By John Addison (8/24/11)

$380 Billion in new Green Scissors 2011 Report

Millions of Americans are demanding common sense fixes to our broken economy. Wasteful spending needs to be cut, free giveaways of our natural resource stopped, and tax dodging corporations to start paying the same rates as middle-class taxpayers.

Senator Dirksen is attributed with the famous quip, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money?”

$380 billion of wasteful government spending, subsidies, and loopholes is detailed in the new Green Scissors report.  The amount is for 2012 to 2016. I’m not sure which is most surprising, the common sense distilled to 32-pages or the fact that the report is sponsored by both conservative and environmental groups. Green Scissors 2011 is published by four organizations: progressive environmental group Friends of the Earth, deficit hawk Taxpayers for Common Sense, consumer watchdog Public Citizen and free-market think tank The Heartland Institute.

The report does not pretend to solve everything. It focuses on wasteful spending and subsidies that both harm the economy and the environment. The sponsoring groups make it very clear that they do not agree on all issues. They agree on the analysis and recommendations in Green Scissors. The report is balanced in pinpointing specific waste in subsidizing oil drilling and hybrid car buying, dirty coal and dangerous nukes, giving away land and giving away gold.

Senate Backs Common Sense on Occasion

Before you think that common sense does not have a prayer in this Congress, consider this report excerpt:

“[A] bipartisan bill to end one of the most egregious tax preferences, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, was brought to the Senate floor thanks to the tireless work of bipartisan Senate champions. In a sign that things really are changing in Washington, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to end a subsidy that just a few months earlier had been extended yet again. In the end, 73 senators took on the powerful corn lobby and supported fiscal responsibility and the environment by voting to end a wasteful subsidy that has been on the books for over 30 years.”

The report is likely to be popular with citizens who want to shrink the deficit, protect our global competitiveness, and not subsidize the destruction of our future. It will not be popular will oil executives whose companies pay no income tax, mining companies that extract gold from public lands for free, and farmers paid to use massive energy to make ethanol that contains less energy. These powerful companies will ask that we protect their jobs and their profits, yet the more that we do, the more the United States as a whole suffers lost jobs and profits.

$61 Billion in Subsidies to Oil and Related Fossil Fuel Giants

Green Scissors 2011 states, “For nearly 100 years we have given generous government subsidies to the incredibly lucrative fossil fuels industry. The lion’s share of these subsidies comes in the form of tax breaks that cost the government tens of billions of dollars annually. This tax spending is particularly advantageous for the industry because most of it is permanent law and does not require regular review from Congress. Thus, it can be counted on year after year.” The report identifies specific oil and other fossil fuel subsidies that, unless eliminated, will cost taxpayers over $61 billion. Here are some specific examples:

• Last In, First Out Accounting 29,661,000,000
• Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction for Oil and Gas Companies 6,679,000,000
• Intangible Drilling Costs 6,268,000,000
• Percentage Depletion Allowance for Oil and Gas Wells 4,657,000,000
• Oil Royalty Relief 4,033,000,000
• Deductions for Foreign Tax — Dual Capacity 3,896,000,000

This focused report identifies many more specifics. The report tries to focus on what is politically feasible, ignoring the even bigger costs of offshore drilling damage, such as the $40 billion BP Gulf Oil damage. Ignored are externalities like the damage of pollution to health and the damage of  draughts, wildfires, and crop failures that correlate with global warming.

The U.S. is now paying more to borrow due to our credit rating being downgraded to AA+ by Standard and Poor’s and to A by Dagong, Asia’s largest credit agency. We owe trillions to people and governments who experienced the recent threat of not getting repaid and the reality of getting repaid with cheaper dollars. The government shutdown threat was lead by extremists who want to “starve the beast of government” and stop new revenue in any form. This approach is keeping fossil fuel giants on welfare, thereby funding their damage to our health and polluting our future.

Quotable Conservatives and Environmentalists

Former Representative Robert Inglis (R-SC) pointed out that protecting the fossil fuel industry hurts innovation and global competitiveness. Protecting aging industry hurts our future revenue and jobs from the innovative leaders of tomorrow.

“At a time when working families are expected to belt-tighten, so too must wasteful public investments in mature, polluting technologies,” said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. “For too long lobbyists kept these undeserving programs and tax preferences for the fossil fuel and nuclear industry funded.”

“The Green Scissors report documents the breadth and depth of damage that government spending does to our environment,” said Heartland Institute Vice President Eli Lehrer. “Cutting government in the right places can make for a cleaner, healthier environment.”

“We can go a long way toward solving our nation’s budget problems by cutting spending that harms the environment, and this report provides the Super Committee with a road map,” said Friends of the Earth climate and energy tax analyst Ben Schreiber. “At a time of great polarization, Super Committee members can and should find common ground by ending wasteful polluter giveaways.”

“These common sense cuts represent the lowest of the low hanging budgetary fruit,” said Taxpayers for Common Sense President Ryan Alexander. “Lawmakers across the political spectrum should be scrambling to eliminate these examples of wasteful spending and unnecessary tax breaks that are squandering our precious tax dollars while the nation is staring into a chasm of debt.”

Do Oil Companies Pay Their Fair Share? is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

By John Addison (8/19/11)

High-Speed Rail was Faster than Flight, Hotel to Hotel

It was an easy walk from our downtown Madrid hotel to the train station. In less than 3 hours on high-speed rail, we crossed the country to Barcelona. I looked out the window as we traveled at 185 miles per hour leaving the hot plains for the cooler Mediterranean. Traveling car free made the vacation relaxed, talking with locals easy, and neighborhoods a joy to walk.

The vacation was a welcome respite from the gridlocked expressways of America. Where I live in California, highways are being widened at a taxpayer burden of $200 million per mile. Locals in Atherton, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park, armed with signs that shout “Not In My Backyard”, are holding up the California High-Speed rail, at one-third that cost per mile. They claim that HSR is too noisy to run through cities. Tell that to all the people in Europe and Asia who are 50 years ahead of us, none wearing earplugs as these trains glide through the hearts of their cities.

California HSR would connect 25 major transit systems together, and pay for itself in avoided freeway and airport expansion. Diesel rail would be replaced with electric rail at the same time California’s energy mix is increasing from 20 to 33 percent renewable.

“Last Mile” Solutions from Walking to Bicycle Sharing

My wife and I found it easy to zip around Madrid and Barcelona on their efficient metro subway and bus systems. Normally, however, we choose to walk miles daily so that we could experience the sights, restaurants, and people up close and personal.

For busy commuters, however, walking is popular when the distance is under a half-mile. Beyond that, a car is selected over transit, unless other “last mile” solutions are convenient.

For over 100,000 in Barcelona, their “last mile” solution is taking a bicycle down tree covered bike lanes that I enjoyed riding. May bike lanes were safely seperated from the car lanes, but others disappeared into hair raising intersections. Barcelona has 9,000 bicycles in Bicing, a bike sharing subscription program that costs 35 euros per year with added charges for keeping a bike more than 30 minutes. A member goes to one of 400 convenient on the street locations, holds their RFID smartcard near the display, sees which bike to take (e.g. Space 18), rides to their destination, and then secures their bike in the new location. Bicing offers its 100,000 members a smart app with location map and extensive information.

Bicycle sharing has millions of members in European cities. It is now taking foot in the U.S. in Washington DC, Twin Cities, Chicago, Denver, Tulsa, San Antonio, San Francisco, and other cities. Some include special programs for employers and universities to facilitate broad participation. In America, these commuters save a fortune in car costs, gasoline, and parking fees. As a plus, they get some healthy exercise.

electric car and PRT New Urban Mobility

Austin, Texas, has modeled the successful point-to-point (P2P) bicycle sharing with 300 shared Mercedes SmartCars. Someone can exit transit, drive the SmartCar three miles to work, park the car and walk away, paying pennies per minute. In the future, the SmartED electric car will be included in the Austin P2P car sharing.

Millions of visitors to the London Olympics next year will have the opportunity to use a different electric approach – personal rapid transit (PRT). They will get in a pod on an electric rail at Heathrow Airport, push the destination button as someone would in an elevator, and glide a few miles to their destination.

Looking to the future, automakers see new opportunities in urban mobility. Car makers observe the millions of us who use mobile devices with smart apps to best get through our busy days, at times in a car, at times walking, and at times using new technology.

I had the opportunity to test drive the General Motors EN-V urban mobility concept vehicle. The friendly little two-seat pod rests on a Segway drive system. It could easily be steered around the Standor University campus, where the event occurred. In the future, these new light electric vehicles could be navigated along mobility pathways separated from cars in a gridlocked city. The EN-V can also navigate autonomously, automatically stop for pedestrians, and cluster into compact convoys.

A few EN-Vs, or a few dozen, can form themselves into a convoy and route themselves to where they are needed. This would solve a problem that costs millions to manage for P2P car sharing and bicycle sharing. Vehicles must be moved after they cluster in popular destinations. Today some bike sharing members abandon programs after they cannot locate a shared bike when late to work, or get charged extra when every space in the bike rack is full. Personal PRT such as the EN-V could automate having the right vehicles in the right places at the right times.

Could such innovation happen in the USA? Yes. When I visited the vast Marine Corp Camp Pendleton, I saw 291 electric vehicles in use. The military is very interested in autonomous vehicles, especially those that free us from our dependency on oil.

A GM scientist told me that China has enormous potential. Cities the size of New York are being developed through out China. They will have good transit, which is connected by 20,000 miles of high-speed and express rail. China will also have unprecedented auto-congestion and need for last-mile solutions. China is not paralyzed with NIMBY or government gridlock. China could plan new forms of urban mobility in new cities and then quickly implement the plan.

In the U.S. many people that I interview who are under 30 and living in cities or university towns, tell me that a car is not something to own, it is a service to use along with rail, transit, walking, and bicycling. When needed, they use Zipcar or another car share service, they rideshare, they squeeze into a taxi when leaving a club on a Friday night. Millennials may take to new innovations in urban mobility as easily as they took to the internet, social networks and smart apps. At times, leaving the auto behind can lead to a pleasant car-free vacation or a carefree commute.

Car-Free Vacations – Carefree Commuting is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

(4/6/11)

Although the attempt of Congress to cripple the EPA may help short-term profits of oil and coal companies, such action would damage companies benefitting from clean transportation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Healthcare costs would rise. Hybrid and electric car sales would be hurt.

As the Senate and House gear up to vote today and tomorrow on measures to block EPA from updating its health protections, David Doniger, policy director in NRDC’s Climate Center, gives this testimony to the House Oversight and Investigations Committee:

Mr. Chairman, the other witnesses you have heard are pursuing a false story line that demonizes the Environmental Protection Agency and the modest steps it is taking to begin reducing dangerous carbon pollution.  Contrary to that false story line, EPA is doing just what Congress told the agency to do when it wrote the Clean Air Act.  Congress gave EPA the duty to keep abreast of developing science, and to act when science shows that pollution endangers our health and welfare.

The EPA endangerment finding is backed by solid scientific authority.  America’s own most authoritative scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), concluded in 2010:

“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

H.R. 910, the extreme bill that the House of Representatives is on the verge of adopting, would take the unprecedented step of repealing an expert agency’s formal scientific finding of a threat to health and welfare.  Congress has never done this before, and you should not start now.  Politicians do not prosper long when they put themselves in the position of denying modern science.  Repealing EPA’s scientific determination that carbon pollution causes dangerous climate change would be like repealing the Surgeon General’s finding that tobacco smoke causes cancer.  H.R. 910 will harm the health and the pocketbook of millions of Americans.  It is both bad policy and deeply unpopular.

The Clean Air Act’s critics get the economics of environmental safeguards completely backwards. Rather than hurting economic growth, four decades of data show that the Clean Air Act helps our economy grow while it protects the health of millions of Americans.  Over the past 40 years, the American economy has tripled in size while we’ve cut some forms of pollution by more than 60 percent.  That’s because the Clean Air Act does not demand the impossible – it requires only pollution controls that are achievable and affordable.  That’s just as true when setting carbon pollution standards as it has been for other kinds of pollution.

EPA is taking great care to protect American families and American small businesses that are the focus of this hearing.  In fact, EPA has set carbon pollution standards for new cars, SUVs, and over-the-road trucks that will save billions of dollars for American families and small businesses by cutting their gasoline and diesel fuel bills.  And EPA has gone to great lengths to exempt the millions of American small businesses from any obligations as it begins to address carbon pollution from only the very largest industrial sources, such power plants and oil refineries.

Thanks to EPA’s landmark clean car standards, small businesses will save big-time at the gas pump.  Under the Clean Car Agreement brokered by the Obama administration, EPA, acting together with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and California, has set combined carbon pollution and fuel economy standards that will lower gasoline bills for American small businesses and families by billions of dollars.  The first round of standards, for 2012-2016 model cars, SUVs, vans, and pick-ups, will save small business owners as much as $3,000 over the life the vehicle.  EPA’s clean car standards for 2017-2025 will save small businesses even more – as much as another $7,400 per car.  I should note that these calculations were based on gasoline costs starting at $2.61/gallon!  At today’s and tomorrow’s higher gas prices, the savings will be even greater.

EPA is also working with DOT and California on the first-ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for over-the-road trucks.  Those standards, proposed last year, will save the owner of a heavy-duty truck up to $74,000 over the truck’s useful life.  The money saved on diesel fuel will stay in the pockets of truck and fleet owners and will enable them to pass on savings to every American in lower costs for food and other goods.

Lobbyists for some of America’s biggest polluters are falsely claiming that the Clean Air Act’s carbon requirements will fall on millions of apartment buildings, office buildings, farms, and even churches.  The truth is otherwise:  EPA has exempted all small sources of carbon pollution from permit requirements for new and expanded sources.  Instead, directly in line with congressional intent, EPA has focused those permit requirements on only the largest new and expanded sources of carbon pollution, such as power plants, oil refineries, and other big polluters.

When a company wants to build or expand a big plant that will operate for decades, it is only common sense to take reasonable steps to reduce how much dangerous pollution it will put into the air.  So for decades, the Clean Air Act has required that someone – either the state’s environmental agency or the EPA as a last resort – review what the new or expanded plant can reasonably do to reduce its pollution, and put achievable and affordable emission limits into a construction permit.  But this review of available and affordable pollution control measures applies only to the largest sources of carbon pollution, like new power plants, oil refinery expansions, or other large projects.  This is the same review that has been undertaken for decades for similar sources of other pollutants.

EPA has been sued by dozens of trade associations, companies, and right-leaning advocacy groups representing the country’s biggest polluters.  But when put to the test of proving their claims, they failed.  The courts have found no merit in their claims of harm.   This is no surprise, because the court challengers – like the lobbyists who come up to the Hill – are seeking not relief for the small fries, but special favors for the biggest polluters – power plants, oil refineries, and the like.  These pollution giants cannot complain to the courts about EPA’s exempting smaller sources.  Their attempt to hide behind the skirts of small businesses should fare no better here on the Hill.

Congressmen, you deny the science at your peril.  Likewise, you buy into phony story lines about burdens on small business at your peril.  As I mentioned, large majorities of the American people support the Clean Air Act and want EPA to do its job to control air pollution.  They specifically want EPA to do its job to safeguard us from carbon pollution.

Congress Tries to Cripple EPA is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

Book Review by John Addison (2/18/11)

In his new book, Terry Tamminen shows us how a sustainable future is being created.  He gives us an inside look based on his strategic meetings with President Obama, governors of red and blue states, and even the formation of the next five year plan for China. Tamminen removes the mystery of Cracking the Carbon Code in one fascinating story after another as we follow the actions of corporate, government, and NGO leaders from California to China and from the United States to the UK.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for whom Terry Tamminen served as the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency forewards the book.  During his service in government, Tamminen was responsible for environmental progress in including California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This law was recently attacked by oil companies, then strongly supported by 61 percent of California voters last November, and is now creating market incentives that reward cleantech innovation, energy efficiency, and improved transportation.

I particularly enjoyed the book, because I know that Terry Tamminen walks the talk. I included him in my book, Save Gas, Save the Planet, as an earlier driver of one of our most advanced zero-emission vehicles, the Honda FCX Clarity. I would recommend this book to leaders of governments, corporations, NGOs, and all stakeholders in a sustainable future.

Cracking the Carbon Code: The Key to Sustainable Profits in the New Economy (Palgrave Macmillan) by Terry Tamminen.

Cracking the Carbon Code: The Key to Sustainable Profits in the New Economy is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

Worldwatch Institute Report Summary (1/12/11)

Worldwatch Institute released its report State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, which spotlights successful agricultural innovations and unearths major successes in preventing food waste, building resilience to climate change, and strengthening farming in cities. The report provides a roadmap for increased agricultural investment and more-efficient ways to alleviate global hunger and poverty. Drawing from the world’s leading agricultural experts and from hundreds of innovations that are already working on the ground, the report outlines 15 proven, environmentally sustainable prescriptions.

“The progress showcased through this report will inform governments, policymakers, NGOs, and donors that seek to curb hunger and poverty, providing a clear roadmap for expanding or replicating these successes elsewhere,” said Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin. “We need the world’s influencers of agricultural development to commit to longstanding support for farmers, who make up 80 percent of the population in Africa.”

State of the World 2011 comes at a time when many global hunger and food security initiatives-such as the U.S. Feed the Future program, the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) can benefit from new insight into environmentally sustainable projects that are already working to alleviate hunger and poverty.

Nearly a half-century after the Green Revolution, one billion are still chronically hungry. While investment in agricultural development by governments, international lenders and foundations has escalated in recent years, it is still nowhere near what’s needed to help the 925 million people who are undernourished.  Since the mid 1980s when agricultural funding was at its height, the share of global development aid has fallen from over 16 percent to just 4 percent today.

“The international community has been neglecting entire segments of the food system in its efforts to reduce hunger and poverty,” said Danielle Nierenberg, co-director of Worldwatch’s Nourishing the Planet project. “The solutions won’t necessarily come from producing more food, but from changing what children eat in schools, how foods are processed and marketed, and what sorts of food businesses we are investing in.”

Serving locally raised crops to school children, for example, has proven to be an effective hunger- and poverty-reducing strategy in many African nations, and has strong parallels to successful farm-to-cafeteria programs in the United States and Europe. Moreover, “roughly 40 percent of the food currently produced worldwide is wasted before it is consumed, creating large opportunities for farmers and households to save both money and resources by reducing this waste,” according to Brian Halweil, Nourishing the Planet co-director.

State of the World 2011 draws from hundreds of case studies and first-person examples to offer solutions to reducing hunger and poverty. These include:

In Kibera, Nairobi, the largest slum in Kenya, more than 1,000 women farmers are growing “vertical” gardens in sacks full of dirt poked with holes, feeding their families and communities. These sacks have the potential to feed thousands of city dwellers while also providing a sustainable and easy-to-maintain source of income for urban farmers. With more than 60 percent of Africa’s population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, such methods may be crucial to creating future food security. Currently, some 33 percent of Africans live in cities, and 14 million more migrate to urban areas each year. Worldwide, some 800 million people engage in urban agriculture, producing 15-20 percent of all food.

The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) is using interactive community plays to engage women farmers, community leaders, and policymakers in an open dialogue about gender equity, food security, land tenure, and access to resources.  Women in sub-Saharan Africa make up at least 75 percent of agricultural workers and provide 60-80 percent of the labor to produce food for household consumption and sale, so it is crucial that they have opportunities to express their needs in local governance and decision-making. This entertaining and amicable forum makes it easier for them to speak openly.

Uganda’s Developing Innovations in School Cultivation (DISC) program is integrating indigenous vegetable gardens, nutrition information, and food preparation into school curriculums to teach children how to grow local crop varieties that will help combat food shortages and revitalize the country’s culinary traditions. An estimated 33 percent of African children currently face hunger and malnutrition, which could affect some 42 million children by 2025. School nutrition programs that don’t simply feed children, but also inspire and teach them to become the farmers of the future, are a huge step toward improving food security.

The State of the World 2011 report is accompanied by other informational materials including briefing documents, summaries, an innovations database, videos, and podcasts, all of which are available at www.NourishingthePlanet.org. The project’s findings are being disseminated to a wide range of agricultural stakeholders, including government ministries, agricultural policymakers, farmer and community networks, and the increasingly influential non-governmental environmental and development communities.

The Worldwatch Institute and the Nourishing the Planet project are gratefully supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and additional foundations, governments, and institutions including the Rockefeller and Surdna Foundations, the United Nations Foundation, the Goldman Environmental Prize, the Shared Earth Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, the Winslow Foundation and many more.

State of the World 2011: Agriculture Innovation Is Critical to Stabilizing Climate is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

California is World’s Third Biggest Oil Consumer

Over 95 percent of California transportation is fueled by petroleum. Electric light-rail, CNG buses and trucks, ethanol blended in gasoline make up the rest. No other state is more addicted to oil. By comparison, only two nations use more oil – China and the United States. California uses more oil than India, Japan, or Germany.

California wants to be more energy secure, have cleaner skies, lower healthcare costs for asthma, and reduce its own contribution to the global warming that threatens water shortage and failed crops. In 2006, a Republican Governor signed the nation’s most comprehensive climate legislation, AB32, shaped by both parties in the State Assembly and Senate. The law would increase refinery costs and encourage a reduced use of petroleum.

California’s efficiency and climate solutions are creating over a million cleantech related jobs as use of fossil fuel declines. According to recent scenario’s from the California Energy Commission, “Between 2007 and 2030, staff estimates total annual gasoline consumption in California to fall 13.3 percent in the low-demand case to 13.57 billion gallons, largely as a result of high fuel prices, efficiency gains, and competing fuel technologies. In the high-demand case, the recovering economy and lower relative prices lead to a gasoline demand peak in 2014 of 16.40 billion gallons before consumption falls to a 2030 level of 14.32 billion gallons, 8.5 percent below 2007 levels. CEC Report

Reducing the use of petroleum, of course, would cost oil companies billions. Texas oil companies are buying TV ads to encourage Californians to vote “yes” for Proposition 23 this November. The proposition would require the State to abandon implementation of a comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted.”

Prop 23’s biggest backers, Valero and Tesoro, are responsible for 16.7% of California’s emissions, according to the California League of Conservation Voters. Prop 23 will allow California oil refineries to avoid paying over one billion dollars for carbon emissions. Prop 23 is promoted as a jobs creation, but it’s a job killer.  A recent UC study reported that California’s successful efforts to become cleaner have already created 1.5 million jobs with a total payroll of over $45 billion.

California leads the nation with 25,000 electric cars on the road and thousands of new electric charge stations scheduled for installation. By the end of the decade, California is forecasted by the CEC to have 1.5 million electric cars on the road.  California’s Electric Transportation Report

66 leading investors representing $400 billion oppose proposition 23 as harmful to jobs and investment

Proposition 23’s opponents include 66 asset managers, venture capitalists and other investors collectively managing over $410 billion who issued a joint statement today opposing Proposition 23, the statewide ballot initiative to stop implementation of the state’s landmark clean energy law, AB 32.

Tesla electric cars, Better Place, and Bright Source Energy would not have achieved their success without the investment and guidance of VantagePoint Venture Partners, who has invested $1.5 billion in a portfolio of over 25 leading clean technology companies. Vantage CEO, Alan Salzman, sees a trillion dollar future in clean transportation, energy, water, lighting, and materials.  On today’s conference call he stated, “We don’t want our cleantech future high-jacked. Is California going to stay in the game, or cede to China, India, and Russia?”

The oil industry attack on California carbon pricing will not stop cleantech, but it may stop the next 500,000 cleantech jobs from being in California.  At stake is whether the next Google or Tesla is in the U.S., or in some other country. When asked whether putting a price on carbon would cost consumer’s money, Salzman responded, “This is about using technology to modernize ancient technology, such as the light-bulb. “ He sited that new LED only uses 15 percent of energy of old bulbs. We have cheaper and better technology. Flat screens that cost $15,000, now cost $400 due to learning curve and scale.

Kevin Parker, Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisers has over $1.5 billion of their $8 billion invested in cleantech. He stated that a billion dollar wind or solar project only happens when investors or lenders have TLC– transparency, longevity, and certainty. A predictable price on carbon could make the next utility scale wind farm a good investment. No TLC, no renewable energy, no thousands of jobs – only consumers stuck with coal and gas generated electricity.  If Prop 23 is defeated, major clean energy projects can move forward. He sees the stakes being much bigger than California. With our failure to support clean energy in the U.S. Senate, other states will either follow California’s cleantech lead, or they will give up on climate legislation. The U.S. will fall behind other nations, unless investors have reason to invest in U.S. cleantech.

Chris Davis, a director of Ceres and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk, a network of 90 investors with assets exceeding $9 trillion focused on the business impacts of climate change agreed that investors could easily move money and jobs globally. He stated, “Cleantech is a major economic engine. Trying to repeal the future will not get us there.”

The U.S. can win or lose in a future that includes energy efficient materials, LED lights, electric cars, high-speed rail, wind power, solar power, smart grids and smart apps. If Californian’s defeat Prop 23 on November 2, Texas may be a few hundred jobs lighter and California a few hundred thousand jobs richer. California Cleantech Jobs

Texas Oil Attacks California Cleantech with Prop 23 is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

The National Research Council issued new three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices.

“These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.”

The report suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of Congress. Even at the higher end of this range, meeting the target will require a major departure from “business-as-usual” emission trends. The report notes that with the exception of the recent economic downtown, domestic emissions have been rising for most of the past three decades. The U.S. emitted approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most current year for which such data were available). If emissions continue at that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before 2050, the report says.

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives. While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.

Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic emissions, the report warns. Strategically chosen, complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.

NRC Reports and Free Summaries

Clean Fleet Climate Action Reports

The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems,” the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on “fundamental, use-inspired” research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change.

The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established in 1990, could fulfill this role, but it would need to form partnerships with action-oriented programs and address weaknesses that in the past have led to research gaps, particularly in the critical area of research that supports decisions about responding to climate change.

Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt and sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral changes, says Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, another of the new reports. Although limiting emissions must be a global effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will help encourage other countries to do the same. In addition, the U.S. could establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the technologies necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.

An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all levels of government, the private sector, and millions of households and individuals are contributing to shared national goals. Toward that end, the U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions “budget” that sets a limit on total domestic emissions over a set period of time and provides a clear, directly measurable goal. However, the report warns, the longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.

We must manage and minimize the risks of climate change, says the third report, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country. The report notes that policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate conditions and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of impacts is not a reason to wait to act. In fact, it says boosting U.S. adaptive capacity now can be viewed as “an insurance policy against an uncertain future,” while inaction could increase risks, especially if the rate of climate change is particularly large.

Although much of the response to climate change will occur at local and regional levels, a national adaptation strategy is needed to facilitate cooperation and collaboration across all lines of government and between government and other key parties, including the private sector, community organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. As part of this strategy, the federal government should provide technical and scientific resources that are lacking at the local or regional scale, incentives for local and state authorities to begin adaptation planning, guidance across jurisdictions, and support of scientific research to expand knowledge of impacts and adaptation.

Adapting to climate change will be an ongoing, iterative process, the report says, and will involve decision makers at every scale of government and all parts of society. A first step is to identify vulnerabilities to climate change impacts and begin to examine adaptation options that will improve resilience. To build the scientific knowledge base and provide a basis for increasingly effective action in the future, adaptation efforts should be monitored and analyzed to judge successes, problems, and unintended consequences. The report also calls for research to develop new adaptation options and a better understanding of vulnerabilities and impacts on smaller spatial scales.

Adaptation to climate change should not be seen as an alternative to attempts to limit it, the report emphasizes. Rather, the two approaches should be seen as partners, given that society’s ability to cope with the impacts of climate change decreases as the severity of climate change increases. At moderate rates and levels of climate change, adaptation can be effective, but at severe rates, adapting to disturbances caused by climate change may not be possible, the report says.

The new reports stress that national climate change research, efforts to limit emissions, and adaptation strategies should be designed to be flexible and responsive to new information and conditions in the coming decades. Because knowledge about future climate change and possible impacts will evolve, policies and programs should continually monitor and adjust to progress and consequences of actions.

America’s Climate Choices also includes two additional reports that will be released later this year: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change will examine how to best provide decision makers information on climate change, and an overarching report will build on each of the previous reports and other work to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change.

New Reports from National Research Council Give U.S. Climate Action Plan Roadmap is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

U.S. DOT April 2010 Report to Congress

A wealth of potential solutions, from electric cars, to better transit, to reduced VMT, are detailed in the recent Department of Transportation’s report to Congress. Not only is the report rich with promising climate action, solutions are detailed to address U.S. energy security, with 97 percent of our transportation coming from one source – petroleum.

STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRANSPORTATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The DOT report offers a wealth of data and tactics supporting these four strategies:

1. Low-carbon fuels
2. Fuel economy
3. Transportation system efficiency
4. Reduce carbon-intensive travel

The report also details cross-cutting policies that facilitate the above strategies:

• Align transportation planning and investments to GHG reduction objectives
• Price carbon

Low-Carbon Fuels

The alternative fuels evaluated in this report include ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, and electricity. Considering scalability, the potential to follow a favorable cost reduction curve, and lifecycle emissions, electricity, hydrogen, and advanced biofuels have the most promise. Report summary:

If significant advances were to occur in battery technology and the use of low-carbon energy sources for electricity generation, battery-electric vehicle could reduce transportation GHG emissions by 80 percent or more per vehicle in the long term (25 years or more). Aggressive deployment could reduce total transportation emissions by 26-to-30 percent in 2050 if a 56 percent light-duty vehicle (LDV) market penetration could be achieved.

The estimates for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles depend on reductions in the GHG emissions intensity of U.S. electricity production. The estimates were calculated using GHG emission intensity modeled by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The input is 379 to 606 g/kWhr in 2030, and 240 to 421 g/kWhr in 2050. This compares to a 618 g/kWh national average today and would require increased use of low carbon electricity production technologies such as wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro-electric power. However, even under a very high GHG intensity scenario relying on coal generation using older technology (1,014 g/kWhr), at a low battery efficiency of 0.4 kWhr/mile,

PHEVs operating in a charge depleting mode would still result in 12 percent lower GHG emissions than corresponding conventional gasoline vehicle operation, on a per mile basis. However, under these extreme circumstances, PHEV operation will not provide benefits relative to an HEV baseline.

In the long-term, if technical successes in fuel cell development and low-carbon hydrogen production, distribution, and onboard storage can be achieved, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could reduce per vehicle GHG emissions by 80 percent or more. Aggressive deployment could reduce total transportation emissions by 18-to-22 percent in 2050.

Fuel Economy

Fuel use per light duty vehicle averages 578 gallons per year. In addition, average new vehicle fuel economy improved from 2005 to 2007 as the market share of passenger cars increased compared to light-duty trucks

Vehicle and fuel efficiency strategies include developing and bringing to market advanced engine and transmission designs, lighter-weight materials, improved vehicle aerodynamics, and reduced rolling resistance. Many of these technological improvements (such as hybrid-electric powertrains, truck aerodynamic improvements, and more efficient gasoline engines) are well developed and could be further incorporated into new vehicles in the near future. In the long-term, propulsion systems relying on more efficient power conversion and low- or zero-carbon fuels.

Fuel economy benefits are limited by the turnover time of the fleet. Passenger cars and light trucks last about 16 years on average before retirement, compared to 20 years or more for trucks, up to 40 years for locomotives and marine vessels, and about 30 years for aircraft.

• Increased fuel economy in light-duty vehicles could reduce GHG emissions significantly. On a per vehicle basis, compared to a conventional vehicle, GHG reductions are 8-to-30 percent for advanced gasoline vehicles; about 16 percent for diesel vehicles; 26-to-54 percent for hybrid electrics; and 46-to-75 percent for plug-in hybrid electrics.

• Retrofits can be used to expedite improvements. Heavy-duty trucks retrofitted to use aerodynamic fairings, trailer side skirts, low-rolling resistance tires, aluminum wheels, and planar boat tails can reduce per truck GHG emissions by 10-to-15 percent. For new trucks, combined powertrain and resistance reduction technologies are estimated to reduce per vehicle emissions by 10 to 30 percent in 2030.

Reduce Carbon-Intensive Travel

These strategies would reduce on-road vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by reducing the need for travel, increasing vehicle occupancies, and shifting travel to more energy-efficient options. The collective impact of these strategies on total U.S. transportation GHG emissions could range from 5-to-17 percent in 2030, or 6-to-21 percent in 2050.

• Transportation pricing strategies, such as a fee per vehicle-mile of travel (VMT) of about 5 cents per mile, an increase in the motor fuel tax of about $1.00 per gallon, or pay-as-you-drive insurance—if applied widely—could reduce transportation GHG emissions by 3 percent or more within 5-to- 10 years. Lower fee or tax levels would result in proportionately lower GHG reductions.

• Significant expansion of urban transit services, in conjunction with land use changes and pedestrian and bicycle improvements, could generate moderate reductions of 2 to 5 percent of transportation GHG by 2030. The benefits would grow over time as urban patterns evolve, increasing to 3-to-10 percent in 2050. These strategies can also increase mobility, lower household transportation costs, strengthen local economies, and provide health benefits.

Recent trends indicate that light duty vehicle emissions are leveling off as VMT growth slows and fuel economy improves. Growth in passenger vehicle VMT slowed from an annual rate of 2.6 percent from 1990 to 2004 to an average annual rate of 0.6 percent from 2004 to 2007. In 2008, VMT on all streets and roads in the United States decreased for the first time since 1980, likely due to a combination of high fuel prices and a weakening economy. Light-duty vehicles average 1.6 persons per vehicle.

Land use changes — such as density, diversity of land uses, neighborhood design, street connectivity, destination accessibility, distance to activity centers, and proximity to transit — reduce trip lengths and support travel by transit, walking, and bicycling.

Transportation and land use are interdependent. Decisions on the locations and densities of housing, retail, offices, and commercial properties impact travel patterns to these destinations. Similarly, the geographic placement of roads, public transportation, airports, and rail lines influences where homes and businesses are built. Areas of lower density tend to have higher levels of automobile use per capita.

Over the past several decades, housing densities have decreased and the amount of developed land in the country has grown faster than population. Land use strategies yields a reduction of U.S. transportation GHG emissions of 1 to 4 percent in 2030 and 3 to 8 percent in 2050.93 The Moving Cooler study assumptions, which fall in the middle of the range, rely on 43 to 90 percent of new urban development occurring in areas of roughly greater than five residential units per acre, which accommodates single family and multifamily homes.

TCRP Report 128: Effects of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) on Housing, Parking, and Travel, surveyed 17 housing projects that combined compact land use with transit access and found that these projects averaged 44 percent fewer vehicle trips per weekday than that estimated by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual for a typical housing development.

Commuter/worksite trip reduction programs have modest potential for GHG reductions—0.2 to 0.6 percent of all transportation sector emissions in 2030. The most effective actions from a policy perspective are trip reduction requirements combined with supporting activities such as regional rideshare and vanpool programs and financial incentives for the use of alternative modes.

Investing in transit sufficiently enough to nearly double the average annual ridership growth rate from the current 2.4 percent to 4.6 percent and expanded urban transit could reduce GHG emissions from 0.2 to 0.9 percent of transportation GHG by 2030, or 0.4 to 1.5 percent in 2050.

Buses have the lowest emissions per PMT because of their high occupancy rateaveraging 21 people per bus. Transit buses have a lower occupancy rate of 10 people per bus averaged across the U.S. However, transit buses only account for 15 percent of all bus passenger-miles traveled. Intercity passenger rail averages about 20 passengers per car, while rail transit averages 23, and commuter rail averages 31.

Price Carbon

Mechanisms to price carbon emissions include:

• Federal motor fuels tax

• Cap and trade system, in which GHG emissions allowances are traded in the market to cap overall emissions

• Carbon tax

Transportation GHG emissions are 29 percent of total U.S. emissions

The report provides detailed data on sources of transportation greenhouse and air quality emissions. For GHG, the new GREET 1.8b model is used to measure emissions from source to wheels. Emissions from on-road vehicles accounted for 79 percent of transportation GHG emissions.

• Emissions from light-duty vehicles, which include passenger cars and light duty trucks (e.g., sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans) accounted for 59 percent of emissions

• Emissions from freight trucks accounted for 19 percent

• Emissions from commercial aircraft (domestic and international) for 12 percent

• Emissions from all other modes accounted for 10 percent of total emissions

The United States is starting to reduce its total consumption of oil, become a bit more energy secure, and to implement promising strategies. By eliminating some of the biggest subsidies to oil and widening of highways, with some positive policy shifts, and with a modest carbon price, we could achieve significant reduction of oil use and reduce damaging emissions. Individuals, fleets, and regions have a wealth of options to use low-carbon fuels such as renewable energy, improve fuel economy including implementing electric cars, improve system efficiency, and reduce VMT.

DOT 600 Page Report PDF

Climate Action Scenario 26-Page for SF Bay Area

DOT Reports Climate Action from Electric Cars to Public Transportation is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

National Tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico

Two hundred thousand gallons of oil spill daily into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying the beaches of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as a result of the BP oil platform explosion of April 20. News viewers witness oil explosions, fires, and destruction. Containment chemicals are dumped where fish were caught for our dinner tables. Billions of dollars of damage is done. Major ports of our nation’s commerce are threatened. We are again reminded of the damage that oil can do to our environment. United States Response to Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

Oil addiction also hurts our economy. In 2008, oil prices dipped to $32 per barrel. Now oil prices are over $80 per barrel, on the way to being triple the 2008 low. While oil companies argue that we are not running out of oil, they should be admitting that we can no longer find cheap oil. Instead, it is now billion-dollar deep-drilling ocean platforms, the highly destructive strip mining of Canada for tar sands, and unconventional sources with high greenhouse gas emissions that brings us our incremental oil that we convert into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt to widen roads for more cars.

And we continue sending trillions of dollars to parts of the world where people want to do us harm. With rising oil prices we are sending more money for less oil.

To the rescue, since 2005, Americans have used less oil by riding clean, riding together, and riding less. In 2005, we consumed 20,802,000 barrels per day; by 2008, 19,498,000 daily barrels (EIA Data). Consumption continues to drop.

Ten Solutions to Save at the Pump

1. Employer Commute and Flexwork Programs. Major employers are saving employees billions in travel costs. Employers sponsor ride sharing, last mile shuttles from transit, and guaranteed ride homes. Some employers have web sites and lunch-and-learns to help employees in the same zip codes match-up for car pooling. 57 million Americans work at home, at least part-time, with the help of flexwork programs. Employer programs have helped with reduced car ownership.

2. Public Transit. Americans made 11 billion trips on U.S. transit in 2008, a 50-year record. Use has dropped some due to transit operators being forced to cut some routes and remove buses as the recession drove down local sales tax revenues needed for public transit. Americans are eager for more and better transit.

3. Walk. On an average we take 4 car trips daily, compared to 2 in Europe. Sometimes 1 of those 4 trips can be a pleasant walk to market, neighbors, or school event.

4. Safe Routes. Thousands of communities across the nation are showing us how to safely walk to school, community centers, and to public transit. Route maps go on line, pot holes get fixed, sidewalks repaired, danger spots eliminated, and signs displayed. Walk to School Days are on the increase.

5. One Car Households. The average suburban U.S. household has two vehicles. Some more. The average urban U.S. household has one vehicle. More American families and roommates are going from three cars to two cars to one car.

6. Sharing the Gas Miser. Households with 2 or more vehicles increasingly share cars, putting the most miles on the fuel miser as the gas guzzler stays parked more often. My wife and I share the hybrid, when not using transit, and leave the other car parked 6 days per week.

7. Make your next Car a Fuel Miser. You now have a wide-range of car choices that get over 30 miles per gallon. There is no reason to settle for less when you buy or lease a fuel-efficient sedan, hatchback, even SUV, turbo diesel, CNG, or hybrid car. Top 10 Cars With Lowest Carbon Footprint

8. Order an electric car which is ideal for many who live in a city where 100-mile range is rarely an issue, and where transit, car sharing, and car rental are also available. The average U.S. suburban household has two vehicles, so the EV could be ideal as one of those two. Top 10 Electric Car Makers

9. Car Sharing. In 600 global cities, cars can be used by the hour. Car sharing is popular with individuals and fleets. At many university and colleges, students with good grades can participate at age 18. Add transit and bicycling and many students live car free.

10. Smart Apps for Smart Travel. Internet savvy people now use Google Maps, 511, car share apps, and smart phone GPS apps to compare car directions and time with public transit directions and time. With a few clicks on a social network a shared ride is arranged, or a shared car reserved. In the old millennium we got everywhere by solo driving in gridlock. In the new millennium we plan and use a mix of car driving, transit, and other modes to save time and money.

There are hundreds of ways to save at the pump, or avoid it all together. The above are a just a few as people shift from their only choice being driving a gas guzzler, to options that include ride sharing, car sharing, walking, bicycling, buses, and rail for some of their trips.

Waiting for Responsible Government

We can all make a big difference without waiting for responsible government action, but it would help. The cheapest way to end highway gridlock is to invest in public transportation. Instead government cuts funds for transit and spends billions widening highways. For oil companies, we allow them to drill off our invaluable shores, fight wars to protect their oil, and then put oil companies on welfare. As Forbes Magazine discussed on April 5, the most profitable company in the United States, Exxon, paid zero U.S. income tax in 2009.

At a time when the average U.S. tax payer is hurting, we need to end oil tax loopholes and ensure that the 4 million vehicles in government fleets are gas misers or electric. While a minority in Congress block all attempts at progress, local communities are taking action across the nation by making cities vibrant, with work, services, and play close at hand. Portland, Oregon, is a role model in creating urban density and great public transportation. California with SB375 is requiring regional plans that integrate development, transportation, and greenhouse gas reduction.

In the United States, we embarrassingly have more vehicles than people with driver’s licenses. We have 246 million vehicles. AAA estimates that it costs $8,000 per year for each car owned, which creates a financial burden on cash-strapped Americans. You can help your pocketbook and help the nation by riding clean, riding together, and riding less.

Oil Spill Leads to Transportation Action Plan is a post from: Clean Fleet Report

A growing number of people want to live, work, and enjoy life in the San Francisco Bay Area, now home to 7 million. With the population growth, emissions have grown from cars, buses, trucks, and a variety of on-road vehicles.

By 2020 on-road vehicular greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be less than in 1990. By 2035, emissions can be 61 percent less and 80 percent less by 2050 due to a variety of strategies discussed in this scenario, which outlines a reduction from over 28 million tons of CO2e this year to only 5.2 million tons by 2050. There are five major drivers in lowering emissions and improving our lives:

1.     Focused Growth Enabling Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

2.     Connected Transit

3.     Electric Vehicles

4.     Efficient Fleets using Low Carbon Fuels

5.     Employer and Community Programs

Currently the Bay Area is being asked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2035. Some argue that this will be difficult because we will add 1.5 million people. Yet average emissions of gasoline cars are falling. New CAFÉ standards are mandatory. This scenario shows that average car emissions are likely to fall from 438 CO2 g/m today to 194 CO2 g/m, a number that is still less than today’s Prius. Over the next 25 years we can do better in reducing emissions and we will with the focused growth being planned, better transit, electric vehicles that cost less to run than today’s gas guzzlers, employer and community programs.

All of these strategies are discussed in this paper. Early Bay Area success stories are shared.  In theory, just one of these strategies would accomplish our goal of GHG reduction. Most likely, it will be a combination such as the one described in this scenario paper. Throughout the Bay Area, different communities and programs will emphasize different strategies.

The California Energy Commission forecasts over 1.5 million electric vehicles for California by 2020. By 2020, electric cars are likely to be less expensive to buy and are already less expensive to fuel than current gasoline models.  Off-peak smart charging, renewable energy, and hybrid cars to hybrid heavy vehicles using low carbon fuels will further contribute to shrinking emissions.

VMT peaked in the SF Bay Area in 2005 at 57.8 billion VMT and has already declined by over one billion miles due to a range of factors including record urban density, growth of transit use, and flexwork requiring less travel. Some planners now argue that we should assume the return of VMT growth and widen highways, encouraging urban sprawl. Instead we can reduce GHG by implementing the focused growth facilitated by SB375 and encourage more transit-oriented development.

By 2050, this scenario envisions 3.9 million vehicles in the SF Bay Area; lower than today’s 4.6 million, even though population will grow by over 2 million people. There will be fewer cars, but more rail, buses, car sharing, and hybrid trucks with low carbon fuels. This summarizes SF Bay’s transportation future (numbers are tons of CO2e):

Even though this scenario envisions a better life for people in the Bay Area, it may not happen because it requires investing in public transportation, cleaner vehicles, and focused growth. Eighty percent by 2050 will happen if people ride clean, ride together, and ride less. The report on the following pages outlines alternative strategies to achieve each 2050 goal:

1.     Passenger vehicle GHG emissions will dropping to one-third of today’s average, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and due to a modest reduction in the number of vehicles. VMT will result from focused growth, better transit, and safe routes for increased walking and bicycling.

2.     Heavy-duty vehicle GHG emissions will drop 2 percent annually until 2020, then 3 percent annually until 2050. Delivery fleets are buying hybrid and electric vans.

3.     Bus GHG emissions will increase slowly even though ridership may triple by 2050. Transit operators like Muni are using electric buses, and AC Transit hydrogen fuel cell buses. Light-rail, BRT, and connected systems will make transit more efficient.

This scenario only covers on-road vehicle emissions. This scenario does call for political leadership and market signals so that people will want to increasingly ride clean, ride together, and ride less.

Climate Action Bay Area Transportation Paper (PDF)

Climate Action Bay Area Spreadsheet (XLS)

Climate Action Bay Area Transportation Presentation (PDF)

Climate Action Plan for Transportation – Bay Area Scenario is a post from: Clean Fleet Report