexibility into the supply chain, allowing companies to slow and speed journeys according to the availability of port slots. Ships idling outside ports are a big drain on fuel and produce a lot of unnecessary CO2 and other pollution.

New technology
After eliminating miles from the supply chain, and switching to new modes, companies are also experimenting with new technologies, with logistics companies at the forefront.

In shipping, Maersk is rolling out its new Triple- E cargo vessels, which it says are 50 per cent more CO2 efficient per container compared to a typical ship on Asia-Europe routes. Down the line, it is possible we will see biofuel ships as well (the US Navy is investing heavily in the idea), as well as more sails, aerodynamic designs and body paints.

Fuel costs have been a growing headache for shippers and their clients in recent years. From about $150 per tonne of bunker fuel in 2005, the price spiked to $750 in mid-2008, before dropping off again. Many ships operating today were built to run on $150 a tonne bunker fuel, not a price four times as much.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the supply chain, delivery companies, such as Fedex and Deutsche Post-DHL, are investing heavily in more efficient vehicles. Fedex has so far deployed 43 all-electric vehicles and 367 hybrids, with plans for more. It says all-electric vehicles have running costs that are 80 per cent lower than a standard vehicle, though the initial outlay is more expensive.

Spokesperson Deborah Willig says electric vans are most suitable for urban areas, for two reasons. First, the vehicles have “regenerative braking”, so there is an advantage to all the stopping and starting. Second, batteries – which make up a high proportion of the vehicle’s overall cost – can be changed when needed. The main obstacle to a larger roll-out, she says, is whether electricity grids can handle the extra load.

Service-oriented companies have been strong early adopters of electric vehicles. For example, 19 French companies, including La Poste, France Telecom and Veolia, recently decided to buy 15,637 Renault Kangoo electric vans over four years. Because of their very low running costs, such vehicles could well become standard for short-haul deliveries and services over the next few years.

Ben Schiller is a regular writer on business and the environment for Fast Company, Financial Management and a range of other publications.