Green Transportation - Coming Clean

All posts tagged "Green Transportation"

June 25, 2013

Back in the Game

This afternoon, I had a short meeting with President Obama that left me more convinced than ever that he's serious about tackling the climate crisis. Sure enough, later under a sweltering sun at Georgetown University, I watched him calmly and forcefully restate the case for taking action on the climate crisis in one of the most important speeches of his presidency. He also outlined a Climate Action Plan that will help curb carbon pollution, develop clean energy sources, promote energy efficiency, and assert American global leadership on climate issues. Taken together, the new policies directly address what the president rightly calls "the global threat of our time."

Coming on the heels of an unprecedented string of extreme weather disasters, the plan recognizes that we must work on both the causes and the consequences of climate disruption.

But the two most significant commitments the president made were bona fide game-changers: First, he said that he will use the full authority of the Clean Air Act to limit air pollution from both new and existing power plants. Second, he declared that he will not approve the Keystone XL pipeline if it harms the climate, because to do so would not be in the national interest.

The science on Keystone's potentially catastrophic effect on climate could not be more clear. The rejection of this carbon pollution pipeline will be a major climate disaster averted.

Coal-fired power plants, however, are a disaster that has persisted for far too long and, as I listened to the president's speech, I shared the exuberance of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal activists and so many others in the movement who have fought to end this injustice. Coal-fired power plants are currently responsible for nearly one-third of U.S. carbon pollution; although only a decade ago, that share was greater than one-half. The recent and welcome decline in U.S. carbon emissions to 1986 levels is the result of a decade-long trend away from using coal to generate electricity. Extending clean-air standards to older coal plants, many of which have been polluting for decades, will speed that trend. Not only will this significantly reduce our carbon pollution, but it will also save tens of thousands of lives, since the plants emit many other toxic air pollutants, from sulfur dioxide to mercury.

To meet the challenge of the climate crisis, however, we must do much more than simply celebrate the end of the Coal Age -- we need to hasten a new era of smart, clean energy, energy efficiency, and the jobs that support them. Here, too, the president's plan lays out a practical vision for the future. The president is justifiably proud that generation of renewable energy from wind and solar doubled during his first term; now he has committed to seeing it double again. One of the ways his administration will make that happen is by responsibly siting more renewable-energy projects on public lands. The goal is to install enough such projects to power 6 million homes by 2020.

Other major initiatives will promote energy efficiency in both the public and private sectors, begin the critical work of developing a "smart grid" energy infrastructure, raise the bar on fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles, and tackle the problem of climate-polluting hydrofluorocarbons and methane. Leakage and flaring of methane, which currently accounts for 9 percent of U.S. carbon pollution (and has a global warming potential that is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide), is one of the reasons why natural gas doesn't deserve its reputation as a "cleaner" fossil fuel.

Is everything in the Climate Action Plan workable -- or even a good idea to begin with? Of course not. Some ideas, like pursuing "clean coal" technology, investing in nuclear power, fracking, and building overseas markets for U.S. natural gas are either wrong-headed or dead ends. On balance, though, the plan offers a way for our nation to move forward strongly. Even if not every path offered is a good one, it's never been clearer what our destination must be -- and that this president wants to get us there.

Beyond the president's specific commitments, however, the most important takeaway from his speech is that he is determined to "personally own" this issue. That means taking responsibility in the face of what he has called a "moral obligation." He is far from alone in recognizing such an obligation. A national poll earlier this year found that 93 percent of Americans agree that we have "a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted or damaged."

Although the president's desire to save the planet certainly resonates with environmentalists like myself and the Sierra Club's 2.1 million members and supporters, that alone can't account for the overwhelming support of more than 90 percent of the American population. Our "moral obligation to future generations," though, is a different matter. If I ever need to get re-energized about fighting the climate crisis, all I need to do is look into the eyes of my kids. I know the same is true for President Obama. His exact words today: "As a president, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act."

The president's plan may one day be seen as a critical turning point, but let's not forget that this struggle is far from over. The president himself emphasized that this will be a long and rocky road. In the near term, at least, powerful special interests will continue to throw up roadblocks and obstacles at every turn. Congress, for its part, has resolutely and shamefully shirked its own moral obligation. What matters today, though, is that President Barack Obama has reasserted his leadership on climate with both words and deeds. For that, he deserves both our deepest gratitude and our whole-hearted support (and here's where you can send it to him).

Hope is back in the game. Let's win it.

Posted at 02:12 PM in Beyond Coal, Clean Energy Solutions, Dirty Fuels (Oil), Dirty Money (Oil), Green Transportation, Natural Gas | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 13, 2012

Smarter Choices for Climate Solutions

Each year, $200 billion of our federal, state,and local tax dollars are spent on our transportation system. That money goes for everything from highways and bridges to public transit and bike lanes, and spending it wisely is one of our most powerful tools for fighting climate disruption.

Currently, our transportation system is heavily dependent on oil, which is our largest source of climate pollution -- roughly one-third of all U.S. carbon emissions. If we want to cut carbon pollution fast, moving beyond oil for transportation is an obvious strategy.

What's more, it's something Americans already support. More than 80 percent of us are in favor of improving bus and rail service, as well as more funding to make biking and walking safer. Actually, that's not so surprising when you consider that one in three Americans doesn't drive at all.

Yet even though the number of vehicle miles traveled in America has gone down every year since 2004, the automobile still receives the lion's share of transportation funding. Bike commuting, meanwhile, grew 40 percent nationally between 2000 and 2010. In fact, biking and walking now account for 12 percent of all trips in the U.S., but they get only about 1.6 percent of federal transportation spending.

Transit ridership is up nationwide, too, but cash-strapped transit agencies are being forced to reduce service and raise fares. Meanwhile, low-income families without access to public transit can end up spending more than half of their budget on transportation.

By disproportionately spending our transportation dollars on roads and highways, we're creating hardship for people who can't or don't drive, while also subjecting those who do drive to unpredictable gas-price spikes and horrendous highway commutes. The simple solution is allocate our transportation dollars more sensibly. That means more funding for projects that improve and expand access to transit and alternative transportation -- and less for projects that will prolong our reliance on oil.

This week the Sierra Club released a report called "Smart Choices, Less Traffic: 50 Best and Worst Transportation Projects in the United States." It calls out both good and bad ways of spending our tax dollars. We've also put all 50 transportation projects on a Google map -- so you can see for yourself what's happening in your part of the country.

Examples of "smart" choices include:

Expanding and electrifying light-rail systems across the county.
Funding bicycle and pedestrian pathways.
Repairing the tracks and improving the route of Amtrak in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

Some "not so smart" choices:

A 100-mile gravel road in pristine Northern Alaska that's being built to allow year-round access for oil and gas exploration.
A highway in Virginia (the "Coalfields Expressway") that is essentially an excuse for a strip mine.
A two-mile long tunnel under downtown Seattle.

Bottom line: We already know how to build the kind of transportation infrastructure that will help America meet the challenges of the 21st century. Many communities -- highlighted in the "best" examples in this report -- are already doing exactly that.

But old habits die hard, and plenty of oil-intensive projects are still sucking up dollars that could be put to better use. Luckily, states now have more control over how federal transportation funds are spent. Write to your state's governor to demand a better transportation future that helps move us beyond oil.

Posted at 09:39 AM in Clean Energy Solutions, Dirty Fuels (Oil), Green Fleets, Green Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 30, 2012

Radically Different Visions for America

With Mitt Romney preparing to accept the Republican nomination and with the ink still wet on his energy plan, this might be a good time to ask how far apart the two presidential candidates are on energy (and, by extension, environmental) issues. They aren't in different rooms; they're on different planets. Never have two candidates openly presented such fundamentally disparate visions for America's energy future. Here are five ways that a Romney presidency would take the U.S. down a different road.

1. Protect Polluters, Not People. Obama has strongly backed the Environmental Protection Agency in its mission to enforce the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental protections. During the past four years, the EPA has delivered big time on mercury, soot, acid rain, and carbon pollution safeguards that will save many thousands of lives, dramatically clean up the environment, and help move the U.S. to clean, renewable energy.

Romney believes that the EPA is "completely out of control" and opposes safeguards against both mercury and carbon pollution. His close ties to billionaire polluters are well documented, starting with the Koch brothers and including many of his advisors on energy policy.

2. Put the Brakes on Renewable Energy. Obama has been by far the strongest supporter of clean, renewable energy ever to occupy the White House. Stimulus dollars from the Recovery Act were the single largest investment in clean and renewable energy in our nation’s history and helped create thousands and thousands of new jobs in the clean energy economy nationwide. U.S. wind power has doubled during the past four years, and solar has grown by a factor of five. Not satisfied, though, Obama has called for "doubling down" on renewable energy. Obama supports extending the production tax credit for the wind industry.

Romney says he likes wind and solar "as much as the next guy." That’s only true if the "next guy" is the CEO of an oil company. Romney has attacked clean energy investments and opposes extending the wind production tax credit, even though it means the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. He does not believe that we should do anything to improve our country’s competitive position in the clean energy economy, but instead should revert back to policies that prioritize fossil fuels above all else. Romney’s energy plan would be innovative if we were living in the year 1912, not 2012.

3. All-in on Oil. Presidents have been bemoaning our dependence on oil for decades. But Obama is the first one to actually do something truly significant about it -- two rounds of stronger vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. By 2030, the two standards combined will cut our oil use by 3.1 million barrels per day. That's the amount of oil we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined. They'll also create jobs, as we continue developing the automotive technologies required to meet fuel-efficiency goals. According to a recent study by the Blue Green Alliance, the new standards for cars and light trucks sold from 2017 through 2025 will create 570,000 new jobs across America by 2030.

Romney opposed the fuel standards and believes that the U.S. should continue relying on oil. That means more drilling in the Arctic, offshore, and on our public lands. To facilitate this, Romney would leave it to individual states to decide whether to drill on public lands. Unfortunately, state officials are often beholden to local mining and drilling interests -- with disastrous consequences (see #5).

Lastly, Obama has repeatedly called for an end to taxpayer subsidies of oil companies, which are among the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Romney, who is heavily supported by the oil industry and whose chief energy adviser is the billionaire CEO of an oil company, sees no reason to end subsidies.

4. Do Nothing about Climate Change. Obama acknowledges that climate disruption is a problem and accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that it's caused by carbon pollution. More importantly, he has done something about it. Stronger fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, in addition to helping move us beyond oil, are the biggest action any president has taken to address climate disruption. Once implemented, these standards will cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent.

In fact, during the last four years, carbon emissions in the U.S. have steadily declined and are potentially on track to meet the goal that Obama promised in Copenhagen -- 17 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2020. Bottom line: In spite of fierce resistance from the fossil fuel lobby and its political supporters, we have been making real progress on the climate issue.

Romney, however, doesn't accept that climate disruption is caused by carbon pollution, nor does he believe we can or should do anything about it. On the contrary, he believes that the U.S. should work to increase its use of the dirtiest and most climate-polluting fossil fuels: coal and oil.

5. Make Parks and Public Lands Pay. One of Obama's first acts as president was to sign the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which was the most important lands protection legislation in decades, safeguarding millions of acres of new wilderness, protecting hundreds of miles of rivers, and expanding trails. In addition, more than 1 million acres in the Grand Canyon watershed have been placed off-limits to new uranium mining.

Romney has questioned whether public lands serve any purpose beyond their potential for mining, drilling, and other extractive industries. And it's not just lands that currently aren't protected that would be at risk. At least five national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, and Grand Teton parks, could be threatened under Romney's energy plan.

If you’ve read this far, you know that there are plenty of other differences, but these might be the most important. Which road -- which future -- we choose is up to us.

Paid for by the Sierra Club Political Committee (www.sierraclub.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Posted at 07:35 AM in Dirty Fuels (Oil), Dirty Money (Oil), Green Fleets, Green Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 14, 2012

Share the Road AND the Future

In San Francisco we celebrated Bike to Work Day last week, but so many people are riding their bikes to work here that every day seems like Bike to Work Day. Bicycle ridership is up by 72 percent in the past six years. This has become a much more bicycle-friendly city during the past decade, but the upward trend is national, too: Bicycle commuting in the U.S. was up by 40 percent from 2000 to 2010, and in the largest "bicycle friendly" communities (as identified by the League of American Bicyclists), it was up by 77 percent.

That's great, but it's only scratching the surface of how biking could transform our country. Most people don't commute to work by bike. Most of us don't even use bikes for any of the relatively short trips we make to and from our homes. Forty percent of all car trips are to destinations less than two miles from home. If every American driver made just one of those trips each week on a bicycle instead of a car (going to church, for instance, or to the health club), we would collectively save nearly 2 billion gallons of gas in a year (not to mention about $7 billion).

So why don't we do it?

I suspect that if you asked people why they don't use a bike for those short trips, you'd hear one answer more than any other: "I just don't feel safe riding in traffic." That's understandable, because most of our roads and cities have been engineered for the safety and convenience of drivers -- not bicyclists. The solution is twofold: Better education for both drivers and cyclists on how to safely share the road and, even more important, an investment in reconfiguring our transportation infrastructure so that bicyclists and pedestrians can both feel and be safer.

We need to do this not just because it saves on gas, helps the environment, and makes us healthier. We need to do it because many Americans do not drive at all -- about 100 million as of 2009 (and that number will increase as our population ages). Walking or biking (as well as public transit) are the only ways these people can get somewhere on their own.

After decades of assuming that only cars matter, we really should be playing catch-up on behalf of other transportation modes. Currently, Americans make about 12 percent of all trips by biking or walking. So what if we invested 15 percent of our federal transportation funding on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure? Too generous? How about 10 percent? Five percent? Believe it or not, five percent would still be more than three times as much as we're currently investing now, which is a measly 1.6 percent.

Unfortunately, Big Oil's political allies think that even 1.6 percent is too much.

This is National Bike Month. What better time to tell our leaders that we need to invest our transportation dollars fairly? Because everyone deserves access to clean, affordable transportation choices.

Posted at 01:00 PM in Green Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 24, 2012

Speaking Out for Clean Cars

Seven years ago this month, while I was at Rainforest Action Network, we were working with several hundred California residents who were fighting to prevent their electric cars from being seized, crushed, and sold for scrap. These vehicles were fully functioning, economical and, because they were electric, didn't use a drop of gas. Yet they were being pulled off the roads by major automakers -- over the objections of the people who loved driving them. We didn't save all those cars back in 2005, but we did see more clearly than ever that if we want to move America beyond oil, then we need to jump-start the American auto industry.

Fortunately, times have changed. Today, I testified at an EPA hearing in San Francisco to support proposed standards that would raise vehicle efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon, with electric vehicles as one of the primary ways to meet this goal. Here's my brief testimony....

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to California. I'm Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is our nation's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. We were founded by John Muir, who sought to defend Yosemite Valley and help create and expand Yosemite National Park. Today, nearly 120 years later, the Sierra Nevada range -- like every other ecosystem in America -- is suffering from the impacts of climate destabilization. It's just one reason why these standards are so important.

I want to thank EPA and NHTSA for the opportunity to testify today. I appreciate the incredible amount of work you and your staffs have put in along with California's Air Resources Board to make these historic standards possible.

I'm here today because our dangerous addiction to oil is threatening our quality of life by draining our wallets at the gas pump, polluting our air, and devastating our climate. Every day, we send nearly $1 billion overseas for foreign oil -- wasting money that should be fueling American innovation and investment in growing industries like clean energy. Our oil addiction fuels the climate disruption that is increasing the number and intensity of severe droughts and devastating storms. It also puts our troops at risk around the world, and our families' health and security at risk here at home.

That's why these new fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for new cars and light trucks are such a big deal. President Obama's proposal to double the efficiency of America's cars and light trucks is the biggest single step we've ever taken to move America beyond oil. In 2025, American families will get to buy cars and light trucks that average 54.5 miles-per-gallon, and emit no more than 163 grams per mile of carbon pollution.

That's a big win for all Americans. To put this in perspective, the average family buying a new car in 2025 will save more than $3,500 at the pump -- even after paying for fuel-saving technology. In 2030, Americans will use 1.5 million fewer barrels of oil every day, the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010, and cut carbon pollution by an amount equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.

The shift we have seen over the past few years in our auto industry is worthy of recognition. The United Auto Workers -- the backbone of the American manufacturing industry -- strongly supports these standards, as do Ford, GM, Chrysler, and the other major automakers. The industry is already enjoying a rebound, with new jobs in Michigan and across the Midwest; by 2030 these standards could create nearly half a million jobs across the country.

Here in California, we've been paving the way for cleaner cars for nearly a decade. I'm proud to live in a state that has led the nation in cutting pollution from cars -- from the pollution that compromises our health and our right to breathe healthy air to the pollution the threatens our climate. California pioneered the first-ever tailpipe standards for greenhouse gases, putting its authority and the Clean Air Act to work. It took years of litigation and 13 other states joining our state's clean cars program before we finally created the momentum at the national level to raise the national standards that had been stuck since the 1970s.

For more than twenty years, the Sierra Club and its members have pushed for stronger fuel-efficiency standards that will help America break its oil addiction. Already more than 20,000 of our members have sent in their comments, and more than a hundred of our members have testified at these hearings. We are committed to help educate members of the public about the benefits of buying the most efficient vehicle that meets their family's needs. The Sierra Club will also continue working to ensure that all Americans have more and better transportation choices -- by making walking and biking safer and increasing our access to transit.

As a father of two young kids, I'm relieved to know that the cars they'll drive in the years to come will use much less oil and emit less pollution. The reality is, these standards are strong, and they need to be stronger. Dirty oil pollutes our air, our water, and our atmosphere. And as we've seen over the past couple of elections, Big Oil cash pollutes our democracy. We look forward to working with President Obama, along with your agencies, to ensure that the Administration finalizes strong standards this July that will deliver the strongest possible benefits to American families and workers through 2025 and beyond. Thank you.

I had my say today, but you can still tell the EPA and NHTSA what you think about stronger fuel economy standards here.

Posted at 02:59 PM in Green Fleets, Green Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 17, 2011

The Two Ways to Move Beyond Oil

We can end America's oil addiction, but two key events -- yesterday and last week -- tell us a lot about the challenges we'll face as we make it happen.

Last week, the delay (and potential cancellation) of the Keystone XL pipeline showed we can meet the challenge of organizing a grassroots-driven coalition to stop destructive oil development. That was a fantastic victory, but it only marked the start of what is sure to be a long campaign to stop oil companies from pursuing increasingly risky and environmentally destructive sources of petroleum -- in the tar sands, the Arctic, the Amazon, the shale fields in the northern Rockies, and beyond.

After seeing thousands of us surround the White House to stop Keystone XL, I think we're up to that challenge. But to keep succeeding, we'll need more than enthusiasm for stopping the bad stuff -- we'll also need to tackle the root of the problem: our society's seemingly insatiable demand for oil.

That's why although I'm thrilled that President Obama heard our voices and declined to rubberstamp the Keystone XL pipeline, I'm equally excited about yesterday's announcement that his administration is finalizing a fuel-efficiency standard of 54.5 mpg for all cars and light trucks by 2025, as well as a reduction in carbon emissions to 163 grams per mile. Because most of the oil we use is for transportation, improving vehicle efficiency is the single biggest step we can take right now to ensure that we transition to an oil-free society before we've destroyed more irreplaceable wildlands, suffered more oil-spill catastrophes, or allowed carbon pollution to push our climate past the tipping point.

And that's where our other challenge really kicks in. We know that the proposed fuel-economy and carbon-pollution standards are achievable. We also know that they'll help solve the many problems that our oil addiction causes for our economy, our environment, and our national security. In 2030, they'll save as much oil as we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year. Consumers will save billions of dollars at the pump, and innovative automotive technologies will flourish and create thousands of new jobs as a direct result of these new standards.

Sounds great, right? Ironically, though, we need to work just as hard to win a solution like this as to stop a problem like the Keystone XL.

It's not always easy to get people as excited about long-term solutions like fuel-economy standards as it is to galvanize them against immediate threats like tar sands. But if we don't reduce demand for oil through solutions like strong fuel-efficiency standards, better transit options, and smart urban planning, we'll find it a little harder each time to resist the demands to develop projects like the Keystone XL or drill in a treasured wilderness like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So although nowhere near as dramatic as last week's Keystone XL announcement, yesterday's proposed vehicle standards represent an equally significant commitment by President Obama to move our nation beyond oil and toward a clean-energy future. It's a commitment that deserves all the support we can give it.

Ready to be part of the solution? Let the Obama administration know you support the strong fuel-economy and carbon-pollution standards that will move America beyond oil.

Posted at 12:15 PM in Dirty Fuels (Oil), Green Transportation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)