HughBartling.com

This has gotten almost no attention in the US press, but two days ago in Tennessee a fly ash retention pond at a coal-fired power plant was breached causing 1.7 million cubic yards of toxic sludge to flow into a tributary of the Tennessee River.

Fly ash is a byproduct of coal incineration and contains harmful levels of mercury, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals.  Luckily the plant–in Kingston, Tennessee–is not in a highly populated area, however 12 homes were damaged and scores of others saw their property littered with dead fish.  According to the head of the TVA, the sludge pit had experienced seepage in the past.

This should give caution to coal enthusiasts like incoming President Barack Obama who intends to promote what he calls “clean coal” as a method to sequester carbon in the effort to address issues of climate change.

Even if you were able to successfully sequester carbon from coal-fired power plants (a dubious proposition), it still has a host of other hazards.  In addition to the toxic sludge issue, the process of coal extraction in Appalachia is insidious as it disrupts water quality and hydrological cycles from “mountaintop removal.”  It also is an extremely dangerous industry for workers.

Hopefully Congress and Obama’s energy team will remember the spill in Kingston as they deliberate about future energy policy.

The Guardian has a report that illustrates the issue of global equity in the climate change debate.  According to an unpublished government-led energy efficiency audit of 18,000 public buildings in England and Wales, the combined CO2 emissions level exceeds that of the entire country of Kenya.

Many buildings audited received failing grades, including the office of the minister in charge of climate change policy.  The fact that 18,000 buildings in the UK generate more CO2 emissions than a country of 39 million people should offer some perspective on the position of developing countries: namely, that per capita emissions reduction targets are the proper measure of response to climate change challenges.

Today’s Chicago Sun Times reports on an ordinance that was introduced at Wednesday’s city council meeting which would effectively institute a congestion charge for downtown Chicago.

The details are sketchy, but it appears that the scheme would be less ambitious than the congestion zone for all private vehicles that you see in London.

They seem to be proposing a charge which focuses on parking and which is variable, going up or down as conditions warrant to insure a 10-15% vacancy rate. There would also be a fee levied on trucks blocking traffic whilst making deliveries.

The promising aspect of this scheme is that the money generated from the charge would be put into a congestion relief account that would fund transit and traffic modernization projects. Conceptually, the plan is on the right track. Now, we’ll have to see how the ordinance changes as it works its way through the council.

An article in the Calgary Herald discusses the focus that Canadian cities are placing on improving public transit when the federal government approves its economic stimulus plan.

I haven’t been following the Canadian discussions too closely, but I was impressed by the report saying that half of the $33 billion bailout plan will go to municipalities. It is estimated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that Canadian cities need $23 billion to meet their current transit project needs.

It will be interesting to see compare the Canadian investment in cities with the plan being developed in the US.

After only minimal progress was made towards a post-Kyoto climate treaty in Poznan last week, the coming months are going to be marked by bursts of activity on the part of member nations seeking to establish negotiating positions. Countries are going to want to be seen as being proactive in order to influence discussions in ways that serve their interests while also maintaining engagement internationally as cooperative global citizens seeking to solve the problem of global warming.

For instance, just over the past couple of days we have seen Australia and the European Union make progress on greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. With Barack Obama set to occupy the US presidency next month, there may be progress on that end, as well.

With all of this change going on, I thought it would be useful to create an interactive wiki at http://bartling.pbwiki.com to keep track of the positions of various countries as we proceed to the Bonn meeting in June and, ultimately, Copenhagen, next year.

If you go to that page, you will see that I have developed a brief template that presents the key information on mitigation strategies in a capsule form. The idea is that it can allow casual visitors to easily comprehend the general positions and actions of the major players.

The wiki allows anyone to register and make changes to the web page. I know that readers of this page come from all over the world, so I am hoping that people from various regions can contribute the latest information from their region on the wiki.

I am not sure if I have seen a compilation of each country’s position presented in one place–if something exists, please let me know in the comments or via email [Hugh (at) hughbartling.com].

As Obama gets to the end of the list of cabinet positions to fill, there is increased speculation about who might wind up as Transportation secretary.

It might be futile to speculate on the rumor mill, but I hope The Hill’s report that former Republican Representative Ray LaHood is in the running for chief of Transportation is unfounded.

It would be a vote of confidence in his green agenda if Obama appointed a smart growth guru as Transportation Secretary.  LaHood does not fit that bill.

How about Rep. Earl Blumenauer?

After President-elect Obama made his pledge earlier this month to pass an economic stimulus package that involves “the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure” since the 1950s, I had expressed a bit of concern that he mentioned building highways and roads without saying anything about mass transit.

It seems that i wasn’t the only one with concerns. The Hill reports about accelerated efforts by environmental and smart growth groups to push a package that focuses on highway maintenance, transit, and multimodal transport instead of a simple, single-minded road expansion effort. They recognize that the highway lobby has limitless resources and are attempting to be proactive in getting a green agenda heard in Congress and with the new administration.

The coalition–called Transportation for America–has called for $100 billion of the stimulus package to be spent on repairing existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, and transit), building new public transit amenities, developing inter-city high-speed rail, and making pedestrian enhancements.

One major theme of the debate is going to be how to get the most short-term economic activity going through the stimulus package. Large infrastructure projects (both highways and transit) take months of engineering & environmental studies. However, according to the Hill article, the transit coalition has identified $33 billion worth of “shovel-ready” projects.

There will be heavy lobbying on the package from well-funded industries like trucking concerns and the Chamber of Commerce who would rather see highways get priority. If the Transportation for America coalition receives a favorable response in the final legislation, it will shed some insight on the capacity of he new Democratic agenda to embody actual change.

There were no surprises today as Barack Obama officially announced his major environmental officials: Nobel laureate Steven Chu for Secretary of Energy; Lisa Jackson for head of the EPA; Nancy Sutley for the head of the Council on Environmental Quality; and former EPA head, Carol Browner, as a special White House Adviser on climate policy.

It was interesting to see what he mentioned in his announcement. He said he spoke with John Kerry after the senator’s trip to the UN climate change talks in Poznan and characterized his vision of the US role in upcoming negotiations: “America will lead not just at the negotiating table – we will lead, as we always have, through innovation and discovery; through hard work and the pursuit of a common purpose.”

I may be reading too much into this, but it is interesting that he stressed “innovation and discovery”–i.e., a technical fix–in relation to the UN talks. While he has previously mentioned support for (somewhat weak) mitigation targets for CO2 emissions in the past, the focus on “innovation and discovery” at the expense of mitigation is what Bush’s people have been stressing for years.

In fact, at last week’s conference in Poznan, Bush’s top environmental adviser, Jim Connaughton, posited trade barriers that impede technology transfer between the developed and less developed world as the main problem facing the response to climate change. Under this logic, more free trade equals a better response to climate change.

From the standpoint of international discussions, the main issue at hand is the need to have developed countries agree to strong, binding emissions targets. Today’s speech could have been another opportunity for Obama to stress this challenge, but it didn’t make the cut.

Regardless, these are pretty strong picks for the President-elect and a dramatic change of course from the oil company lobbyists who largely made up the Bush team.

The Chicago Tribune today has an article about some of the problems associated with the new bicycle commuter benefit that was tucked into the financial industry bailout bill earlier this year.

The provision provides a $20 tax-free monthly benefit to people whose commute “substantially” includes cycling. According to the article, there is little clarity in how the benefit will be allocated, what constitutes “substantial” cycling, and what the benefit will cover (e.g. accessories, maintenance, health club membership foor shower access).

Another shortcoming of the benefit is that it does not interface with other commuter tax-benefits. For instance, workers can get in excess of $100 of tax-free benefits for transit. If you, say bike to the train, you would have to choose which benefit to take.

The IRS will likely provide guidance on how businesses can comply with the new law, but gray areas will likely persist.

On this issue of commuter tax benefits, one perversity of the current law that Congress ought to rectify is the parking benefit. In addition to the transit (and now) cycling benefit, employers can choose to provide a $220/month tax-free PARKING benefit.

In a time of energy insecurity and problems of global climate change, this type of incentive (along with being regressive) is counter-productive. It would be interesting to see the numbers on this, but I suspect that closing that loophole could raise a not-insignificant sum for transit/pedestrian/cycling programs.

The New York Times today reports on a study of economic growth and transportation in Manhattan. Looking at the period between 2003-2007, as jobs and population increased, automobile traffic actually declined while transit ridership increased.

Conventional wisdom suggests that MORE traffic is generated with economic activity. What the study shows, however, is that people tended to shift modes, finding transit to be a viable alternative to driving.

Certainly New York City is a unique environment with a transit infrastructure capable of accommodating growth. But these results suggest that there is not an inherent antipathy towards transit. If it is made safe, convenient, and frequent many people will take advantage of it.

The article discusses how the MTA is ill-equipped to deal with expanding demand and is contemplating raising fares and cutting service. This is something that is being felt throughout the country.

Hopefully, as the Obama administration puts together its economic stimulus package for “green” development and infrastructure, it will take into account the opportunities presented by transit expansion and improvement.