While I support the goal of reducing vehicle trips, this bill would impose a new mandate on small business at a time of economic uncertainty.

Governor Brown tosses up an airball. Photo: Office of the Governor via KQED

There’s only one problem with this statement.  SB 582 doesn’t require anything of small business without the action of local government bodies known as Municipal Planning Organizations or Air Quality Districts (MPO’s and AQD’s) and the mandate they could require would barely cost businesses anything.  A coalition of environmental, transportation reform and public health groups supported the legislation as well as some large employers including Facebook and Genetech.

“We’re disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed this bill, which would have saved money for California employers and employees, while improving our air quality,” writes Rebecca Saltzman, a Program Associate with the California League of Conservation Voters.

So what would SB 582 have actually done?  It would have given MPO’s and AQD’s the ability to require businesses with 20 full-time employees (or in some cases 50 depending the transit options and air quality of the area) to provide commuter benefits to employees who commute to and from work without their car.  Despite the Governor’s rhetoric, there was a near-cost-free options to meet this requirement.

• Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
• Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
• Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.

The first option basically has employers deduct an amount up to $75 from employees pay checks and provide them with a separate check for that amount to cover commuting expenses.  This allows transit and bike commuters to have a tax-free, or tax reduced if their monthly transit ticket is more than $75. 

In a letter to supporters, Bay Area based reform group TransForm noted that, “Commuter benefits typically reduce taxes for employers, too, so this is a win for everyone.”   By reducing the taxable salary of employees, employers would reduce their taxes and could save more than the costs of administering a commuter benefits program.

The good news is that individual municipalities already have the power to require commuter benefits programs.  Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have their own requirements and program already in place.  The bad news is that providing these cost-free benefits has become an oddly partisan issue in Sacramento.

But it wasn’t always that way.  SB 582 was first introduced by Riverside County Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson who guided the bill through the Senate with largely bi-partisan support.  Then, after the bill easily cleared an Assembly Committee, opposition to the legislation was registered by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association.  Their opposition caused Emmerson to drop his support of the legislation (all mentions of the bill have been scrubbed from his website).  Sponsorship was then transferred to Bay Area Democrat Leland Yee.

For more details on the partisanization of this bill, visit the League of Conservation Voter’s Blogsite.

But one setback doesn’t mean that supporters of SB 582 have given up the fight.  ”CLCV and our partners will continue to work to pass legislation that incentivizes and improves access to alternative means of transportation, like AB 650. That bill would establish a task force that will examine the current state of public transit, identify what is needed to make the system meet projected demand, map out associated costs, and – most importantly – determine how to consistently fund public transport to serve our state’s needs,” writes Saltzman.

Streetsblog will have more coverage of AB 650 next week.

I have written about how amorphous the scoping process for Metro and Caltran’s 710 gap-closure/ big dig project has been.   I’ve now given shape to my own opinions in comments for the scoping phase of their environmental review (which ends on April 14^th). Please submit comments if you are interested in the future of freeways and transportaiton in the region.

Others interested in this project are submitting comments focused on the proper scope of environmental review of a mega tunnel. So I’m focusing on how the agencies should study and fund alternative mobility projects in the project area and remove, rather than expand, a portion of SR-710.

1. Remove the SR-710 freeway between the 10 freeway and Valley blvd by transforming it into a boulevard and/ or a linear park.

2. Expand transit to reduce car traffic and pollution and spur transit-oriented development

3. Create complete, living and green streets that promote safe walking and cycling and create vibrant public spaces.

4. Reduce freight truck traffic and pollution by expanding on dock rail at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

5. Conduct a health impact assessment of all alternatives.

I believe that investing in these alternatives would better meet the goals “to relieve congestion and improve mobility within the project area” than would a freeway tunnel.

Caltrans and Metro have defined the project area as the geography touched by the five fingers of the potential corridor zones chosen for the Tunnel Technical Study. (See Initial Study Area map). It includes the 5 and 2 freeways to the west, the 210 to the north, the 605 to the east, and the 10 to the south. The west San Gabriel Valley, Northeast Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, and other cities and communities along the Arroyo Seco corridor are diverse, with a rich cultural history and important natural landscapes. The opening of the Metro Gold Line has provided a new sense of connection between some of these communities and opportunities for transit-oriented development and more sustainable land use in the region. The zone is also divided and surrounded by numerous freeways, that bring deadly particulate pollution. They promote car-centric land use and mobility, which have contributed to epidemics of obesity and diet-related illness. The construction of these freeways disrupted communities, especially low income communities of color.

Metro and Caltrans have a choice to make in investing billions of dollars to address mobility and congestion in this area. They can look to the past, to early-mid 20^th century freeway plans,  by extending SR-710 to the 210 (or to Del Mar Blvd in Pasadena) via a surface or tunnel route. This backwards-looking approach (see 1958 map of the massive and thankfully never fully implemented freeway and expressway system), would further pollute and divide communities. These plans are from an era when the car was supposed to solve all mobility challenges. They are outdated relics from a period before scientists understood the health risks of particulate pollution and the threat of climate change; and before planners and health officials fully understood that a freeway and car-based transportation system would lead to sprawl, sedentary lifestyles, and inefficient land use patterns.

Or the agencies can adopt 21^st century transportation solutions to move people and products in a way that improves the environment and surrounding communities.

Photo:Elzed/Flickr

1. Remove the SR-710 freeway between the 10 freeway and Valley blvd by transforming it into a boulevard street and/ or a linear park.

Smart metropolitan regions are beginning to undue some of the damage done by the urban freeway frenzy of the 1950s-1970s. Cities such as San Francisco, Soeul, Korea, and Portland have achieved gains in quality of life, economic development, and mobility by transforming sections of freeways into boulevards, open space, and parks:

• Removing Freeways Restoring Communities
• Congress for the New Urbanism: Highways;
• GRIST: Seoul Tears Down Urban Highway, Life Goes On;
• Infrastructuris: 7 Freeways We Should Tear Down Right Now
• Streetfilms: Lessons from San Francisco;
• Streetfilms: Moving Beyond the Automobile, Freeway Removal

The approximately mile-long stub of SR-710 that extends north of the 10 freeway to Valley blvd is a promising candidate for removal and transformation.

Þ     Caltrans and Metro should decommission this section of SR-710 and transform it into a non-grade-separated, complete, living and green street as discussed above and/or into a park and open space.

Þ     The agencies should conduct a community planning exercise involving residents, municipalities, and adjacent California State University Los Angeles to determine how to best transform the removed section freeway. To limit exposure to freeway pollution, the lower 1500-2000 feet of the new boulevard/ park could be a buffer zone/ ecological remediation zone with more active uses in the northern two-thirds of the site.

Þ     The agencies should ensure that this closure does not worsen pollution in adjacent communities. This can be accomplished by increasing transit, reducing truck freight trips, and conducting a health impact assessment.

2.  Expand transit to reduce car traffic and pollution and spur transit-oriented development

Rapidly expanding the transit network in the area under review is the best way to ultimately reduce passenger car traffic and improve denser, walkable land uses. There are significant gaps in transit in the area under review, especially north-south between the northern and southern sections of the San Gabriel Valley and between Northeast Los Angeles and Glendale and the San Fernando Valley. Glendale is in fact the most populous city in Los Angeles County without a light rail connection.

Þ     Accelerate extending the Gold Line eastwards as planned in the Foothill extension and Eastside extension.

Þ     Extend metrorail northwest from one of the Pasadena Gold Line stations through Eagle Rock, Glendale and Burbank to the Burbank airport then south to connect to the terminus of the Red Line in North Hollywood.

Þ     Create metrorail, metroliner or dedicated busway north-south corridors between the two arms of the Goldline. One could follow Atlantic and Huntington to connect the East L.A. civic center station to the planned Gold Line foothill extension station in Arcadia. As the foothill extension and eastside extensions of the Gold Line continues, Metro should consider further North-South Spurs every 3-5 miles similar to the East Valley north south corridors being studied in the San Fernando Valley.

Vision63/Flickr

3. Create complete, living, and green streets that promote safe walking and cycling and create vibrant public spaces.

Streets let people move between places. Streets are also important public space in themselves. Throughout much of the 20th century, traffic engineers designed wide streets with wide lanes and high speed limits in an effort to maximize the flow of cars per hour at peak traffic times. These design standards created streets that are dangerous to walk or bike on. Streets designed as ‘sewers for cars’ also harm the places they are supposed to connect by making it unpleasant to be outside due to the speed and noise and sterile visual environment of streets. Fortunately, some cities are reinventing streets for the 21^st century. These streets are complete in that they dedicate space for all modes of transportation with wide sidewalks, bike lanes (including protected or separated bike lanes), bus only lanes, flex lanes, modern streetcars, etc. They are living and vibrant because they calm traffic, create more and safer pedestrian crossings,  more public plazas and seating, and welcome walkers and bikers who bring life to sidewalks and streets and customers to local business. They are green because they are designed with more shade trees, less blacktop, and with landscaping and permeable surfaces to capture and filter rainwater.

The My Figueroa project examining street improvements for South Figueroa St. in Los Angeles is demonstrating possibilities for 21^st century streets.  The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is similarly funding development of a model streets manual that incorporates similar goals of living, safe, and complete streets. The project area for the SR-710 ‘gap closure’ project has a number of major streets that are too wide, unpleasant, and unsafe. These could greatly benefit from being made more complete, living, and green.

Þ     As part of an alternative to freeway extension, Metro and Caltrans should launch planning efforts like the My Figueroa project for twelve streets and implement cutting edge improvements on these streets of the type that will be contained in the Los Angeles County funded street manual. I’d suggest the following candidates:

• Huntington dr
• Valley blvd
• Mission blvd
• Main st/ Las Tunas dr
• Fremont ave
• Atlantic blvd
• Rosemead blvd
• San Gabriel blvd
• San Fernando Rd
• Eagle Rock blvd
• Colorado Blvd
• N. Figueroa St

Þ     Metro should work with municipalities and the County to ensure that a network of bike lanes, protected bike lanes, bike paths and bike infrastructure is rapidly implemented in the project area, with a goal of rapidly increasing cycling’s mode share of trips. Bike lane projects promote clean, healthy transportation and also create more jobs per dollar invested than road projects.

4. Reduce freight truck traffic and pollution by expanding on dock rail at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

One of the perceived needs for extension of SR-710 is high levels of truck traffic on the existing route and expectations of continuing increases in freight imports and truck traffic. The solution to this challenge isn’t expanding or extending freeways. It is reducing truck traffic by shifting freight movement to less polluting modes of goods movement and reassessing the desirability of endless growth in the logistics industry. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that externalities from truck freight transport were approximately six times more per unit carried than for freight rail. “According to our synthesis of EPA’s latest national emissions inventory data (2002), freight trucks produced over six times more fine particulate  matter and over four times more nitrogen oxide on a ton-mile basis than freight locomotives, and over 10 and six times more of each type of emission, respectively, on a ton-mile basis than inland waterway vessels. And, according to our analysis of EPA data on greenhouse gases, trucks emitted the highest levels of greenhouse gas (CO2 equivalents) among the freight modes—about eight times more per unit of freight than freight rail, and thirteen times more than waterways freight.” (GAO. SURFACE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION: A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers. January, 2011.)

Þ     Caltrans and Metro should work with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to expand capacity for on-dock rail so that imports can be loaded directly onto freight trains, reducing the need for trucks to transport containers to warehouses, inland rail yards, and transloading facilities.

Þ     Caltrans and Metro should work with the ports to set a target and plan for reduced truck traffic on SR-710.

Þ     The agencies should work with the ports, railroad companies and regulators to accelerate adoption of electrified and cleaner locomotive technologies and to ensure that increased train facilities and trips do not increase negative health impacts.

5. Conduct a health impact assessment of all alternatives.

Freeways are sources of dangerous air pollution, especially from diesel exhaust. Children living near freeways face higher risks of asthma, worse asthma, and reduced lung growth. (McConnell, R et al. 2010. Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home and school. Environmental Health Perspectives http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901232; McConnell, R., et al. (2006). “Traffic, Susceptibility, and Childhood Asthma.” Environ Health Perspect 114(5): 766–772; Gauderman, W. J., E. Avol, et al. (2005). “Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide.” Epidemiology 16(6): 737-43; Gauderman, W.J. et al. (2007) “Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study.” Lancet 369(9561):571-7.)

Exposure to traffic-related air pollution is also associated with higher rates of heart disease and cancer in adults. (Kramer et al. 2010. Traffic-related air pollution and incident type 2 diabetes: Results from the SALIA cohort study. Environmental Health Perspectives http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901689; Beelen, et al. “Long-Term Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Lung Cancer Risk.” Epidemiology 19 (5): 702-710 (2008); Kan et al, “Traffic exposure and lung function in adults: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.” Thorax 2007 62: 873-879 (2007).

Þ     In addition to EIR/EIS, Caltrans and Metro should conduct a health impact assessment of all project alternatives, including the surface freeway, tunnel and other alternatives.

Þ     The agencies should learn from the ongoing Health Impact Assessment of the SR-710 expansion project being performed by Human Impact Partners and ICF International with input from Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson doesn't have to worry about getting hamstrung by theatrical House GOP legislating.

With budget talks reaching a critical pass to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans have been busy passing an ideological wishlist, including an attempt to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from “raising taxes.” H.R. 910, which they are calling the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” would undermine the EPA’s ability to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and manufacturing plants and gut the Clean Air Act.

Democrats offered a few amendments to the bill which made for some good political theater, including a gem from Representative Earl Blumenauer. Stating that “I, too, am opposed to any attempts by the EPA to impose taxes,” Blumenauer offered an amendment that struck the provisions of the bill and replaced them with a measure to “help us find out whether Republicans are truly concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency imposing an energy tax on America.” The amendment text continued: “During its 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has prevented millions of hospital visits, asthma attacks and cases of lung cancer while strengthening our economy. A record like that deserves support, not partisan attacks.”

Blumenauer’s amendment didn’t get far but environmental and public health groups can rest easy, for now. The bill, and a few others attempting to curb the EPA’s regulatory powers, didn’t make it through the Senate. President Obama had also stated that he would veto any bills that did not reflect “scientific consensus on global warming.”

Meanwhile, budget talks have continued behind closed doors. Billions for transit, rail, and green transportation are still at stake in the negotiations.President Obama met with House and Senate leaders late last night and earlier today in another attempt to reach an agreement on how to avoid a government shutdown. House Republicans have drafted yet another Continuing Resolution to keep the government running – this time for just one week – that would cut a further $12 billion from the budget but would fully fund the military through October 1. (The GOP is calling it the “troop-funding” bill.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already rejected the CR, saying the Republicans are not “solving problems, they’re stalling. They’re procrastinating. That’s not just bad policy, it’s fantasy.”

House Speaker John Boehner says he is serious about a solution, but as the chief negotiator for the Republicans, he has his hands full managing the expectations of the GOP’s Tea Party contingent. Boehner has tried to temper internal party conflicts with meetings to “educate” freshmen on the political and financial risks of a government shutdown. It has widely been reported that he believes Democrats would score the political victory if a FY2011 Budget is not passed by tomorrow. Boehner has been taking time this week to meet with the “cut it or shut it” crowd within his party’s ranks to push for some compromise – and it could work. “It’s helped a lot of freshmen see the bigger picture,” said Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama. “You could see a lot of freshmen evolving and growing and maturing as legislators.”

But it still might not be enough. Congressional rules make it particularly difficult to push through the necessary legislation within the next two days, at which point a shutdown would go into effect. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy has said compromise would not be necessary to pass the newest CR, if he can get his entire party’s support. Without it, members of our armed forces could see their paychecks withheld, the IRS would stop processing paper tax returns, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would be furloughed, and all small business loans would be placed on hold.

President Obama is calling Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid back to the White House at 7 p.m. today. Stay tuned.

The report is especially timely as reports out of Washington suggest that Republican leadership is pushing for a transportation reauthorization bill that will expand the nation’s dependency on highway travel and slash funding for other forms of cleaner transportation.

Photo:KQED

The pollutants aren’t caused just by the air pollution created by the internal combustion engine alone, but by a mix of tiny particles from burning of fossil fuel and the weathering of car parts and the freeway itself.  Finch explains that the toxic particulates are roughly one-thousandth the width of a human hair and too small for car filtration systems to trap, so that its not just the people living near highways that are endangering their brain cells, but those driving on the freeway.

Many studies have drawn a link between vehicle pollution and health problems. This is the first to explore the physical effect of freeway pollution on brain cells, Finch said.

The study measured the brain activity and health of mice after exposure to the toxic particulates caused by freeway driving.  In the study, mice were exposed for a relatively short time: 150 hours, spread over 10 weeks, in three sessions per week lasting five hours each.  The results?

• Neurons involved in learning and memory showed significant damage.
• The brain showed signs of inflammation associated with premature aging and Alzheimer’s disease.
• Neurons from developing mice did not grow as well.

For those hoping that electric and hybrid automobiles are the solution to all of America’s transportation woes, there’s more bad news.  Even an all-electric car culture would not solve the problem on its own, Finch explains in USC’s press release.

“It would certainly sharply decrease the local concentration of nanoparticles, but then at present, electrical generation still depends upon other combustion processes – coal – that in a larger environment contribute nanoparticles anyway.

“It’s a long-term global project to reduce the amount of nanoparticles around the world. Whether we clean up our cars, we still have to clean up our power generation.”

The report stops short of recommending investments in livable communities, transit expansion and other forms of truly clean transportation, but if the major problem illustrated by this project is, as lead author Todd Morgan tells the Los Angeles Times is about figuring out how to move people without all the negative impacts; then there are a limited number of potential solutions.

Photo: Thomas Hawk/Flickr

Climate change is a national security risk that will be exacerbated if Californians pass Proposition 23, the voter initiative on the ballot this November that would suspend California’s AB 32 climate change law, say opponents of the measure, such as former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz.

Shultz and financier Thomas Steyer, co-chairs of the No on Propostion 23 campaign, held a media briefing today on what they described as the threats to America’s energy security and economy if California’s landmark 2006 climate change law was suspended.

“The issue of climate, the issue of economics, the issue of national security all point us in the same direction. We need to get control of our use of energy and the way we produce it, the way we use it,” said Shultz, a former marine who fought in World War II and later served as Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan.

Steyer said Prop 23 would continue to mire America in an unstable energy policy. “Our energy use, our approach to climate, the health of our economy, our ability to develop new technologies and build new businesses, all of these factor into our national security,” he said, adding that “dismantling rules that foster innovation and that make us more energy secure doesn’t make sense.”

Shultz tied American energy policy to the threat of terrorism and rogue states just days before the anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks.

“The security implications of our energy situation are compounded greatly by the fact that the revenues that are generated by our use of oil and that of others go, in part, to countries that don’t wish us well,” said Shultz. “Undoubtedly some of this money is slopping over into the hands of terrorists, the 9/11 people. I think the security side of this is very important to recognize.”

Shultz said AB 32 has resulted in “a virtual explosion” of venture capital and research and development in clean energy and “it has convinced a lot of people that sooner or later there is going to be a price on carbon.”

Several military analysts joined Steyer and Shultz on the briefing to emphasize the military’s growing focus on climate change and national security concerns.

“America’s energy posture constitutes a serious and urgent threat to our national security, militarily, economically and diplomatically,” said retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, a private security and energy consultant volunteering his time with No on Prop 23.

McGinn said every president since Richard Nixon has stated America should reduce its dependence on foreign energy and “it’s more true now than it has been in the past.” Despite being in one of the “deepest recessions of our lifetime,” he added, America still sends “a billion dollars out of our economy every day simply to pay for our oil addiction.”

Referring to a report released last year by the Center for Naval Analysis, a non-profit institution, McGinn said the oil price shocks from a number of geopolitical scenarios or further natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina would far exceed any increased costs associated with implementing AB 32 and reducing our dependence on petroleum for energy.

In response to the media event, Anita Mangels, a spokesperson for the Yes on 23 campaign, released a scathing broadsheet impugning Steyer and questioning Shultz’s support for increasing the cost of fossil fuels, though not his patriotism, which she wrote was “beyond reproach.”

Mangels told Streetsblog today’s discussion of AB 32 and national security was a “cynical, distracting tactic to divert voters attention from the fact that Yes on 23 will save California families billions of dollars in higher energy costs and prevent the loss of a million jobs.”

“I would submit to you under the current plan we will probably wind up being more reliant on foreign oil because [the California Air Resources Board] is making it impossible to use conventional fuels.” said Mangels. “If they insist on reducing the production of conventional fuels in California, we’ll have to import more.”

Mangels characterized Steyer as a hypocrite and said he had made some of his fortune with Farallon Capital Management by investing in oil, including Valero and Tesoro, the two oil companies that have largely bankrolled the Yes on 23 campaign to date.

“The fact remains that if you are going to hold yourself up as a crusader against oil, you should look at your own house, at how many shares you have in oil and gas that is making you quite rich,” she said. “You can’t have it both ways.”

A spokesperson for No on 23, Steve Maviglio, defended Steyer, saying, “He doesn’t object to private enterprise or oil and gas, he just wants them to be fairly and properly regulated.”

Maviglio and the No on 23 campaign have recently escalated their calls for a public debate of the issue between Steyer and Valero’s CEO Bill Kleese, who declined the challenge. Steyer also assailed Assemblymember Dan Logue, sponsor of Prop 23, for pulling out of a debate scheduled next Tuesday at the Sacramento Press Club.

Reached this evening, Logue told Streetsblog he was indeed debating Steyer at the Press Club event, that news to the contrary was a misunderstanding. Logue also argued the biggest threat to America’s national security was California’s unemployment and economic woes, which he argued were only compounded by AB 32.

“It’s a scare tactic and that’s what the Left and the anti-23 people are using,” he said. “The greatest threat to our national security is our collapsed economy.”

Last May, I had the chance to sit down with Michael Woo, the former Los Angeles City Councilman and Mayoral Candidate, urban planner, USC Professor and Climate Change activist.  Woo expressed hope that the Southern California Association of Governments would set the bar for other regions when deciding how to follow new state laws by setting high targets for emissions reductions.  The reductions are a state requirement after the passage of California’s internationally lauded Smart Growth Law in 2008, SB 375.

Yesterday, SCAG took a pass on history and sided with the sprawl lobby in endorsing reduced targets for the region which includes Los Angeles County as well as the Inland Empire, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties.  Instead of setting the goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 8% in 2020 and 13% in 2035 as recommended by the state’s Air Resource Board after a lengthy public process, SCAG chose to set goals of 6% reduction in 2020 and 8% in 2035.  The 8/13 targets were rejected by a 21 to 29 vote.

Unfortunately, this means that design standards and community plans throughout the region will have less density, encourage fewer transportation options, and create less vibrant communities with less open space over the next twenty five years than they would have if SCAG would have followed the state board’s recommendations.

This rejection marks a victory for the Building Industry Association which lobbied for a 5% reduction target and distributed misinformation far and wide to preserve Southern Californians right to sprawl.  The BIA claimed the rejected benchmarks would push gas prices to $9, would cripple the economy, and were completely unrealistic anyway.  That independent reviews showed that a plan to meet the 8/13 benchmarks would increase gas costs by two cents a gallon over twenty five years, would save the average working family save $3,600 annually on transportation costs, would create design standards that would encourage growth and calls for lower reductions than the ones passed in the Sacramento and Bay regions somehow didn’t make the B.I.A.’s “hysteria sheet.”

And that the SCAG Board chose to believe these phony statistics, without a methodology showing how they came to be, over the hard work of their own staff tells us a lot about the SCAG Board.

After the vote, the BIA was crowing.  Richard Lambros, the executive director of the association told the Associated Press:

They made a decision that is both aggressive and achievable and will make a significant reduction in emissions while still protecting California’s economy.

Meanwhile, environmentalists scorned the decision.  The same Associated Press article quotes a frustrated representative of the American Lung Association, while other articles quote NRDC’s Amanda Eaken, who has emerged as something of an expert on this issue.  Locally, ClimatePlan staffer and Streetsblog contributor Gloria Ohland commented simply that “we have more work to do.”

Glen Becerra. Photo: Flapsblog.com

The meeting itself was a wild affair that would make your average Metro Board Member wonder who was in charge of this circus.  Public comment was cut short as was debate amongst the Board Members.  Despite the close 29-21 vote, most of the Board Members who did get the chance to speak were in favor of the reduced targets including an over-the-top “dare” from Simi Valley City Councilman Glen Becerra that anyone with the gall to oppose the smaller goals should stand and face him.

Oddly, Beccera sounded a completely different tone when there was a microphone in front of him.  He told the Ventura County Star that he really, really would have liked to vote for higher standards, but just couldn’t:

So what happened?  How did sprawl win the day?  Part of the problem is that the debate, as covered by the press and as presented by Beccera, is portrayed as a “developer vs environmentalist” debate instead of “environmentalists, public health experts, transit advocates, and developers vs some other developers.”  In addition to the “usual suspects” testifying in favor of the higher reduction goals yesterday, there were also six developers that believe that dense development and transportation options are the future for Southern California.

A second problem is that state cutbacks have led to less funds being available throughout the region to help encourage Smart Growth Development.  An email ClimatePlan sent to supporters after the vote noted that much of the debate was about this lack of funds and not that clean air, transit and vibrant downtowns were bad for the economy.  However, much of the press following the meeting reverted back to the easier-to-write story of “environmentalists v jobs.”

In a cycnical move to deflect some criticism, the Board did vote to revisit today’s vote if the state’s Air Resources Board, the body that developed the 8/13 target, came through with eleven action items.  ClimatePlan reports that it’s not likely to meet these items as many of them, including adoption of the 30/10 plan, are well outside of the ability of the ARB.

Last, a handful of local leaders who had a vote today missed the meeting.  Los Angeles City Council Members Eric Garcetti, Bernard Parks and Ed Reyes all sent letters of support for 8/13 instead of attending and voting.  Councilman Dennis Zine, who’s taken some heat at Streetsblog, was the only Council Member in attendance and deserves some praise for taking time out of his recess to attend this important meeting.

Local activist Beth Steckler expressed frustration with the rest of the Councilmen

We appreciate the letters of support from la city council members on this vote, but we need more leadership from the city to really be sure the interests of Angelinos are represented at SCAG.

Today’s vote was hardly the last step in the saga of how standards will be set for Greenhouse Gas reduction mandates for Southern California.  Streetsblog will let you know how you can be involved in making sure that today’s vote isn’t the last word in how Southern Californians feel about Climate Change, clean air and transportation options.

A sprawling view from Griffith Park. Photo: Shiner Clay/Flickr

Back in July, Matthew Roth summarized the goals of California's groundbreaking S.B. 375, the first piece of legislation in the country to tie sprawl development to declining air quality and quality of life. Roth, quoting work done by NRDC's Amanda Eaken, noted that there are a lot of great things that S.B. 375 would accomplish if properly enacted by state Metropolitan Planning Organizations (M.P.O's), but that the local politics of the M.P.O. could prevent Californians from seeing the benefits provided by Smart Growth and proper transportation planning.

At a meeting tomorrow in Downtown Los Angeles, Southern California will have its chance to show that it can put the long-term health of the state over provincial politics. The Southern California Association of Governments Joint Policy and Regional Council will consider a proposal from the state's Air Resources Board to set targets for Greenhouse Gas reduction in the region. The ARB wants to see an 8% reduction in the next ten years and a 13% reduction in the next 25.

That's a complicated way of saying that tomorrow, regional leaders will decide whether or not they want to clean the air to meet state law or not. Eaken lays out what's at stake in more simple terms:

Thursday, SCAG has the opportunity to adopt ambitious 13% targets that will deliver significant co-benefits of better transit, improved air quality and public health, and reduce household transportation costs for Southern California residents. Across California, there's a shifting market demand embodied by SB 375 that is already pushing in the direction of more walkable, transit oriented communities-exactly the kind of growth needed to help Southern California achieve emission reduction targets and create sustainable communities.

What makes S.B. 375 so controversial with some segments of society isn't that they're recommending to make the air cleaner through high-tech vehicles or solar paneling; but through land-use patterns that support density, transportation options, and open space over sprawl. In other words, by growing in a denser fashion, the state can reduce automobile miles traveled and clean the air. A noble goal. And one that has the sprawl lobby and reactionary politicians up in arms.

Too often, activists get caught up in the numbers and goals of legislation. Read that second paragraph again, but the activist group Climate Plan asks that we look beyond the numbers at the real goals of S.B. 375 and anti-sprawl activists. The end goal isn't for a scientist to look at an air sample and proclaim, "we did it!"; but to develop in a way that puts people closer to work, reduces the cost in terms of time and money of their commutes, lowers the rate of asthma and other respiratory illness caused by our state's worst in the nation air quality and preserves parks, beaches and other forms of open space.

In other words, it's not just about density, it's about giving back Californians the time, money, health and open space that we've been robbing them of in the name of sprawl development.

While this might seem like a political slam-dunk, there is some concern.  First, the SCAG region isn't just Los Angeles City or County, it also includes politicians from Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and Ventura Counties.  Second, most of the politicians from the City of Los Angeles who would be the beachhead for this sort of vote are on vacation because the City Council is on recess.

So what can you do?  Assuming you don't have several hours to spend at a meeting tomorrow; you can email comments to salcido@scag.ca.gov.   Remember, focus on the effects of smart growth; not just the set targets.

(Photo: The Weekly Driver)

The political and legal jockeying that ultimately led the White House to a deal on higher U.S. auto fuel standards began in California, where stronger efficiency rules were adopted, shut down by the Bush administration, and later embraced by 13 other states. 

Now, as the Golden State sets to work on its fuel standards for the year 2017, the endpoint of the current White House efficiency rules, clean energy advocates are vowing to push California officials for the strongest possible auto emissions limits. If California can set the stage for nationwide progress on fuel-efficiency once, the theory goes, it can easily happen again.

But not every California lawmaker is convinced that the state should be a pioneer. At today's House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) openly wondered whether California should continue prodding the rest of the nation towards greater energy efficiency -- a question equally applicable to the state's law limiting broader carbon emissions.

After noting that she spoke as "a proud Californian," Bono Mack asked Jackson, "If California changes their standards, are you saying we all have to agree with their standards?"

Choosing her words carefully, Jackson told Bono Mack (one of only eight Republicans to vote in favor of last year's House climate change bill) that the Obama administration's new fuel-efficiency rule "was the way to achieve smart legislation.

"I don't think I can simply say" whether California's environmental moves are certain to pave the way for national action on emissions caps, Jackson added, "because the trick of legislation will be to put [regulatory] authorities together in ways that get you [deals like] the clean car rule."

Indeed,
the analysis concludes with a candid assessment that the nation’s
existing methods of transportation and land use planning have generated
an unsustainable reliance on fossil fuel consumption:

The ingenuity of transportation planners and engineers has produced a
vast network of transportation infrastructure and services to support
the mobility and economic vitality of the Nation. However, our historic
approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-intensive
system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.

The authors, including three dozen aides at the U.S. DOT’s Center for
Climate Change and more than a dozen private consultants, also take a
direct tone in evaluating the various emissions-cutting policy
proposals that are available to the Obama administration.

For
instance, the analysis identifies several upsides to increasing the gas
tax, which has "a strong precedent for [its proceeds] being dedicated
to transportation investments," as opposed to a broader carbon tax or
cap-and-trade system, where multiple competing interests would — and did,
as the House climate bill shows — lay claim to a share of the
resulting government revenue to help finance efficiency upgrades.

The
major downside of a gas tax hike to spur emissions cuts, according to
the analysis, would be its risk of exacerbating economic inequity for
businesses and lower-income workers dependent on auto travel. But the
debate is moot, as the U.S. DOT authors remind their congressional
audience, because "an increase in the federal motor fuel tax is not
proposed by the current Administration, given the economic recession."

The
analysis is also open about the unnavigable politics of setting lower
speed limits, despite their potential to yield "an immediate and
significant impact on [greenhouse gas] reductions as well as yield
substantial safety and air quality co-benefits." The U.S. DOT authors
wrote:

Public resistance is likely to be high, and
an aggressive education program and strong political leadership would
be required to gain broad support. Delay costs could be incurred in
goods movement and passenger travel. … In addition, this strategy
would require enhanced enforcement and could impose considerable costs
on States to pay for increased traffic monitoring and enforcement.

A
complete copy of the U.S. DOT analysis, including its comparison of the
emissions-reducing benefits of better land use planning (minor to
moderate) and fuel-efficiency improvements (moderate to high) is
available for download here.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), one of the new NEPA bill’s sponsors, holds up a copy of the Senate climate legislation. (Photo: AP)

The GOP senators said their bill
was aimed at ensuring the government could not delay new road and
power-plant construction to gauge its climate impacts under the
precepts of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That
40-year-old statute that requires local planners to conduct reviews of
any transport project that could significantly impact the health of
surrounding areas.

"As it stands, NEPA is
subject to frequent abuse by radical environmentalists who want to use
litigation to impose their agenda on federal agencies," Sen. David
Vitter (R-LA), one of the measure’s sponsors, said in a statement. "Our
bill seeks
to prevent that abuse."

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), responding to a petition from green groups, issued draft guidance
in February that asked agencies to evaluate the climate impacts of new
projects estimated to increase emissions by 25,000 metric tons or more
of CO2 — the same level that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
used for its rule on mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas production.

As the EPA noted in its explanation of the 25,000 metric ton threshold,
such a level of emissions would be equivalent to 4,600 new passenger
cars or the energy use of 2,3000 new homes.

The CEQ’s guidance is not set to become final until after a period of public comment ends next month.

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:

Federally
mandated safety rest periods for truck drivers often lead to idling to
maintain heating, air­conditioning and other cab comforts. The average
sleeper cab tractor idles for 1,500 to 3,000 hours per year, consuming
an average of one gallon of diesel per hour. With each gallon of
conventional diesel emitting 22 pounds of carbon dioxide, EPA estimates
that long­duration idling generates more than 11 million tons of carbon
dioxide annually. Truck stop electrification eliminates this idling and fuel
consumption by allowing truck drivers to connect to an electric power
system. Truck stop electrification provides truckers with the same
creature comforts and work needs, but keeps the surrounding air and cab
free of toxic pollution and greenhouse gases.

(Photo: Pop and Politics)

The
team at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
used U.S. Department of Energy economic models to evaluate six possible
outcomes for Washington’s newly reinvigorated push for a 17-percent cut in U.S. emissions by 2020, in keeping with President Obama’s pledge at the global Copenhagen climate talks.

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.

"A
fundamental insight from this study," they concluded, "is that if one
wishes to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions or net petroleum imports from the
transportation sector during 2010-2030, consumers cannot continue to
drive more and more each year … in this study, higher fuel prices are
the mechanism to reduce vehicle-miles traveled."

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."

One move the White House won’t make, per Browner, is to release its own set of specific climate proposals, similar to the health care reform plan
released by the president this week. That leaves unclear the
administration’s stance on several simmering environmental debates,
including the share of revenue from a future climate bill that should go to clean transportation.

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

But as the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) noted
soon after the EPA unveiled its rule, an initial draft setting the
minimum population for local air-quality monitoring at 350,000 was
changed to 500,000, leaving out cities such as Fort Wayne and
effectively weakening the nitrogen dioxide rule’s accountability.

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.

(h/t Wonk Room)

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)

"Today, EPA announced that greenhouse gases threaten the health and
welfare of the American people," EPA chief Lisa Jackson said at a press conference (audio available here). "We also found that greenhouse gas
emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat."

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.

(ed. note. More information on today’s EPA ruling, including information specific to auto fuel-efficiency, can be found here.)

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."