Climate 411

Click the image for a larger view of the ad.

Anyone who doubts that climate legislation has broad-based support should take a close look at a new ad that’s running in the Wall Street Journal and Politico.

88 groups put their names — and logos — on the line to call for a bipartisan energy bill.

EDF is a participant of course, along with other environmental groups like NRDC and the Pew Center. But some of the others may surprise you: the Christian Coalition, Michelin, Campbell’s, the AFL-CIO,  Toyota, Owens Corning, Whirlpool.

The message from all of them:

We believe it’s time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs. It’s a question of American leadership.

If you don’t have a paper handy, take a closer look at the large and diverse group of clean energy champions here.

Climate and clean energy legislation got strong support today from an unlikely source — Frank Luntz, the prominent Republican pollster.

Luntz’s firm, The Word Doctors, just finished a national poll of more than 1,000 American voters.  He unveiled the results of that poll [PDF] this morning at a news conference with EDF President Fred Krupp and NRG Energy’s CEO David Crane.

The bottom line: Americans are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment.

Luntz says:

Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think. A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening.  This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.

And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.

(You can play the audio of the entire event at the bottom of this post.)

Here are some of the most interesting results from the poll:

• A majority of Americans believe climate change is occurring and is caused at least in part by humans. Only a small minority — 18 percent — do not believe climate change is real. (Those numbers stay about the same if you call it “global warming.”)
• 57 percent agreed with the statement: It doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t climate change. It is still in America’s best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.
• National security is the main reason that people support cap and trade. Across the demographic board, people liked the idea that clean energy will: liberate us from this oil addiction.

This is the latest in a long line of polls that show Americans want clean energy. But Luntz’s reputation as longtime Republican advisor may give this one extra political resonance.

Luntz said his data shows  a bipartisan consensus on the issue and provides a road map for getting legislation passed.

EDF’s Fred Krupp summed it up:

Frank’s research proves that that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation.  It’s a national security priority, it’s a crucial means to reduce pollution, and it’s essential to creating permanent American jobs.

[powerpress url=”http://www.edf.org/audio/krupp-conf-01212010.mp3″]Complete audio recording of the news conference.

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.

Yesterday, President Obama became the latest among a growing number of D.C. policy leaders to promise a jobs bill that includes transportation funding. While the day-to-day details of when a bill will emerge, how it will be funded, and what it will include are all still developing, a jobs bill seems more certain than ever.

This brings us to one place where we think jobs funding should be targeted: transit operations. A jobs bill that directs a one-time slug of cash to fund transit drivers and mechanics could save some important jobs.

Service cuts affect riders and transit operators.

These are jobs that ultimately help protect air quality and reduce greenhouse gases by providing people real choices in transportation.

Transit agencies across the U.S. are hurting. This past Saturday,dozens of San Francisco Muni riders were stranded at the station. In response to a $129 million budget deficit for fiscal year 2009-2010, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) cut more than half of Muni’s bus routes and one rail line. And while San Francisco has been hit the worst of any American city in terms of fare increases, and is second behind Atlanta’s MARTA in terms of projected deficit as a percentage of operating budget, transit cuts and lay offs are widespread and not confined to urban areas.

These transit service cuts and fare increases also impact transit employees. Transit operators and maintenance crews have lost their jobs. AC Transit, which serves California’s Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, has cut almost 190 bus driver and maintenance positions. In Colorado Springs, CO., state and local budget cuts have eliminated an entire bus service–and more jobs.

Over the years, the federal government has helped pay for buses and rail, but not the drivers and mechanics to keep those services operating. That funding responsibility is left to states and local governments. With the economic crisis, state and local budget cuts have hit transit operations hard. Federal help for operations in a jobs bill is sorely needed.

Transit operating jobs are exactly the kinds of jobs that a stimulus ought to fund—good jobs that provide hardworking men and women with a living wage while providing a needed public service.  In San Francisco, Muni bus drivers earn between $36,000 and $58,000 per year, depending on seniority, and these drivers and their families rely on this income. A federal jobs bill that includes transit operations funding would immediately put drivers and maintenance staff back to work.

It’s not just driver jobs that are at stake. Transit is critical for riders who use it to get to work. The number of employed workers who need it is growing as gas prices and general cost of living increases. Since 1995, public transportation trends have done nothing but increase. In 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion public transportation trips, the highest number since 1956. In the same year, as transit ridership increased nationally by 4 percent, vehicle miles traveled actually reduced by 3.6 percent.

A jobs bill with Federal funding for transit operations would help staunch the bleeding away of good transit jobs. It would buy time while states, counties and cities figure out other ways to close their budget gaps and develop sustainable funding for transit drivers and mechanics. It would keep the buses and trains rolling at a time when America needs them the most.