Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Judging from the level of our national debate, you would guess we are a nation strongly divided on the issue of climate change. But you’d be wrong, according to a new poll from Yale University.

A representative survey of 1,010 adults found that 71 percent think that global warming should be a “very high,” “high” or “medium priority” for the president and Congress. Americans overwhelmingly support policy changes that would help address the issue, the poll found. Participants favored developing clean energy sources by a more than 9-to-1 ratio.

“We find very strong bipartisan support for a variety of climate and energy policies in this country,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change. “It runs contrary to what you might expect looking at, for instance, the current make up of Congress and the Republican candidates for president.”

Transportation and planning policies to avert global warming also enjoyed wide approval among survey participants: 77 percent said they support adding bike lanes to roads, and 80 percent said they support expanding public transportation service.

This was true even among self-identifying Republicans. Some 74 percent of Republican respondents said they supported bike lanes and 80 percent signaled their support for increased public transit availability.

Majorities also supported expanding mixed-use zoning, reducing sprawl and promoting energy efficient apartments over single-family homes.

Republicans were more evenly split on issues of zoning and sprawl; 59 percent said they opposed zoning for mixed-uses in order to reduce the need for a car. However, Republicans were split 50-50 on using zoning to reduce sprawl and commute times.

Read more…

Dear sustainability advocate: I know you are tired.

You spend your life looking climate apocalypse in the eye and knowing that human behavior needs to change to avert catastrophe. But are humans changing their behavior? Not fast enough.

And why not? You’ve started carpooling and weatherized your house and it wasn’t so hard. So why don’t your neighbors get it? Why aren’t they doing anything?

These questions have unleashed a new field of climate change-related behavioral science. I write now from its epicenter: the Garrison Institute symposium on Climate, Cities and Behavior in New York’s Hudson Valley. The idea is to figure out what mental processes are at work when people decide to change something in their own lives for the greater good – specifically, for the environment. After all, cities can set emissions reductions targets all they want but they need people to actually reduce their emissions to meet their goals. And no one can force your neighbors to turn off their air conditioners. They’ll have to make that decision themselves.

Here are some strategies, from the behavioral scientists to you:

Attitudes follow behavior, not the other way around.

Here’s what we wish would happen: Joe Schmo stumbles upon a brilliantly researched and written article in, oh I don’t know, Streetsblog, for example, that convinces him that climate change is real and dangerous and that he needs to do something. So he ditches his car and starts riding a bike to work. That’s an unlikely scenario, sadly. Maybe it’s because people get defensive when their lifestyle is criticized before they’re ready to give it up. Anyway, the more likely scenario is that Joe Schmo already rides a bike, maybe for exercise, maybe because he lives in a compact city that doesn’t require a car. When someone comes around trying to gather support for green cities, he gets on board – he already feels like he’s got skin in that game.

People aren’t scared enough yet by climate change.

We’re wired to feel real fear and urgency around threats that are present right now. Though the effects of climate change are being felt already all around us, from extreme weather to damaged crops, it still lacks the urgency needed to catalyze immediate and dramatic action.

When people do get scared, they get overwhelmed.

Read more…

Economic competitiveness and sustainability — when it comes to the performance of North America’s freight system, the two terms are nearly synonymous. That is the key finding from a new report by NAFTA’s Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

While fuel saving technologies are expected to reduce emissions from passenger vehicles by 12 percent over the next 20 years, emissions from freight trucks are expected to rise 20 percent over that time. The CEC says this presents not just an environmental problem but an economic one: how can the NAFTA countries stay competitive when they’re spending so much money on fuel?

The best practices on North American rail and roadways come down to efficiency — largely fuel efficiency. In its report, “Destination Sustainability: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Freight Transportation in North America,” the CEC cautions the US, Canada and Mexico against failing to adopt fuel-saving innovations. Regions such as Europe and Asia threaten to erode North America’s competitive advantage if immediate and sustained action is not taken to streamline and green the flow of goods across the three nations.

The current fuel performance of North America’s freight fleet is cause for concern. According to the CEC, freight-related emissions grew 74 percent between 1990 and 2008, compared with 33 percent from passenger vehicles.

The CEC’s advisory council, representing stakeholders from industry, academia, the environmental sector and government, produced the following recommendations, among others:

• Introducing carbon pricing
• Integrating land use and transportation decisions
• Providing incentives to promote fuel-saving technologies

Read more…

Editor’s note: Today we are very pleased to begin a five-part series of excerpts from Peter Calthorpe’s book, “Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change.” Keep reading this week and next to learn how you can win a copy of the book from Island Press.

I take as a given that climate change is an imminent threat and potentially catastrophic—the science is now clear that we are day by day contributing to our own demise. In addition, I believe that an increase in fuel costs due to declining oil reserves is also inevitable. The combination of these two global threats presents an economic and environmental challenge of unparalleled proportions—and, lacking a response, the potential for dire consequences. These challenges will in turn bring into urgent focus the way our buildings, towns, cities, and regions shape our lives and our environmental footprint. Beyond a transition to clean energy sources, I believe that urbanism—compact, diverse, and walkable communities—will play a central role in addressing these twin threats. In fact, responding to climate change and our coming energy challenge without a more sustainable form of urbanism will be impossible.

Many deny either the timing or the reality of these challenges. They argue that global demand for oil will not outstrip production and that climate change is overstated, nonexistent, or somehow not related to our actions. Setting aside such debates, my book, “Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change,” accepts the premise that both climate change and peak oil are pressing realities that need aggressive solutions.

Responding to climate change and our coming energy challenge without a more sustainable form of urbanism will be impossible.

The two challenges are deeply linked. The science tells us that if we are to arrest climate change, our goal for carbon emissions should be just 20 percent of our 1990 level by 2050. That, combined with a projected U.S. population increase of 130 million people,¹ means each person in 2050 would need to be emitting on average just 12 percent of his or her current greenhouse gases (GHG)—what I will call here the “12% Solution.”² If we can achieve the 12% Solution to offset climate change, we will simultaneously reduce our fossil-fuel dependence and demonstrate a sustainable model of prosperity. Such a low-carbon future will inherently reduce oil demands at rates that will allow a smoother transition to alternative fuels—and the next economy.

Read more…

Just when you may have been looking for ways to counter that Pew report which poo-pooed the environmental impacts of transit and smart growth, here’s more evidence that reducing driving has an essential role to play in meeting economic and environmental goals: A new report from the Center for Clean Air Policy concludes that compact development will build wealth and cut carbon emissions.

“Growing Wealthier: Smart Growth, Climate Change, and Prosperity” starts with the simple assertion that accessibility – “bringing origins and destinations closer together” – is, after all, “the very reason that cities exist.”

“You want to have your choices nearby so you can meet your daily needs as efficiently as possible,” said report author Steve Winkelman.

By separating residential areas, commercial services, and places of employment, suburban planning requires that people travel long distances to meet their needs. All those miles used to be viewed as a measure of economic progress.

“[Vehicle Miles Traveled] and GDP have grown concurrently since World War II and in lock step for much of that time,” the report states. But around 1996, GDP began growing faster than VMT, and, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “the importance of travel as a component of the U.S. economy has been declining since the early 1990s.”

Indeed, CCAP’s research shows that states with lower VMT per capita tend to have higher GDP per capita.

Excessive travel is more likely to be an economic detriment than a benefit. Ironically, GDP counts as economic productivity many of the counterproductive aspects of motorized travel, such as fuel consumed waiting in traffic jams, oil spills, vehicle repairs and medical treatment resulting from collisions, costs of air pollution, and defense operations to protect U.S. petroleum interests around the world. In fact, many costs of sprawling land use patterns (particularly increased infrastructure) themselves boost GDP figures.

The authors also urge us to distinguish between economically productive travel and what they call “empty miles.” It’s like differentiating between empty calories and nutrition.

Read more…

Continuing with our series on key governor’s races, here’s some news on the contest in California. We’ve taken a look at some races in Maryland and Colorado where pro-transit, pro-bike candidates are likely to win. We examined the nuances of a candidate in Tennessee who’s a mixed bag on transportation issues. And yesterday we brought you the bad news that Rick Perry of Trans-Texas Corridor fame was driving a Hummer to victory in that state. That was sort of a bummer, so let’s get back to good news.

A few weeks ago, we linked to a New York Times article about Republican candidates who want to kill high speed rail plans in their states. Exhibit A: Meg Whitman, running for California governor.

Her Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, spearheaded the plan to build a high speed line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. He wants it so badly he even shrugged off accountability and killed a provision that would have tied funding for the rail program to improvements in its business plan.

And he cheered earlier this week when the Federal Railroad Administration granted the rail project $902 million, on top of $2.3 billion in stimulus money California was awarded in January. California voters already approved $10 billion in bonds for the project, but the state is still a long way away from raising the entire $45 billion budget for the rail line.

But the Governator is on his way out, and this is the part where you get to Choose Your Own Adventure. Will it be eBay CEO Meg Whitman? Or the man with the longest résumé in California politics, Attorney General Jerry Brown?

Whitman has let it be known that she’d axe the high speed rail program. In July, a campaign spokesperson put that issue to rest: “Meg believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis.”

Meanwhile, Brown is on record supporting high speed rail from as far back as 1982, when, as governor, he signed the law creating a high speed rail project (which never came to fruition.) His campaign website makes clear that he “support[s] high speed rail as a clean, fast, accessible alternative to air transportation and long in-state automobile trips.” Governor Brown also appointed a woman as Caltrans director who was two decades ahead of her time in supporting HOV lanes – to the horror of California drivers.

Brown also supported transit-oriented development as mayor of Oakland (I told you he’s held every job in California!), successfully increasing density in that city. He still wants to offer incentives to developers for building near transit hubs. And he says the state – and the feds – are going to have to pony up to fill in the cash gaps of municipalities, like Los Angeles, that are building transit systems.

Read more…

It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not only given up on a carbon cap in this year’s energy bill, but also ruled out provisions promoting transit and smart growth. In Reid's effort to pass an energy bill this year, even a weak bill, advocates say that chances to include major transportation reforms don’t look promising.

A large part of the bill Reid introduced yesterday, officially known as the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Accountability Act of 2010 [PDF] is devoted to oil spill cleanup. The only section that mentions transportation encourages the expansion of plug-in electric and natural gas vehicles, with billions of dollars in incentives for consumers and federal and commercial fleets. Neither of those methods of personal transportation do enough to address the core goals of averting catastrophic climate change and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The batteries in electric vehicles are often powered by coal, and natural gas is a finite resource.

What happened to the idea of including language to support smart growth and invest in transit? After Reid said last week that the Democrats didn’t have the votes for a comprehensive energy bill, advocates expected a watered-down version. But some still hoped for a chance to offer amendments drawn from the Oil Independence Bill introduced by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and others last month.

Transit advocates are less sanguine now. “It seems likely that Senator Reid will probably not allow amendments to the bill,” said Smart Growth America policy associate Stephanie Potts. “We’ll wait and see.”

Her comment was echoed by Colin Peppard, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s deputy director of federal transportation policy. “It’s a pretty limited package,” he said. “It seems like the opportunity for moving something broader and more meaningful has been closed off for the time being.”

But “there are still plenty of opportunities” to introduce legislation for transit support this year, said Peppard. “It’s a full schedule, but it’s our job to put pressure on” Congress for those issues.

Merkley’s spokesman Mike Westling hedged his bets. “I’m sure it’s something we’ll look at,” he said. “We’ll have to wait and see.”

A source on Capitol Hill said the likelihood is low that transit provisions will make the final cut in the energy bill, because Reid wants to get it passed before Congress leaves for its August recess. But Merkley and Delaware Senator Tom Carper are still hoping to push elements of the CLEAN TEA legislation -- which tied climate goals to smarter transportation and land use planning -- perhaps as part of the eventual overhaul of the national transportation bill.

"We know we don’t have the votes."

With those seven words last Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dashed hopes for a comprehensive climate bill. Prospects also dimmed for a transportation component in the final energy legislation that emerges from the Senate. Reid is expected to announce that plan later today.

Up until Reid's announcement, advocates for transportation reform had reason to believe the Senate bill might include some form of action to improve fuel efficiency, increase transit options, and encourage more sustainable land use patterns -- ideas drawn from the Oil Independence Bill introduced by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley. The oil independence legislation contained elements of Delaware Senator Tom Carper's "CLEAN-TEA" bill, introduced in March 2009, which would have funded the planning and implementation of green transportation projects with revenues from a carbon emissions cap-and-trade system.

Instead, Reid indicated that his bill will likely contain language dealing only with the Gulf oil spill and some energy efficiency provisions.

"The package that Reid announced [Thursday] doesn’t address climate change at all,” said Colin Peppard, deputy director of federal transportation policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "What we were hearing from staff on the Senate side is that basically up until pretty close to Reid’s announcement, there was still consideration for pieces of the Merkley bill."

Reid’s announcement “took the entire environmental community off-guard,” said Stephanie Potts, a policy analyst with Smart Growth America.

While the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe became an emblem of the need to wean the nation off oil, it did not stiffen many spines in Congress. In fact, said Potts, the Gulf spill may have worked against a broader climate bill by narrowing the avenues for compromise and horsetrading. Without expanded offshore drilling as a bargaining chit, there were few lures to win the votes of some recalcitrant Senators, especially those from coastal states.

In the end, the globs of brown in the Gulf of Mexico didn't overcome the absence of will to raise revenues. "The biggest obstacle is lack of funding," said one source close to the legislation, who said some transportation component may still surface in the final bill. "[Reid's bill] has not been released. There are opportunities to effect influence on that legislation, that bill, via amendments."

Read more...

As the threat of a Republican filibuster continues to prevent the Senate from passing climate legislation, leading Democrats have tried to scale back their proposal in an attempt to peel off a few votes. In the process, serious attempts to put a price on carbon have fallen by the wayside, taking with them the best hope of reducing transportation emissions. A new bill introduced yesterday by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, however, aims to reintroduce transportation into the energy debate, if in a more limited form.

The Oil Independence Bill for a Stronger America, co-sponsored by Colorado's Michael Bennet, Delaware's Tom Carper, and New Mexico's Tom Udall, sets an ambitious goal: completely halting imports of oil by 2030. Since transportation accounts for a full 70 percent of our oil use, that requires changing how the nation moves around.

Based on principles laid out last month, Merkley's bill has four main components. First, it looks to improve the fuel efficiency of the transportation system we currently have. That means providing incentives for buying electric vehicles and charging infrastructure and setting ambitious new fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles.

Second, the Oil Independence Act would try to rebalance our transportation system away from reliance on the automobile. The bill includes Carper's proposed CLEAN TEA program, which would require state Departments of Transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to set goals for how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a competitive grant program to fund exemplary projects.

Because Republicans are expected to filibuster a cap-and-trade system that includes transportation, however, the revenues that system would generate aren't available to fund CLEAN TEA. Merkley's bill only authorizes the spending for the grant program; it doesn't actually allocate the funding, potentially leaving the program greatly weakened. 

Read more...

Editor's note: Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sent us this commentary on the the BP oil spill, climate change and the need for transportation reform.

Last week, President Obama delivered his first speech from the Oval Office on the single greatest challenge our nation faces: how we supply and consume energy.

The searing images we’re seeing from the Gulf Coast -- of the families who lost loved ones, of people out of work and of oil-coated birds and dolphins -- are daily reminders of what’s at stake when we drill, baby, drill.

The truth is that we are drilling 150 miles offshore and one mile below the earth’s surface because we have run out of accessible oil. Most shocking is how small a difference this oil makes to our energy needs. The 35-60,000 barrels spewing daily from the Gulf floor would be enough to power our nation’s cars for just four minutes.

Whether from the Gulf of Mexico or Persian Gulf, we cannot meet our nation’s energy needs by drilling. We are at a precipice, and I stand firmly with President Obama when it comes to Congress passing legislation that arms the nation with clean energy.

But frankly, we need to do more on these issues, especially by addressing transportation and how we build in our communities.

The transportation sector accounts for almost three-quarters of U.S. oil consumption and one-third of our carbon emissions. If we really want to break our dependence on oil and improve our global competitiveness, we must focus on the way people commute and move goods.

Being truly aggressive about where and how we build can save even more money and energy -- with the potential to cut carbon pollution 12-16 percent by 2030 and save more than a million barrels of oil a day.

This is not the first thing that comes to mind for most people, but to ensure our energy security, we need a comprehensive approach. I hope this becomes part of the future message and, more importantly, a key focus of Congressional action.