HughBartling.com

One of the hallmarks of the Bush/Cheney method of governing in the US has been to systematically ignore and subvert the recommendations of government scientists on issues pertaining to envrionmental policy. Much of this effort has been focused on climate science.

Apparently–according to Talking Points Memo–Cheney’s office is expanding his scope into influencing shipping regulations designed to protect endangered right whales. Apparently, the Vice President’s office is not convinced by NOAA scientists who find that ship speeds impact whale injury and wants to stop the National Marine Fisheries Service from issuing a rule that will protect the whales. It is not clear why Cheney’s office is so interested in blocking the routine rulemaking activites of a relatively obscure government agency, but it is unlikely that enhancing environmental protection is the administration’s prime motivating factor.

(photo: Greenpeace)

Much like the US, the Canadian government invests billions of dollars each year to subsidize the production of biofuels, such as ethanol. The Globe and Mail reports that the current financing legislation working its way through the House of Commons is showing that many of the opposition parties are not clearly unified on biofuel policy.

Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, has argued for the expansion of ethanol targets in recent months.  The left-leaning NDP leader has also been a supporter of biofuels.  However, as recent global food price hikes are being linked to increases in biofuel production, many rank-and-file opposition party members appear to be questioning the wisdom of government subsidies to a heavily profitable industry that is exacerbating food insecurity.

While the financing legislation is expected to pass, MPs from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and Liberals may break from party leaders.

As a contrast to US biofuel policy, the Canadian experience is interesting.  Much of the Canadian debate is centered on global poverty and the international impact of biofuels expansion.  In the US, the debate has been muted. Senator Dick Dubin of Illinois has called for authorizing emergency food aid, and even broached the link between food scarcity and ethanol subsidies yesterday.  However, as a report in The Hill indicates, Durbin was hesitant to reject current policies subsidizing corn-based ethanol production.

Chicago seems to be the beneficiary of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inability to get the New York Assembly to go along with his London-style congestion charging scheme.

Today, US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters awarded Chicago $153 million to use for congestion relief efforts. Among the projects that will be implemented as a result of the influx in money are: the development of four Bus Rapid Transit lanes on unidentified “major city corridors”; the development of variable pricing parking meters downtown; and implementation of traffic signal priority for buses.

What strikes me is the fact that these enhancements are quite modest and long-overdue. As a point of comparison, $153 million is $100 million less than the Feds contributed to THE INSURANCE POLICY for the 3.5 mile Big Dig road project in Boston.

Additionally, this week my Sustainable Cities class is reading selections from Tim Beatley’s book, Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Each one of these measures have been implemented successfully in various European cities over a decade ago.

It will be interesting to see where the CTA and the city decide to implement the bus rapid transit and how they go about doing it. About a year or so ago, there were some feasibility studies done for enhancing north-south connections between the elevated railway lines that extend out of downtown Chicago like spokes in a wheel.

If I recall correctly, the preferred route in that study was on Cicero Ave. going south from the Kennedy Expressway to 85th Street. According to a recent planning document [.pdf], the cost of a that system would be around $1.3 billion. This, I believe, is to construct separate bus lanes, isolated from car traffic. Obviously, the money promised today from the Feds wouldn’t go very far in implementing the Cicero BRT.

More likely (and cheaply), the city could use existing right-hand lanes on four-lane roads for the exclusive use of buses, much like is done in Dublin.

UPDATE: A key point about the Federal money that is missing from all of the media coverage I’ve seen today is the fact that the allocation is dependent on the city privatizing its parking meter system–something that had been floated by Mayor Daley in recent weeks, but which will likely be scrutinized given his penchant for selling off many of the city’s assets.

The Mayor is a “guest blogger” on USDOT Secretary Peters’ new blog, Fast Lane.

The Guardian has an article on the variety of policy mechanisms used by Sweden to reduce the country’s carbon footprint.

Of particular interest is the country’s carbon tax–an idea that has gained more visibility in the US as a result of the advocacy of Al Gore and others.  According to the article, there is a $1.44 per gallon tax on petrol contributing to greenhouse gas emission reductions in excess of the country’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

There main beneficiary of the carbon tax has been the biomass industry that has been exempt from the taxation.

The prospects for carbon taxation in the US seem pretty slim–particularly when you see ill-conceived proposals by presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton to actually reduce the gas tax temporarily during the campaign season.

According to the New York Times, the first bike sharing program in the United States is scheduled to debut next month in the nation’s capital. While these systems are common in Europe, this is the first significant program sponsored by an American municipality.

The program is quite modest: 120 bicycles available at 10 docking stations all located within about a kilometer radius north of the White House. The program is being financed by Clear Channel and will be supportive through advertisement sales and a $40.00 subscription fee. Users borrow a bike and are expected to return it to a docking station within 3 hours.

While a representative for DC’s transportation department contends that the program “will help us reduce congestion and pollution,” that seems a bit ambitious given the small size of the program and the limited area that is served. Only central DC is covered–an area that already has pretty efficient subway service. It is not clear why someone would choose to use a bike as opposed to hop on the subway (or even walk) to get to their destination.

One area not covered is the National Mall and areas south of the White House–places that are teeming with tourists. I would expect that this scheme might be more attractive to tourists wanting a nice, efficient way of getting from, say, the Lincoln Memorial to Capitol Hill. Regardless, given the fact that the sharing program is only available to annual subscribers, the lack of a day-use option would inhibit tourist usage of the service.

It will be interesting to see how this program develops.

As part of its continuing series on the economics of food, the New York Times has a good article today on the globalization of food and the environmental impacts of the global food system.

The article discusses how market pressure and the search for low-cost sources for labor in the processing of agricultural commodities has driven much of the increase in “food miles” between producer and consumer.

What struck me as under-appreciated, however, is the fact that fuel for international shipping is exempt from taxation as a part of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The result, of course, is that fuel prices are artificially lower for international trade, providing an incentive for fuel-intensive exports.

The Convention was negotiated in 1944 when issues of climate change and environmentalism were not on the international policy agenda. Not surprisingly, the shipping industry is not enthusiastic about closing this loophole.

The article points out, however, that both aviation and commercial shipping could be incorporated in the European Union’s carbon trading scheme, requiring shippers to reduce their carbon emissions. This would be a welcome advance and pave the way for more accurate pricing mechanisms to take into account the environmental stress accompanying the global shipments of food.

The other interesting point brought up in the article has to do with efforts on the part of industry to account for and provide information to consumers about the carbon footprint of food products. The British grocery store giant, Tesco is going to begin providing a carbon accounting on many of its house branded products beginning next month.

One of the problems associated with carbon labeling is getting an accurate measure for all of the carbon inputs for particular products. Systems of production, transportation, refrigeration, and distribution are highly complex and are likely to involve scores of contractors, sub-contractors, and subsidiaries, making the effort to access accurate data difficult.

Given the decentralized nature of these current efforts, information can be provided by individual companies, such as Tesco, but it may be difficult for consumers to trust the accuracy of carbon labels. More effective would be an international convention on carbon accounting–although I haven’t heard of any serious efforts to develop such an agreement.

Finally, the article provides some interesting fodder for rethinking our conceptions about local, national vs. global food as it pertains to carbon footprints. They offer a graphic that compares the carbon impact of two hypothetical bottles of wine: one from France, and another from California. When all of the carbon inputs are taken into account, the French bottle has a smaller carbon footprint–primarily due to the difference in modes of transport.

In honor of Arbor Day, the Washington Post has an article on the resurgence of municipal tree planting efforts.  In this age of “green consciousness” pledges to plant trees appear to be an easy way for local politicians to earn points with voters.

The article points out that it has not been uncommon in recent years for mayors of big cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Salt Lake City to promise planting of “a million new trees” in their respective cities.

What gets lost in the midst of arboreal enthusiasm is the fact that maintaining trees in urban settings is expensive.  Pollution, pavement, improper care are all issues that municipalities have to contend with as they engage in reforestation plans.  One of the interesting points brought up in the article is the geographic inequities apparent in existing urban forest cover.  Citing the experience of greater Los Angeles, the article points out that low income neighborhoods are more barren of trees than high income neighborhoods.

The fact that trees are an important element of attractive public spaces makes this “arboreal inequity” a concern.  Could equal access to municipal landscape infrastructure prompt a new rethinking of urban “environmental justice”?

The Post article reminded me of research that I am currently undertaking on the 1917 Plan of Evanston.  Part of the plan recommended that the city establish its own nursery and
engage in an aggressive public landscaping effort.  The recommendation was never implemented, but the relatively dense tree cover that is extant suggests that the city has had a longstanding interest in tree promotion.

From the Reality Based Community weblog, I was turned on to a short video produced by Slate documenting the “stupidest bike lanes in America.”

The video features some of the more phlegmatic attempts to accommodate bikes on streets clearly designed for cars.  The main lesson from the video is that transportation planners have been guilty of not taking seriously multi-modal mobility to the point of ridiculousness.

The Washington Post published a good op-ed piece by the renowned environmentalist, Lester Brown, and his colleague, Jonathan Lewis, on some of the problems with current ethanol policy.

Among the points they point out are the facts that ethanol takes a significant amount of energy to produce, the ethanol production process has hazardous environmental byproducts, ethanol production is partially responsible for driving up food prices, and that these market pressures are resulting in deforestation.

They also caution us to believe claims about ethanol’s viability to “decrease our dependence on foreign oil,” suggesting that it does not have that capacity to satisfy our rising demand for fossil fuels.

The Toronto Star has an article on a dilemma facing transit officials and transportation planners in the Greater Toronto Area. At issue is the fact that parking facilities for commuters at many suburban stations do not meet demand, causing would-be transit riders to drive around looking for a parking space in vain and wind up driving to their destination.

On the one hand, the demand suggests that more people prefer commuting by transit; however, on the other hand, the situation illuminates the fact that the larger suburban landscape surrounding these transit stations is only accessible by automobile.

The above photo shows the Clarkson GO stop in suburban Mississauga. Surrounded by a massive parking lot, there is no viable pedestrian or bike linkages to the station. One of the main problems, as alluded to in the article, is the fact that GO doesn’t charge for parking. The transit agency could change the incentive structure and levy a fee for parking, but the surrounding landscape is configured in such a way as to make it extremely difficult to access.

The main way out of the dilemma is to transform land uses surrounding the station to more mixed-use, high density development.