But did the focus on electricity generation tackle the fastest-growing source of U.S. carbon emissions? A new report released today by Environment America has the answer: Barely.

The report tracks state-by-state progress in reducing carbon emissions. The chart shown below depicts the national totals for emissions by sector of the economy, with the fifth column from the left depicting the percentage change between 1990 and 2007 and the sixth column depicting the percentage change between 2004 and 2007.

(Chart: Environment America)

Electricity was indeed the fastest-growing producer of U.S. emissions during both time periods, rising by 32 percent in the 1990-2007 period and 3.4 percent during 2004-2007. But transportation emissions were a strong No. 2, rising by 27 percent from 1990 to 2007 and 3 percent during 2004-2007.

The two columns on the far left show that during the last four years, U.S. commercial, residential, and industrial emissions have decreased in real terms while electricity and transportation emissions are on the rise.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (Photo: CNN)

The Finance Committee held a hearing today on the job-creating implications of its climate bill, which would set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for annual clean transportation grants. Neither the transit industry nor the renewable energy sector was invited to testify, although two oil industry-backed witnesses were brought in to criticize the measure.

During the hearing, Finance chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) sounded hopeful notes about the need to address carbon emissions. "We should recognize that in the case of [regulating] acid rain, the negative consequences were far less than projected," Baucus said. "We should keep this in mind when similar claims are made about the effects of legislation to address climate change."

And on a conference call with reporters today, the Finance panel's senior Republican, Chuck Grassley (IA), gave a reluctant but upbeat assessment of GOP senators' openness to a bipartisan climate deal:

Well, we have one, Lindsey Graham, working with [Sen. John] Kerry [D-MA] on some sort of a compromise -- if it would include nuclear and would include offshore drilling. I don't know whether that's good enough to offset the bad that's in the bill or not. I don't think it's good enough for me. But you'll at least him working there. And I wouldn't want to say that there's not two or three other senators.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Photo: AP)

The environment panel's chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had offered Republicans several days to abandon their walkout, promising time to consider GOP amendments and a complete Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeling of the bill before it comes to the Senate floor.

But environment committee Republicans were unmoved, insisting on an immediate five-week delay for EPA analysis despite testimony from the EPA that such work would produce little new information. Boxer's GOP counterpart on the panel, Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), seemed to delight in forcing the chairman's hand as he labeled the no-amendments move the "nuclear option."

The question now becomes whether the specific proposals added by Boxer's panel -- including grant programs for transit and clean transportation that nearly triple the funding approved by the House -- can survive a long slog through as many as five other committees.

Boxer insisted this morning that "many things in this bill ... are going to be part of that comprehensive bill" that ultimately reaches a full Senate vote. But others on the committee acknowledged that the bill's one-party approval would not bode well for its political prospects.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the chief sponsor of efforts to boost the climate bill's clean transportation provisions, described himself as "very, very, very disappointed," particularly given the loss of a chance to amend the legislation.

Carper submitted an amendment that would have added more than $400 million to the bill's annual set-aside of climate money for transit, inter-city rail, local land use planning and other projects.  "I don't like this process," Carper said this morning. "I don't think any of us do."

The question now becomes whether Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), the lone Republican who has shown willingness to work with Democrats on the climate bill, can provide the momentum needed to overcome the Senate's molasses-slow pace.

Even if Graham's work produces an end result that can win over liberals and centrists, the billions of dollars that the environment committee devotes to transportation is not guaranteed to survive that process.

Senate environment chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), at right, with the panel's top Republican, Jim Inhofe (OK). (Photo: CNN)

The GOP gambit is intended to push the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a complete analysis of the Senate climate bill, a task that could take upwards of five weeks.

The senior Republicans on the six Senate committees with jurisdiction over climate change renewed their entreaties in a letter sent yesterday to environment panel chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA). They wrote:

While such analyses are never perfect, they are an essential aspect of the legislative decision-making process when policy changes of such consequence are in play. As is the case with legislation itself, these analyses are worth the time and resources required not only to get them done, but to get them done right.

As Grist's David Roberts observed on Friday, the Senate climate bill is largely similar to the House version that was passed in June after in-depth analysis by the CBO and the EPA. Performing another full workup of the Senate climate bill, then, would serve little purpose other than to push its consideration past next month's global environmental talks in Copenhagen -- notching a political win for GOP leaders.

So how can Boxer take up the bill with only Democrats in attendance? The answer is a complicated one that relies on a specific interpretation of committee rules and precedents; but even if work can begin today, it's unclear whether amendments to the bill can be considered without a GOP presence.

The Republican senators referred to this outcome in their letter to Boxer:

We understand that there may be an effort to report [the Senate climate bill] from the [environment] committee not only without a satisfactory analysis, but also without sufficient opportunity to address the bipartisan concerns raised over the course of legislative hearings on the measure.

In fact, neither Boxer nor Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the Senate climate bill's co-author, likes the idea of pushing the legislation through its first committee votes without a debate on amendments. Kerry released a statement yesterday afternoon noting that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supported emissions limits during his presidential run last year and asking "everyone to come back to the table," sentiments also voiced by Boxer.

Limiting amendments to the climate bill would also have consequences for transportation policy. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) has submitted a proposal to increase the bill's annual set-aside of revenue for clean transport by more than $400 million.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) (Photo: Baucus 08)

The Senate climate bill calls for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. emissions by 2020, relative to 2005 levels. The legislation also sets aside nearly three times as much money for transit, inter-city rail, and other cleaner-burning transport than a similar bill passed by the House in June.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), a sponsor of the effort to focus more climate revenue on transportation, credited environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with doing more for transit than her House counterparts.

"It will make a huge difference on the infrastructure we need to conserve energy," Cardin said of the Senate climate bill. "We do subsidize the passenger car more than we do public transportation in this country. We need to change that."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also hailed the bill's dedication of valuable emissions allowances to rail, while reminding senators that the economic stimulus law's $8 billion high-speed rail fund would represent only the tip of the iceberg for America's under-performing passenger trains.

"We know [rail] is cleaner-burning," LaHood said, "and we know that when someone's on the train, they're out of their automobile. The benefits will be enormous in terms of getting CO2 out of the air."

But amid the hosannas for the climate bill's transportation provisions were signals of the rough political journey that faces the Senate legislation.

Republicans on the environment panel reiterated their vow to delay a committee vote on the climate bill, which was co-authored by Boxer and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), until they are satisfied with the amount of time given to examine the plan and for analysis to be done by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All GOP members of the committee left today's hearing before the four Obama administration witnesses had finished taking questions, further underscoring the partisan tension.

And Republicans were not alone in their criticism of the climate bill. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the powerful Finance Committee that plans to claim jurisdiction over emissions allowances -- including those for transit -- said he would pursue a softening of the bill's emissions reductions targets (which are already softer than international goals) and a preemption of the EPA's ability to regulate CO2. Baucus said:

I have some concerns about the overall direction of the bill before us today, and whether it will lead us closer to or further away from passing climate change legislation. For example, I have serious reservations with the depth of the mid-term reduction target in the bill and the lack of preemption of the Clean Air Act's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the climate bill's authors. (Photo: Intercon)

And the release brought good news for clean transportation: The Senate has largely tripled the share of allowances set aside by the House for transit, inter-city rail, and other efforts to trim transport-based emissions.

While the lower chamber of Congress gave states the option of using 1 percent of climate revenue on transit, the Senate measure would set aside more than 3 percent of allowances in the first two years of the cap-and-trade system for limiting pollution from the transportation sector.

The Senate's beefed-up transportation language comes after a strong push by sponsors of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" bill, which set a high-water mark of a 10-percent climate set-aside for transit, local land-use planning, and other sustainable development projects. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a chief author of the "CLEAN TEA" measure, hailed the Senate's move in a weekend statement.

My CLEAN TEA bill is a common-sense solution to the problem that we use a gas tax to fund our nation's transportation system. My language in the [Senate climate bill] directs cities and states to determine how much they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation systems by investing in driving alternatives, public transit, intercity passenger rail, transit-oriented development, sidewalks and more. States and cities with more ambitious plans will receive more federal funds - finally rewarding local governments for doing the right thing.

According to the environment committee's weekend release, the share of Senate climate allowances reserved for clean transportation would total 3.21 percent in 2012 and 2013, before dipping to 2.35 percent in the two subsequent years and returning to a share that ranges between 1.9 percent and 3.5 percent in future years.

But not all emissions allowances are created equal; 1 percent of the total amount going to clean transportation would be reserved in the early stages of the program, thus increasing the value of those allowances relative to the ones distributed later on. These early set-aside allowances would also go towards reducing the federal deficit and supplementing other high-priority programs.

Though it falls short of the "CLEAN TEA" mark, the 3-percent set-aside represents a victory for clean transportation advocates as well as the nation's cities. The allowances would be split between grants to states for reducing transport-based emissions and transit grants -- with 80 percent of the latter going to urban areas, 10 percent going to rural areas, and 10 percent to growing states.

However, it's important to note that the transportation section of the Senate climate bill is not written in stone. The environment committee, chaired by climate bill co-author Barbara Boxer (D-MA), will begin holding a series of high-profile hearings on the legislation tomorrow, and months of intense horse-trading is sure to follow.

(Photo: BusinessWeek)

But "far more dangerous" than the rhetoric of climate deniers or skeptics, Obama added, is the tendency towards cynicism about America's chances of ending its dependence on fossil fuels.

Speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Obama described a perspective that "we're all somewhat complicit in":

It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important, that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument.

Still, while the president offered no shortage of hopefulness, he made few direct references to the Senate climate bill that will take its first major step towards passage next week with a series of environment committee hearings. Obama praised Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for partnering this month with the Senate climate bill's chief sponsor, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), on an op-ed that outlined a potential compromise approach on emissions limits.

Seven months after first trying to re-brand congressional climate change legislation as an "energy tax," Senate Republicans were back at it today with a new report and op-ed that attempts to expose the climate bill as a "$3.6 trillion gas tax."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) (Photo: GOP Lounge)

How did Hutchison and Bond get to their $3.6 trillion total, which their report calls "relatively simple and straightforward to calculate"? They simply multiplied their estimate of how much fuel the U.S. would consume between now and 2050 by their estimate of the per-gallon gas price increase that would result from an economy-wide emissions cap.

Hutchison and Bond got their numbers from the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a business group that released projections on the cost of the House climate legislation at around the same time it joined the official astro-turf lobbying campaign against the bill. The NBCC's analysis, produced by consulting firm CRA International, is one of many competing cost estimates for the climate bill, each of them relying on different assumptions and models that claim to predict the future price of carbon under the pending legislation.

In fact, the NBCC analysis states (in Appendix C) that it has assumed higher CO2 allowance prices than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of the same House climate bill, thus resulting in higher estimates for the plan's impact on real-world carbon prices.

What does the EPA say about the House climate bill's likely effect on fuel prices? Its analysis found a 25-cent per-gallon increase by 2030, or less than three pennies per gallon per year -- small potatoes compared to the oil price swings of recent years, as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change pointed out.

Center for American Progress senior fellow Joe Romm has delved further into the claim, promoted by the oil industry, that a cap on carbon emissions would increase gas prices. Using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate of allowance prices, Romm found a per-gallon gas price increase similar to the EPA's.

Still, it's unlikely that Hutchison and Bond would be fazed by economic models that discredit their case. Although they told reporters at today's event that they support cutting carbon emissions, the first page of their report makes clear that they dislike the very idea of more moderate energy consumption:

Advocates of climate change legislation want to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy, such as coal and oil, so that consumers are forced to respond by using less of those forms of energy. Policy-makers call this putting a price on carbon. Economists call this sending a price signal. The bottom line is that the price of energy will go up.

More expensive energy from climate legislation can be seen as a new national energy tax on American consumers and workers.

Downtown Memphis, Tennessee, where new building energy efficiency codes were recently adopted. (Photo: About.com)

But several other states that aren't widely known for environmental stewardship made strides between 2008 and 2009, including South Dakota, which rose from the ACEEE's No. 47 spot to No. 36, and and Tennessee, which rose from No. 46 to No. 38.

States' total average efficiency score climbed in 2009 from 15 to 17 points, out of a total possible score of 50, according to the ACEEE.

On transportation, states could earn a maximum of 8 points from the ACEEE by passing local measures to encourage denser development and reduce automobile dependence, adopting California's fuel-efficiency standard for cars, investing more than $50 per capita in transit, and offering consumer rebates for the purchase of efficient vehicles.

No state earned that perfect 8, but California and Washington came the closest, with 6-point scores on transportation. However, 23 states earned zero points for transportation efficiency -- almost equaling the 28 states that scored any points at all. Those 23 underachievers: AL, AR, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NC, ND, OH, SD, TX, UT, WV, and WY.

How many states tallied an extra point for per-capita transit investment? Find out after the jump.

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."

The message? "We can no longer focus exclusively on avoiding the unmanageable, but must begin managing the unavoidable."

McConville writes:

Photo by WhosThisValGirl via Flickr.

Dr. George Eads of Charles River Associates discussed four impacts of climate change that will affect our nation’s transportation infrastructure:

1. Sea levels will rise, jeopardizing coastal roadways, railways, airports and transit systems.
2. An increase in the number of hot days and heat waves will influence how infrastructure withstands high temperatures.  For example, highways could experience increased rutting (the carving of deep grooves by traffic) due to softer asphalt.
3. A greater number of intense precipitation events could cause added transportation disruptions, as could more frequent strong hurricanes.
4. Finally, rising arctic temperatures could threaten ice roads and highways built on permafrost in Alaska.

Transportation professionals must act today to minimize disruptions to the nation’s transportation systems tomorrow.  First, climate change must be incorporated into decision frameworks.  Federal, state, and local governments, in collaboration with owners and operators of infrastructure, should inventory critical infrastructure, particularly in vulnerable coastal areas.  When making investment decisions, governments and private infrastructure providers should consider climate change adaptation in their long-term capital improvement plans, facility designs, maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response plans.  They should apply risk-based investment analyses that weigh the costs of adapting infrastructure against the costs of failure.

It's good to know that at least some engineers out there are thinking about these things. But how long will it take this awareness to make it to the local DOT level?

As my colleague Ryan wrote earlier, the congressional climate change bill no represents the most meaningful path for urbanists, and advocates for clean transportation in general, to make their voices heard in the national debate.

President Obama, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today. (Photo: AP)

The U.S. may not agree to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in a new treaty this year because there is no domestic law setting a framework, the country’s top negotiator said at United Nations climate talks in Bangkok.

Without legislation advancing in Congress, it will be difficult for the world’s biggest economy to pledge an emissions target for itself, U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told reporters today as negotiations wound up in the Thai capital.

“It will be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress,” Pershing said. “The question is open as to how much we can do. It’s not really possible to answer.”

Supporters of the Senate climate bill -- including President Obama -- have downplayed the significance of passing a Senate climate bill before talks on global emissions reductions begin in Copenhagen in December. Foreign relations committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), the bill's chief sponsor, has even suggested that the bill has a stronger chance of winning Senate approval than any treaty signed at Copenhagen, which would have to secure a two-thirds majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

But if the U.S. continues backing away from setting a broad emissions target this year, it could result in a further loss of momentum for the Senate climate bill, setting up a vicious cycle of sorts. And all this on a day when Obama takes the Nobel Peace Prize for helping America "[play] a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.”

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), left, at a 2008 rally. Photo: NWF/Flickr

But environmental groups are already lamenting that scientific consensus has urged a 40 percent pollution reduction below 1990 emissions levels in order to effectively forestall the negative effects of climate change, making the Boxer-Kerry bill "woefully inadequate," in the words of Center for Biological Diversity executive director Kieran Suckling.

And the Senate bill's transportation provisions, as Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported yesterday, offer only a marginal improvement over the House version, which gave transit and other clean transport just 1 percent of the proceeds from any cap-and-trade carbon regulation system.

The Senate bill's section on allocations -- the amount of aid provided to state governments and various industries to help meet emissions-reduction goals -- is subject to change as the environment committee, which Boxer chairs, and other panels attempt to amend the legislation.

As it stands, however, the Senate would require states to use 10 percent of their allocations to reduce transportation-based emissions. The House climate bill, by contrast, allowed states to use up to 10 percent of allocations on transportation but did not make it mandatory.

Boxer and Kerry's draft also includes a "set-aside," in Washington parlance, for transit grants to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) meet national standards for cutting transport-based emissions.

Those transit grants, distributed according to existing federal formulas, would be funded by auctioning a still-undetermined amount of emissions allocations and depositing the proceeds in state Climate Change Response and Transportation Funds (CCRTFs). After 10 percent of CCRTF funds went to coastal states, to help cope with the risk of climate-induced floods, and 1 percent went to Indian tribes, 50 percent of the rest would go toward transit.

Electric vehicles, including electrified transit, fares better under the Senate bill. The Department of Energy would have full control over a still-undetermined share of allocation auction proceeds, with the dual mission of establishing reliable infrastructure to fuel electric vehicles and developing "a national transportation low-emissions energy plan."

Also noted yesterday: The Senate climate draft features a provision that allows states to set higher fuel-efficiency rules for taxicabs than the national standard, which will hit an average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. The taxis language would allow New York City, represented by environment committee member Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to press on with plans, derailed in federal court, to transition to an all-hybrid taxi fleet. Rep. Jerrold Nadler has introduced a companion taxi bill in the House.

Meanwhile, transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill's focus on their area -- which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called "CLEAN TEA" legislation.

The fate of transit and other clean transport may rest with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the upper chamber's lead sponsor of "CLEAN TEA." Carper, who was not present at today's Boxer-Kerry press conference, released a statement that notably withheld an endorsement of the current climate bill:

Senators Kerry and Boxer have worked hard to produce the bill they released today and I congratulate them for their efforts so far. It is now time for the Senate committees to get to work examining the bill's provisions and considering any changes necessary. ... I expect there wil be some important changes made as this effort advances and we build consensus around how to address this vitally important global energy and climate challenge.

Few on the Hill expect the Senate to be able to meet its initial goal of voting on a final climate bill before United Nations climate change talks begin in December in Copenhagen. Still, Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility -- which makes the Boxer-Kerry bill's relative alignment with the House version one of its biggest political selling points.

As one of the House climate bill's lead sponsors, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), put it: “Given the Senate draft’s structural similarity to the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, a legislative solution that can pass both chambers of Congress is finally within sight."

The report, timed to coincide with the growing debate over transit's role in the final version of the congressional climate bill, includes a wealth of useful and surprising data about how last year's much-discussed rise in transit use translates into reduced driving and environmental benefits.

For example, that 10 percent increase in transit ridership is already happening in five states, all of which also saw a notable drop in vehicle miles traveled last year. And guess which five saw double-digit rises in ridership? Not New York or Massachusetts -- but Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, Delaware, and Maryland.

"A lot of [transit] growth that we're seeing isn't in typical big cities," Environment America transportation advocate Rob McCulloch, a co-author of today's report, said in an interview. "It's in suburbs and smaller communities where people are opting in. We think that's really where the opportunity is."

The report describes a 10 percent increase in transit ridership as a "high but realistic target," but it goes on to make a clear case for setting such a goal:

[I]n 15 years such an approach could reduce transportation oil consumption by 20 billion gallons per year — equivalent to what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This would also result in an annual reduction of 180 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution — more than four times the current benefit conferred by public transportation.

That annual cut of 180 million tons of CO2 would amount to 3 percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels every year. The climate bill passed by the House in June aims to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 11 years, making a national transit-ridership target a key weapon in the arsenal of climate policy-makers.

McCulloch and his co-authors make several policy recommendations to lawmakers now working on transport and energy proposals, but their most powerful message comes in the framing department.

At this month's University of Virginia infrastructure conference, one popular lament was that transportation lacks a national "story," a coherent and catchy appeal to Americans from all walks of life. Bicycle and transit advocates may well disagree, as may state DOT officials who think of more roads as the be-all, end-all of infrastructure policy.

Because of Senator Kennedy’s recent passing, Senator Kerry’s August hip surgery, and the intensive work on health care legislation, particularly on the Finance Committee where Sen. Kerry serves, Majority Leader Reid has agreed to provide some additional time to work on the final details of our bill, and to reach out to colleagues and important stakeholders. We have told the Majority Leader that our goal is to introduce our bill later in September.

Today's delay marks the second in two months for the climate bill, which was originally slated for release in early August. After Boxer said last month that the Senate version of the measure would emerge in early September, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) set a deadline of September 28 for committees to finish their work in preparation for an October vote on climate change.

The idea was hatched in a memo [PDF] written by American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard, whose trade association represents the nation's largest oil companies. API's "Energy Citizen" rallies, according to the memo, would be aimed at convincing voters that the climate bill "could increase the price of gas to $4 and lead to significant job losses."

Gerard urged API members to remain quiet about the effort (which hit the Wall Street Journal's blog on Tuesday): "You can assume with confidence that the advocates for [emissions regulations] and the critics of oil and gas are going to be very active, particularly during the August recess."

The memo was later leaked to Greenpeace, which promptly sent it to reporters.

Whether the oil-industry rallies will command even a fraction of the attention that the health care events are getting remains an open question. Most of the health "town halls" were organized by Democratic lawmakers as a forum to hear constituent concerns, while the "Energy Citizen" events -- one of which appears to be slated for next week in Houston -- would be purely private-sector productions.

Environmental groups' advance knowledge of the anti-climate rallies, however, could lead to on-the-ground battles over the future of the climate bill. The ultimate intended audience for that showdown: Democratic senators who remain on the fence about regulating emissions.

Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Photo: Politics Now)

"We're definitely looking at" Carper's legislation, Boxer is quoted as saying. "I definitely fall into that camp that thinks we need to do more."

Carper told Streetsblog Capitol Hill last month that Boxer "fully understands" the need to tackle transportation emissions more directly than the climate change bill passed by the House in June, which sent 1 percent of its revenue to transit.

Boxer's climate measure is currently expected to come before the environment panel ahead of a September 28 deadline set by Democratic leaders. If the 10-percent bill -- also known as "CLEAN TEA" -- is not included in the bill, Carper said he plans to offer it as an amendment during committee debate.

That move could end up putting pressure on the six committee Democrats who have yet to sign on as sponsors of Carper's bill: Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Tom Udall (NM), Max Baucus (MT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT, but caucuses as a Democrat), and Boxer herself.

Even if Boxer opts for middle ground between the 10 percent level of "CLEAN TEA" and the House's 1 percent, as she did to a certain extent in her 2008 climate legislation, rural-state senators are likely to mount dogged opposition.

Four rural Democrats called yesterday for the entire bill to be shelved, and a transportation field hearing held Monday by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) saw the South Dakota DOT secretary testify that in a rural state such as his, "there is only so much we can do" to promote transit.

The DOT official, Darin Bergquist, added that his state should work towards limiting emissions outside of the transport sector:

[Requiring states to limit transport emissions] may be viable ... in metropolitan areas, but due to our low population density, great distances, and harsh winters, they are not practical ... for rural states like ours. We believe that the proper, national interest approach is to ensure that any such statute would not force, or allow an agency to force a state like ours to undertake unrealistic efforts to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. We generate very little GHG from transportation compared to other states and we will do our part to remove GHG emissions using modern, no-till agricultural practices.

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."

FTA's Peter Rogoff (in hard hat) heard strong words from Rep. Oberstar today. (Photo: WP)

"They need to ... catch up with the House" on transportation policy-making, Oberstar said of Porcari and Rogoff, who were sitting within spitting distance of the chairman.

"If you don't pass our bill, you're not going to get a head start on these strategies" for reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector, Oberstar told the White House aides.

He added: "The president gets it -- the crowd around him doesn't."

The White House continues to press for an 18-month postponement of the next long-term transportation bill, which Oberstar asserts could drag reform past the two-year mark and continue an inequitable system that favors new highway construction over transit. 

"When highway planners sit down to build a roadway," Oberstar said today, "they don't go through the gymnastics of a cost-effectiveness index," as transit planners are currently required to do. "They sit down, get the money, and build a road."

Expanding transit, the House chairman concluded, is difficult "if you've got a millstone around your neck."

Yet the House bill has a millstone of its own obstructing movement: the lack of revenue to fund a doubling in new transit investment and other Oberstar priorities. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) acknowledged this morning, hiking the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993 -- will not be feasible until the recession dissipates.

"We are going to raise gas and diesel taxes sometime in the next decade," Blumenauer said, but "not while the economy is in freefall."