Freight rail in Chicago, home of the stimulus-funded CREATE freight project. (Photo: NSTPRSC)

The EDF report, aimed at lawmakers crafting the nation's next long-term transportation bill, uses freight's growing share of U.S. carbon emissions as a jumping-off point to call for broad reforms.

Freight currently accounts for 25 percent of the transport sector's annual greenhouse gas production, according to EDF, but the government has reported that freight's share of total emissions is growing twice as fast as that of passenger transport -- thanks principally to the rise of truck freight movement.

One of the report's first examples of local freight reform is the CREATE project, a federally funded effort to better align freight and passenger train movement in the Chicago area. But the EDF's policy agenda is not limited to rail; efforts to retrofit and clean up diesel vehicles, such as California's Carl Moyer program, get their due.

Two more auto-centric recommendations from EDF are increased use of tolling, which the group believes could be a tool for reducing emissions, and electrifying truck stops. How do idling truckers contribute to freight's greenhouse gas production? From the report:

(Photo: Pop and Politics)

Five of the Harvard team's six outcomes assumed a future carbon price of $30 per ton (higher than the price envisioned in the House-passed climate bill) that rises over time, with other tweaks added to the system, including continued government tax credits for hybrid and electric vehicles, an immediate 50-cent hike in the gas tax, and more increases in auto fuel-efficiency standards.

The researchers concluded that taxpayer-funded clean-vehicle credits "are expensive and not particularly effective at reducing CO2 emissions, at least in the near term." In order to trim transportation's 30-percent contribution to total U.S. emissions, the Harvard team recommended an all-of-the-above approach:

[O]ptions now being discussed in Congress cannot by themselves achieve the significant reductions in the transportation sector needed to meet the Obama administration’s targets for total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The most effective policy for reducing CO2 emissions and oil imports from transportation is to spur the development and sale of more efficient vehicles with strict efficiency standards while increasing the cost of driving with strong fuel taxes. Without addressing both, CO2 emissions from the U.S. transportation sector will continue to grow.

Of course, higher gas taxes are as anathema to politicians as clean-car subsidies are alluring -- which is leaving green groups wary of a bipartisan Senate proposal to include a new motor-fuel fee in climate legislation. The oil industry has said it prefers a new carbon tax on fuel because companies can more easily pass on the costs to consumers, attributing the resulting gas-price hikes to congressional climate action.

From the Harvard researchers' perspective, however, expensive fuel is merely a means to an end.

At first glance, their lack of concern has some validity.  The California Legislative Analyst's Office doesn't even mention impacts to Smart Growth, transit, bikeways, Fix-It-First, or pedestrian improvements when discussing the impacts "postponing" the legislation would have.  It does mention vehicle emission standards, "cap and trade," programs, and green jobs.  In fact, when the state set targets for Land Use reductions in the Greenhouse Gas plan mandated by A.B. 32; it only plans for 1% of those reductions to come from land use.

While it's true that A.B. 32 has a lot more to do with bringing more clean cars to California than bringing Livable Streets, the legislation has also been the backbone of other major pieces of transportation reform.  Among them, S.B. 375, is the much heralded "Anti-Sprawl" Bill passed last year.  In a lengthy interview last May, Los Angeles City Planning Commissioner and Member of the Air Resource Board Michael Woo explained how S.B. 375 was reliant on a strong commitment to removing Greenhouse Gasses from our air:

SB 375 tackles a separate problem.  Pavley’s landmark climate law AB 32 committed California to the goal of rolling back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, but it didn’t really spell out how California is going to achieve that goal.  SB 375 authored by Senator Steinberg is the next step in terms of addressing one of the major causes of Greenhouse Gas emissions related to transportation and land use.

The other piece of legislation that grew out of A.B. 32 was California's Complete Streets legislation, A.B. 1358.  While some worry that it lacks the teeth it needs to be a true game-changer, it does which require local governments to count all users of the street when updating their general plans.  Given that Los Angeles hasn't had an official bike count, i.e. one not done by an activist group, in years this will at least give Los Angeles the boost it needs to get this most basic building block of Livable Streets accounted for.  The Transbay Blog has some of the details about how A.B. 1358 grew out of A.B. 32.

Passage of AB 1358 will help California fulfill AB 32’s mandates for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which General Plan updates must now take into account — and it will lead to the creation of more livable streets throughout California.

Looking ahead, California will have many other debates over transportation, the environment, and land use.  Writing for both L.A. and S.F. Streetsblog, Matthew Roth notes that the idea of charging California drivers a tax based on V.M.T. instead of gas taxes has gained whatever political traction it has because of the mandates of A.B. 32.

As the bill points out, accurate VMT data is essential not only for immediate compliance with the greenhouse gas reductions mandated in AB 32, but also for smarter regional planning and the reduction of sprawl mandated in SB 375.

The list of the inspiration legislators and civic leaders have drawn from A.B. 32 goes on and on.  You can read more about this at the Chico News Review.

In short, the state's Greenhouse Gas legislation was never just about reducing vehicle emissions, as worthy a goal as that is.  It's also about giving California the vision it needs to move into the future as a leader in green thinking, be it high-tech solutions, better urban planning, or just taking the time to count the people on our streets instead of their expensive pieces of personal property.  Regardless of how it gets there, 2020 is now only ten years away and in the quest to reduce our emissions to the levels they were at in 1990; all cards are going to have to be on the table.  It's repeal would be a blow, both psychological as well as political, to the efforts to mainstream the Livable Streets Movement.

(editor's note: This is Part I of a two part series.  Next week we'll look specifically at how the repeal or delaying of this legislation would effect transportation and Livable Streets. - DN)

In 2006, the California Legislature passed, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed, A.B. 32, landmark legislation that would require the state to reduce its Greenhouse Gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 

The legislation was the first of its kind in the United States, and while there has certainly been some eye rolling at the Governor’s jet-setting lifestyle; there’s almost no debate that reducing Greenhouse Gases is considered the central plank of the Governor's term in office. For transportation reformers and environmentalists, A.B. 32 is important legislation that could still be a “game changer” in the way California thinks about transportation.

However, thanks to a coalition of pro-business Republicans and the oil industry there is a strong push to place a measure on this fall’s ballot to “delay” the measure, citing the current economic client as a valid reason to delay trying to clean California’s air.  The measure would "delay" the implementation of A.B. 32 until the state unemployment level dips below 5.5%.

While the people officially pushing the ballot measure, former Gubernatorial candidate and current Congressman Tom McClintock and Assemblyman Dan Logue aren’t officially members of the oil lobby; a recent New York Times article revealed that oil giants Tesoro and Valero have funded the effort to get A.B. 32 on the ballot.  Neither firm will either confirm or deny their involvement.

Steven Maviglio, of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs took exception to the idea that A.B. 32 is bad for the economy, "First of all, this initiative would destroy the clean energy economy.  There's more than $5 billion in venture capital, 3,000 businesses and 45,000 people employed in clean tech.  This would take a wrecking ball to the only flourishing part of the economy."

Mavigilio also pointed out that delaying or removing A.B. 32 would be bad for supporters of alternative transportation.  "A.B. 32 is the catalyst for a lot of smart growth planning and anti-pollution efforts.  This could derail any effort to have a smarter, less polluting transportation system."

Environmentalists concerned about the push-back from the oil industry were joined by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who commented yesterday on the ballot initiative via press release:

We are currently in the midst of a global climate change crisis that is not only a threat to our environment, but our economic and job markets as well.  Here in California, we have always been leaders and activists and I am deeply proud that we have taken aggressive steps to combat climate change head-on with environmental initiatives and legislation such as AB 32...

...We cannot afford to lose sight of the progress we have made because large, out-of-state companies are more interested in lining their pockets with profits than protecting our environment.

For his part, Governor Schwarzenegger hasn't spoken on the link between Texas oil companies and California environmental policy; but the state does have plenty of ammunition available to fight critics of its Greenhouse Gas efforts.  The California Climate Change Portal, hosts a series of fact sheets about the level of emissions created in CA and the economic benefits of converting to a cleaner economy.  You can read other opinions debunking what some term the McClintock/Logue effort at Calitics.

Meanwhile, one of the oil companies bankrolling the "delaying" effort, Vallero, was named one of the worst polluters in the United States and was forced to pay $711 million in environmental fines in 2005 alone.

Opponents of A.B. 32 have until April 24 to gather 433,971 valid signatures to qualify it for the November ballot.

Carol Browner, at right, with the president. (Photo: TreeHugger)

If Congress succeeds in blocking the EPA from following through on a Supreme Court mandate to regulate emissions, a legislative path to nationwide pollution limits would effectively become the sole means for the Obama administration to follow through on commitments it made at last year's Copenhagen climate summit.

But White House climate adviser Carol Browner noted today that a congressional block on the EPA's authority would have a second wave of consequences for transportation policy -- it would jettison the Obama administration's much-heralded deal to raise auto fuel-efficiency standards to 35.5 mile per gallon by 2016.

"I don't know why members [of Congress] would want to go out and vote against the science of climate change," Browner told attendees at a climate conference sponsored by The New Republic.

Without EPA authority to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, she explained, "there is no car rule" -- referring to the agreement to adopt California's landmark efficiency standards as a national model.

"If the car rule were not to go forward, California would still have all its authorities," Browner added, meaning that the auto industry's fears of compliance with a "patchwork" of regional fuel standards would become a reality.

Browner's comments came as climate legislation continues to lose momentum in the Senate, giving more political ammunition to lawmakers and industry representatives who seek to stall the process.

Yet Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), one of three negotiators working on a "tri-partisan" climate deal in the upper chamber, took a notably upbeat tone today on the prospects for action this year, and Browner concurred with Kerry's sentiment.

"We're all now playing the same game inside the same stadium," she said. "The question is, can we bring it to a successful conclusion? ... We're fully engaged in this effort."

Cass Sunstein, chief of the White House budget office's regulatory arm. (Photo: Wonk Room)

Another watchdog group traced the change to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which evaluates new agency regulations through a smaller arm called OIRA (short for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs). The president's nominee to lead OIRA, Cass Sunstein, has taken heat from green groups for his past criticism of government's role in the rule-making process.

What's the significance of the OMB's change to the EPA rule? "The fewer the monitors, the more likely it is that many metropolitan areas will be able to exceed EPA’s limits without detection or correction," CPR president and law professor Rena Steinzor wrote on the group's blog in late January.

Steinzor's post also addressed the significance of the new nitrogen dioxide rule, noting that the pollutant tends to be especially common, and dangerous, in lower-income neighborhoods located near busy roads:

Scientific evidence links human NO2 exposure with various respiratory health problems. ... The biggest source of NO2 pollution is automobile emissions, though power plants and heavy industry are also significant contributors. NO2 pollution levels tend to be greater in urban areas and near major roadways, which means NO2 pollution tends to disproportionately harm the poor and communities of color.

Gina McCarthy, EPA's top air pollution regulator. (Photo: CECE)

Gina McCarthy, EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation, acknowledged in a speech at EMBARQ's transportation conference that her agency as "less effective" working alone on crafting strategies to cut VMT.

McCarthy called for federal agencies to work together on a coordinated approach to transportation policy that makes economic and environmental factors an essential part of the mix.

"When we say transportation, everybody thinks 'car'," McCarthy said. "That's a challenge for us as individuals, as a society -- and clearly it's a challenge for me, as someone who's supposed to deliver clean air to breathe."

McCarthy described lowering VMT as the third leg of the EPA's transport stool. The other two, she explained, are encouraging vehicle technology to reduce emissions and promoting cleaner-burning fuels.

But that third leg drew the bulk of McCarthy's attention, as she echoed the mission statement of the White House's inter-agency "livable communities" effort.

"Transportation, above all else, needs to be looked at through a series of complementary measures, beyond cap-and-trade, in order to drive the types of reductions we need in order to live in a sustainable world," said McCarthy, a veteran environmental regulator in Connecticut.

And McCarthy appeared to recognize the existing federal system's built-in bias toward transportation projects that make life difficult for air-quality regulators. "The easiest way to spend large hunks of money is to widen a road," she said. "The worst way to spend large hunks of money is to widen a road."

As for the cap-and-trade bill, which faces an uncertain future thanks to resistance from red-state Senate Democrats, McCarthy warned Congress that her agency is acting under a Supreme Court mandate to curb greenhouse gases: "Though we support cap-and-trade ... EPA is going to do what the law says and what the science says."

(Photo: TreeHugger)

The EPA's ruling, also known in Washington as an "endangerment finding," clears the way for the agency to play a role in implementing new auto fuel-efficiency standards released by the White House in September.

Vehicles are the No. 2 contributor to total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA said today, with electricity generation taking the top spot. "U.S. emissions from on-road vehicles are also greater than the total greenhouse gas emissions from every other individual nation, with the exception of China, Russia, and India," the EPA said in a release on its ruling.

But given that the "endangerment finding" has been in the works at the EPA since the earliest days of the Obama administration, what does today's announcement mean for the future of climate change legislation?

In the Senate, where a climate bill that would direct hundreds of billions of dollars to clean transportation remains mired in political maneuvering, Democrats aimed to use the EPA ruling to spur their slow process forward.

"The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving," Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the climate measure's chief sponsor, said in a statement. Kerry added:

If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration is more than justified to use the EPA to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations by definition will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing in the Senate today.

If the EPA ultimately steps into the emissions-regulating role that Congress aims to play with its climate bill, there would be little chance of survival for grant programs dedicated to funding transit, local land-use planning, and other transportation planning goals.

In her own statement on the EPA ruling, Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer said:

It is now clear that if we take our responsibility seriously to protect and defend our people from this threat, the Senate has a duty to act on climate change legislation that includes major components of the work done by the Energy and Environment Committees.

Still, the next step in climate legislation is unlikely to occur before January or February, when the Senate Finance Committee, headed by environmental fence-sitter Max Baucus (D-MT), is expected to hold its first votes on language that determines how to distribute revenue generated from future emissions limits.

The National Academy of Science's new report on the hidden health costs of U.S. reliance on fossil fuels has generated high-profile media coverage around the country, most of it focusing on the $62 billion annual estimate for coal rather than the $56 billion projection for vehicles.

(Photo: SILive.com)

But Greenwire's write-up is particularly interesting, if only for its responses from the National Mining Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative and climate-denying D.C. think tank that has taken $2 million from Exxon Mobil this decade. From the Greenwire piece (sub.req'd.):

"Energy production from fossil fuels causes air pollution, which damages people's health and welfare. That was big news -- in the 1970s," Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote in an e-mail. "Did we really need a 346-page study with more than 50 expert contributors to tell us that?" ...

"That aside, without energy, we'd all freeze in the dark," Lewis added. "The net cost of not having energy vastly outweighs the supposed 'hidden' costs."

Interestingly, Lewis' quip about "the net cost of not having energy" was similar in substance from the that of the Mining Association, which asserted that "the health and welfare benefits" of burning coal for electricity "clearly outweigh the cost."

(Photo: MetroDCLiving.com)

In its report today on the "unpriced consequences of energy production and use," the NRC was acting under a congressional mandate to map the health impacts of various energy sources. Climate change was not factored into the NRC's conclusions, but the report nonetheless had a grim tale to tell about transportation fuel consumption.

The NRC found that the manufacture and burning of fuel for U.S. cars and trucks produced $56 billion in external costs in 2005, the year that the report was requested. That hidden cost averaged between 1.2 and 1.7 cents per vehicle mile traveled, depending on the type of fuel used.

In discussing the relatively small difference between the external costs of conventional gas-burning autos and the costs of hybrids or electric vehicles, the NRC wrote:

Although operation of the [electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles] produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates.

In other words, hybrids and electric vehicles are still likely to consume serious amounts of coal -- at least until the nation adopts an effective renewable electricity standard. The NRC notes that "further legislative and economic initiatives to reduce emissions from the electricity grid could be expected to improve the relative damages from electric vehicles substantially."

Streetlights are an enormous part of any city's energy consumption and cities that wish to cut down on their emissions and their energy bills are getting in line to convert their older street lamps to LED technology. According to Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) and Department of Energy (DOE) data, street lighting costs are one of the biggest components of a city’s utility bill, accounting for 10 percent to 38 percent of the total. With nearly 35 million street lights in the United States, about 1 percent of all electricity is used by street lighting systems.

Like other cities in the Bay Area experimenting with LED streetlights, including San Francisco and Oakland, San Jose has embraced the nascent technology as part of a sustainability platform called Green Vision, which sets ambitious targets for reducing energy consumption and emissions, including an expected 50 percent or more energy and cost savings from the street lamp conversions.

"Our goal has always been to move to a more energy efficient light," said Laura Stuchinksy, Transportation Sustainability Officer at the San Jose Department of Transportation.

Stuchinsky said San Jose intends to replace all 62,000 streetlights throughout the city before the Green Vision target date of 2022. The city implemented a pilot streetlighting project in Hillview North in 2008 that replaced 118 low-pressure sodium streetlights with LEDs and a recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus fund grant of $2.2 million will offset implementation costs for the next wave of conversions expected later this year.  Further, the city intends to backfill with new renewable energy generated locally and possible purchases through PG&E. San Jose currently spends $4 million annually on street lights, which consumes over 35 million kilowatt hours of electricity, according to Stuchinsky.

In addition to the benefits to the city, the public seems to like the new lights. The Hillview North project, contracted to Echelon Corporation and funded with part of a $200,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from HUD, had received positive reviews from the community. Even though the new streetlights use less energy, the LEDS give off a broader spectrum of white light than the current yellow hue of the low-pressure sodium lamps, which gives neighbors a greater sense of safety, according to Stuchinsky.

LED lights side-by-side with sodium lights. Photo: PG&E

Astronomers at Lick Observatory, 14 miles east of San Jose, are concerned about any increase in city lights, especially LEDS, said Stuchinksy, as they are unable to filter the white light in the same way they do with yellow from sodium lights.  In order to convert more lights and remain Dark-Sky compliant, San Jose has been working with manufactures to develop solutions for dimming lights at night or for motion-sensors that would help reduce overall light when it is not needed. While the technology is not yet perfect, Stuchinsky believes that the possibility of contracting with a large municipality like San Jose is leading vendors to be more innovative.

Another obstacle to expansion of LED streetlights is the rate schedule at large utilities such as PG&E, which until recently didn't break LEDs into a separate category so savings could be quantified. Municipalities like San Jose pay monthly block rates, regardless of how much energy is actually used. With PG&E's recent classification change, the utility has set a national example and will make conversion more bankable for other municipalities who have the incentive to move to a lower billing rate.

PG&E spokesperson Joseph Molica said the utility was very excited to assist cities throughout the state with LED conversions. "There are two types of incentives for city customers: a lower rate schedule and they are eligible for energy efficiency rebates," he said.

He hoped Bay Area cities would embrace the new technology as thoroughly as Los Angeles, where the city has committed to replace 140,000 existing street lamps with LEDs over the next five years, the largest conversion anywhere in the country. Molica added that ARRA stimulus funds had enabled smaller municipalities like Danville and El Cerrito to initiate trials and that the DOE grants are "coming in almost daily."

Molica said PG&E pilot programs in San Francisco and Oakland over the past two years were excellent test cases for the utility, which realized energy savings from different vendors between 50 to 70 percent [for more analysis: Oakland PDF, San Francisco PDF]. Molica also stressed that the LEDs last many years longer than current sodium lighting, so savings over the long run add up significantly. PG&E has also partnered with the CCI to reach out to more cities across the state to make conversions.

Molica echoed Stuchinsky's assertion that customers approve of the new lights, saying that PG&E conducted outreach before trials in San Francisco's Outer Richmond neighborhood and has sought continuous feedback subsequently. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom earlier this year touted a new pilot near City Hall that incorporates remote dimming technology. At the press conference, Newsom turned the lights up and down with his cell phone (Molica said Newsom used an encrypted code for accessing the system controls, but it does lead one to wonder if the savvy kids at Black Hat might try hacking the city's lights).

On Monday, reader M asked for some advice while traveling outside. While some readers stepped up with some good advice, I asked some of our local bike safety experts for their advice.

A couple of people took up the challenge, and in particular Shay Sanchez, the co-founder and program director of Cyclists Inciting Change through Live Exchange, wrote several suggestions which you can find here. Sanchez writes:

L.A. summer smog is bad enough, but throw a giant ash plume into the mix and it's time to take a serious look at keeping your lungs happy.

1. Find alternatives to biking. (Whoa! Did I just write that??!!) The air is laden with smoke and health experts are advising that we minimize our exposure to air pollutants by not engaging in outdoor physical activities. This, of course, includes city bicycling. The risks to your health can be serious, especially if you're grappling with asthma or another respiratory or cardiovascular health challenge. So if you can, think about finding an alternative to bicycling. Consider riding public transit, car-pooling, hailing a taxi, or even renting a car during this time (if you're currently car-free).
2. Take it easy. If you are going to ride, reduce your effort. During aerobic exercise (even at low-intensity) you may breathe as much as 10 times more air than you do when at rest. So it makes sense to s-l-o-w it down. Be aware that at lower speeds the speed differential between you and overtaking traffic increases, possibly increasing the risk for a collision. Be alert. Better yet, choose lower speed street alternatives whenever possible. Another benefit to streets that carry lower traffic volumes is that they feature lower air pollution levels in general. Pollution levels are likely to start decreasing at 50 feet from a main arterial.
3. Keep it short. If you are going to ride, limit the length of your journey. Many of our trips are 2 miles or less, so this should be pretty easy for many of us. For longer trips, see if you can shorten the bike portion of your trip by incorporating multi-modal options such as bus and/or train.
4. Wear a mask. Another helpful option is to wear a filtering face mask. Be sure that it's a carbon-impregnated face mask, which are known to be helpful in reducing the amount of air pollution that enters the lungs. Your mask should fit your face well, with almost no gaps between you nose and mouth.

For advice from Joe Linton, Roadblock and Ron Milam, read on after the jump.

After an obligatory shot at car-culture, Linton, chair of the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and LACBC co-founder, offers advice for cyclists and a link to some advice to keep kids safe:

I guess I'd start with the big picture. I suspect that there are causal connections betwen our driving and the fires. Auto emissions are a major part of what's heating up the planet. In order to park and to drive, we've paved over our landscape with impermeable surfaces, breaking water cycles, shrinking groundwaters and causing desertification. Combine these with Southern California's natural fire cycles and you get the devasting fire events including what we're seeing right now. The big picture remedies include not driving, and working to heal our watersheds.

 All that said, what I can say about the day-to-day stuff seems pretty ordinary: if you're a cyclist living in a highly impacted are, go easy this week. Take the bus, drive some if you need to. Crash at your friend's place on the west side. And when the smoke clears, redouble your commitment to staying out of cars.

My creekfreak blog mate Jessica wrote about the fires, including links to natural history information. My comments there include links to Ilsa Setziol's writings - including one on how to take precautions for kids, who are more vulnerable.

Roadblock, one the leaders of the Midnight Ridazz and the Wolfpack Hustle, offers advice for riders who are going to brave the smoke on longer trips:

The wind is important to planning your trip. Guage the wind and terrain. The idea is to stay upwind from the smoke at all times. Barring that, if possible, try to take downhill routes in the smokey areas and try to place the the uphill portion of your route upwind of the fires. It might mean adding 10 or 15 miles to your route in the same manner that sailboats zig and zag across the ocean using triangular routes against the current of the wind to reach their destination. If all else fails hit the subway or take the bus.

Last but not least, Ron Milam, another LACBC co-founder and a consultant with Ron Milam consulting, offers his sage advice:

This is what the air quality was like when I grew up in L.A., which makes me appreciate how far we've come as a region to clean our air. I continue to ride during the fires and am intentionally riding a little slower so I don't breathe as hard.

A new survey released yesterday by the Public Policy Institute of California has been getting a lot of play in the press because of the strong support Californians are showing for Greenhouse Gas reduction programs, even in the midst of the current recession and budget crisis.

Often times when politicians talk about climate change, they tend to leave transportation reform out of the conversation; choosing to look at hybrid and other low- and zero-emission cars as the solution. However, the PPIC asked Californians what they thought about transit expansion and gas prices.

The results? Californians are tired of paying such a high price for gas and want more alternatives. From the PPIC's press release:

Californians (69%) are less likely than last year (76%) to report that gas prices are a financial hardship. But large majorities of some groups do, particularly Latinos (85%) and residents with annual household incomes under $40,000 (83%). And although the percentage of Californians who drive to work alone has declined 12 points since 2002, commuting patterns among employed Californians (63% drive alone, 16% carpool, 9% take public transit) are similar to last year...

...Three in four residents (77%) say the state should focus transportation planning dollars on expanding public transit and using the existing network more efficiently, up 10 points since August 2004 (67%). Just 18 percent say the state should focus on building freeways and highways.

Over at The Switchboard, the Natural Resources Defense Council's official blog, they break down those numbers for transit support by region, and what might be a surprise to some, but shouldn't be after the support for Measure R, Los Angeles is actually slightly above average when it comes to transit support.

The Switchboard goes on to state the obvious...with Californians crying out for more and better transit options; Governor Schwarzenegger and Caltrans continue to push for massive highway projects while fighting desperately in court for the right to rob funds dedicated by taxpayers to transit projects.

And Californians instinctively recognize not only the importance of transit, but the need to make our entire transportation system more efficient.  The environmental benefits of such an approach are made clear in a new publication, co-sponsored by NRDC, and released earlier this week: Moving Cooler: Transportation Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.   This first-of-its-kind study looks at nearly 50 measures and combinations thereof, assessing their potential to save fuel, reduce heat-trapping pollution and save consumers money. 

California’s policymakers would be well-advised to read Moving Cooler.  As the Kinks said, Give the People What They Want.

Since I appreciate a good Kinks reference as much as the next person, I'll leave it at that.

Photo: CowCar

It's not simply that meat is a contributor to global warming; it's that it is a huge contributor. Larger, by a significant margin, than the global transportation sector.

Really? Klein cites a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which found that the livestock industry -- the process of bringing meat from farm to table -- generates 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions "measured in CO2 equivalent."

Transportation, according to the UN report, generates 13.5 percent of global emissions measured by the same method.

And that's an important caveat. Two gases produced in large quantities by livestock are methane and nitrous oxide, which have 23 times and 296 times the "global warming potential" of CO2. Measuring methane and nitrous oxide in "CO2 equivalent," then, pads the climate impact of livestock versus CO2 emitters such as cars and power plants.

The 2006 UN report's comparison rings hollow in another way as well. Measuring the movement of feed to factory farms, not to mention the movement of packaged meat to supermarket shelves, means that livestock is part of the world's transportation sector, not a separate and distinct source of emissions.

Later in his column, Klein also cites a University of Chicago study that found adopting a vegan diet would be healthier for the environment than driving a hybrid car. As Dan Lasher of the Natural Resources Defense Council discovered, however, the Chicago researchers drastically underestimated the amount of CO2 released by one gallon of gas, among other "generic calculations."

The Coalition for Clean Air's recently released report, "Getting to work: Your clean air commute," is a guide for employers, workers and policymakers in order to provide smarter transportation benefits to our workforce. CCA surveyed large employers in Los Angeles County, reviewed literature and consulted with transportation demand management (TDM) experts to compile their findings.

The report highlights best practices for employers to promote bicycling, carpooling, parking management, telework, transit, vanpooling and walking. It concludes with a series of policy recommendations, including:

· Expanding employer-based transit passes

· Expanding use of parking cash-out

· Improving work site transfer policies to allow employees to more easily switch to workplaces closer to home

Learn more about clean air commuter options, and share your thoughts and stories here.

Yesterday, the California Air Resource Board voted to adopt what are being hailed as the "nation's first comprehensive plan to slash greenhouse gases" despite protests from businesses and car dealerships that contend the new standards will be bad for business.

While the new regulations aim to cut emissions in all sectors of the economy, almost one-third of the recuctions are expected to come from the automobile industry.  The Green Car Congress explains what impact the vote will have:

The Scoping Plan requires the largest sectorial chunk of reductions to come from transportation, outlining projected 62.3 MMTCO₂e (37%) in reductions through a variety of measures.

The key transportation instrument is the Pavley standards, followed by the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. In the final plan, however, ARB has increased its estimate of reductions in regional transportation greenhouse gases achieved through land-use changes and transit policies designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT); this is prior to setting the targets required by the newly enacted SB 375 (anti-sprawl bill).

ARB is also evaluating the use of feebates as a measure to achieve additional reductions, either as a backstop to the Pavley regulation if the regulation cannot be implemented, or as a supplement to Pavley if the waiver is approved and the regulation takes effect.

But the CARB isn't done yet.  Later today they're expected to vote on new rules requiring all trucks using California roads, whether they're based in California or not, to switch to low-emission vehicles or retro-fit they're current trucks with carbon filters by 2012.  By 2020, all trucks will need to have certain high-efficiency engines.  The move will cost an estimated $5.5 billion to implement, and the state has set aside $1 billion to ease the burden on truckers.

That hasn't stopped some in the industry from bringing some histrionics to a debate over whether California is serious about cleaning up it's terrible air quality.

While Northgate has purchased a new truck in its nine-vehicle fleet that serves Pacific Pride and Shell gas stations, it was an expensive transaction.

"And you might as well drive the old truck off a cliff. You won't be able to sell it." 

Nevertheless, the potential benefits of the new rules are staggering.  The California Air Resources Board estimates that over the next 15 years the rule will prevent 9,400 premature deaths, result in 150,000 fewer asthma cases and save up to $68 billion in public heath care costs.

I'll post an update when the vote is finalized.

Photo: Wired

It's certainly not a surprise that cars cause pollution.  But, as our elected leaders in Washington debate a $25 billion bailout of the American oil industry, it's worth revisiting the cost of car culture locally.

Researchers at Cal State Fullerton estimate that the cost of air pollution in California, pollution primarily caused by cars, trucks and other heavy machines, cost Californians $28 billion ever year.  Much of this astronomic value comes from lost work time, hospital vists and even the 3,000 deaths that are caused because of health complications that exist because of unclean air.

The Times reports that the Cal-State Fullerton study has broader implications than upcoming ballot votes by Congress:

“Pollution from international goods movement is causing a health crisis in California and the federal government is not going to bail us out. We need to stand up and fight this ourselves and hopefully, some day, we’ll have a Governor that will fight for California as well.” stated Senator Lowenthal.

The California Air Resources Board estimates 3,700 deaths a year are directly attributed to diesel pollution emanating from goods movement. That is in addition to the $200 billion in additional health care costs that CARB attributes to goods movement over the next 15 years.

“I held off on this bill last year at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger, and spent the whole year working with his office. Unfortunately the pressure from Governor Palin and multi-national corporations was too much for him and the Governor chose those interests over the health and well-being of Californians,”
concluded Lowenthal.

Port of Los Angeles at Twilight

The issue of whether or not to charge a $60 fee on all containers entering the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to be used to mitigate the pollution caused by shippers has been a contentious one.  Earlier this summer the legislature passed, for the second time, legislation creating the fee however Governor Schwarzenegger has yet to sign the legislation while his office continues to battle the legislature over the budget.

However, an unlikely opponent to the legislation has just made Schwarzenegger's choice even harder.

One day before she was tapped by John McCain to be his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wrote Schwarzenegger asking him not to sign the legislation because it would be bad for the economies of Alaska and California.  As the bill's author, Long Beach Senator Alan Lowenthal, notes in the Times, Palin's letter is fascinating for what it doesn't say.

The letter doesn't mention the environmental impact the ports have on the surrounding communities.  It doesn't mention what the funds would be used for.  It doesn't mention the 3,400 Californians killed every year because of pollution.  It focuses only on the impact the increased cost of doing business would have on the people of Alaska without doing any analysis on what that impact would actually be.

In response to the Governor's veto of similar legislation last year, Lowenthal's bill lowered the fee imposed on goods being transferred from one ship to another in half to $30.  Experts estimate that the average impact of the fee on Alaskan consumers would be an increase of ten cents to the average pair of sneakers.

For a pdf. copy of Palin's letter click here.  To read the text, read on after the jump.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing to join Governor Lingle of Hawaii in urging you not to sign Senate Bill 974. This legislation would impose a $30 fee per 20 foot equivalent for shipping containers. (Many shipping containers are 40 feet long, so the fee or tax would double to $60.) As I understand it, the fee would apply to all shipping containers processed through the main ports in California (Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland).

I have previously written to Governor Gregoire of Washington in opposition to a similar container tax the Washington Legislature considered in 2007. The Alaska Legislature also passed a resolution opposing that bill. I have enclosed a copy) of that resolution.

Enactment of Senate Bill974 will have negative impacts on both Alaska and California.  For Alaskans, a very large percentage of goods (90 percent or more) shipped to Alaska arrive as marine cargo in a container. Many communities lack road access and depend entirely on the shipment of goods by container. Shipping costs have increased significantly with the rising price of fuel and these higher costs are quickly passed onto Alaskans. This tax makes the situation worse.

Similarly, the tax may harm California by driving port business away from its ports. New  port developments such as the one in Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada, could become attractive to shippers.

I respectfully request due consideralion be given to our state anci that 1,ou nrit sign Senate Bill 974.

Sincerely,
Sarah Palin
Govt'rnor

Photo: Brande Jackson/Flickr

What is more important, the health and safety of people living near ports or the cost to truckers and consumers of helping truck carriers meet modern environmental standards and fairness towards independent truckers?  That question could be answered later today when a federal court hears arguments from the American Trucking Association against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

The ports, to the wild approval of local residents and environmental advocates concerned about air quality, have decided to ban all pre-1989 trucks from the ports beginning on October 1 and slowly raise the bar on emissions standards that by 2012 all trucks will meet 2007 emission standards.

Concerns about the "concession agreements" between the ports and truck contractors lie at the heart of the ATA's lawsuit.  The plans the ports are proposing have been compared to agreements between landlords and tennants, giving the ports power over hiring practices, maintenance and employee health insurance.  The ATA argues that they are placing smaller carriers at a disadvantage, especially independent truckers that could be banned altogether from the Port of Los Angeles by 2012. 

While agreements have been reached between the ports and trucking companies representing literally thousands of truckers, the ATA is still concerned the agreements will have a long lasting negative impact on the industry.  From an ATA press release:

“The Port of Los Angeles’ further intrusion into the competitive structure of the drayage market makes the ATA lawsuit even more important and illustrates precisely the type of disruption of trucking services in the economy that Congress found so inefficient and disruptive,” said ATA President and CEO Bill Graves. “Creating an artificial, non-competitive market with highly inflated costs and prices hinders our national competitive ability and sets a dangerous precedent.”

However, the ruling from today's lawsuit may not have much impact on the long term prospects of the "clean trucks" program.  Art Wong, spokesperson for the Port of Long Beach, tells the Contra Costa Times:

"But regardless of what the judge does, we will move ahead with the fee and the ban on dirty trucks," Wong said. "It might be trickier without the concession agreement, but we're going to clean up these trucks one way or another."

Photo: Chrisnu/Flickr