Monthly Archives: January 2010

Stimulus Plan? Taking Transit can save you $10,000

By Kathryn Phillips / Bio / Published: January 21, 2010

Take transit and save money! Photo by Flickr user Steve Wampler.

What would you do if you were suddenly given $10,000?

I’ve been ruminating that question since last week’s release of APTA’s monthly “The Transit Savings Report.” The report figures that a transit rider living in Los Angeles could save $10,052 a year by avoiding the costs of parking, fuel, insurance and general auto operations. In New York, the annual savings amount to $13,765. Average savings are at $9,240.

I like round numbers, so I’d settle for just $10,000 in savings. I asked some of my co-workers how they’d spend the money. One responsible respondent said she’d pay off student loans or put the money toward a down payment on a house, and another chimed in about those student loans. One said he’d buy a bicycle (my favorite notion) and put the rest into the stock market. Two said they’d devote at least a portion of the money to travel and the other half to aid Haiti—you can see why I regard my co-workers as among the kindest folks on the planet.

One of the thriftiest among the group had a list of seven options, including paying those student loans (a common obligation around here), traveling, visiting family, and buying new clothes. One would pay a year’s worth of rent, buy a season pass at Squaw Valley, and spend what’s left on exotic—and presumably low-budget—travel. Another would fix his roof. Maybe he would have had a different answer if it wasn’t raining.

There’s a trend here. Saving money by riding transit can stimulate the economy. A car that spends most of its time parked (and eating fuel when it’s rolling), can really strain a personal budget. It can prevent us from doing what we think is most important.

Not everyone has access to good transit, and lately, with transit cuts spreading across the country, access to good transit is in danger. But imagine what a difference it would make if the Senate passed a jobs bill that put a lot of new money into keeping buses and light rail running, and bus and rail drivers employed? Jobs would be saved; transit riders could continue to depend on transit; people could think about spending on things other than parking and fuel. They could replenish student loan banks, jumpstart the housing market, and help the people of an island nation that’s been devastated by an earthquake.

They could do all these things and go about their everyday travel in a way that reduces air pollution from transportation. Under perfect conditions, a full conventional bus could displace 30 to 40 carbon-fueled car trips.

The Senate hasn’t released its version of the jobs bill yet, but the House version falls short of ideal in the transportation funding area. It provides about $6 billion to urban transit, and of that, only 10 percent, or about $600 million, is available for operations. I say only because $600 million is less than one year’s worth of operations funding cut by the state legislature and governor in California during the last few years of disappointing budget deals. That’s just one state.

If Congress wants to save jobs, it needs to give a bigger share of the transportation pie to transit and allow more of it to be spent keeping transit drivers at work. Then the rest of us can start putting our annual transportation savings to work and get the economy rolling again, even as we reduce pollution.

Posted in News / Comments are closed

Clearing Up Confusion: The Recent Cold Snap and Global Warming

By James Wang / Bio / Published: January 20, 2010

Our bitter cold winter has become one of the hottest topics of conversation in America.

Specifically, people are talking about how a severe cold snap can occur at the same time as global warming. If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the debate on the Washington Post website. In this post, I’ll try to clear up two of the issues that emerged from that debate:

What does a particular cold spell say about global warming, and
If the recent cold spell doesn’t disprove global warming, does that also mean that other kinds of extreme weather, like heat waves, aren’t caused by global warming?

Climate versus weather

All of the Post’s panelists were careful enough to explain the difference between weather and climate: Climate refers to the average weather over a long period. For the most part, they did not fall for the common mistake of interpreting a cold spell as evidence against global warming.

Here’s what’s been happening with the weather recently: There have indeed been below-average temperatures recently in much of the eastern U.S. and in parts of Europe, Russia, northern China, and northern India. But at the same time, there were above-average temperatures in the western U.S., eastern Canada and Greenland, some other parts of the Arctic, North Africa and Central Asia, as this map shows.

This distinct pattern of temperatures was caused by an unusually persistent version of an atmospheric flow pattern known as a “Greenland block.” This Greenland block diverted frigid Arctic air far to the south in eastern North America and Europe. (More about it on the Weather Channel: “Why So Cold? Blame the Greenland Block.”)

It’s important to look at weather events like cold snaps in context—we can have a relatively brief spell of cold weather in certain regions even while the global climate is warming. All the evidence shows that the world overall has been warming over the past several decades. (See a chart in a post on this same topic by Lisa Moore in 2008.)

So how do we know if the climate is warming? We look at a wide range of long-term trends. Along with rising air and ocean temperatures, the other signs of a warming climate include rising sea level, retreat of glaciers in most regions, rapid shrinkage of summer sea ice in the Arctic, and shifts in species distributions and seasonal behavior.

Global warming does cause more extreme weather

Although the Post’s panelists were accurate on the first issue, there could have been more discussion on the fact that global warming does have an effect on some kinds of extreme weather. One of the panelists even claimed that extreme events like heat waves cannot be used as evidence of global warming. That is wrong, so let’s look at how the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events are expected to increase under global warming.

Records indicate that there has already been an increase in intensity and frequency of heat waves and heavy rainfall in many parts of the world over the past several decades. (See “Frequently Asked Question” number 3.3 excerpted from the 2007 IPCC report [PDF].) Why? Global warming drives a rise in average temperature and atmospheric moisture, promoting more heat waves and torrential downpours. On top of that, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns caused by global warming are also thought to contribute to stronger heat waves.

There will still be variations from year to year, but on average, these extreme events will increase over time as the Earth warms. On the other hand, extremely cold temperatures are becoming less common — but can still occur — as heat builds up in the climate system.

Of course, individual weather events should not be blamed on global warming, just as an individual cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming. EDF has been careful not to attribute individual events to global warming. Instead, we point to examples of what we expect to see more and more of in the future if we don’t fight global warming.

And with the trends in extreme weather we’re already seeing, that future ain’t lookin’ pretty.

Posted in Extreme Weather, Science / Read 15 Responses