http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/2006-report-card-on-climate-change-action In August of 2001, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) agreed to a comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan with the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the region by 75-85 percent. As that plan accurately pointed out, “global warming, given its harmful consequences to the environment and the economy, is a joint concern for which a regional approach to strategic action is required.” The Plan set the following goals: • Reduce regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2010. • Reduce regional GHG emissions by at least 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. • Reduce regional GHG emissions by 75- 85 percent in the long-term. To achieve the short, medium and long-term goals of the Climate Change Action Plan the Governors and Premiers developed nine “Action Items” to guide the actions and policies of the states and provinces in meeting those objectives. The Plan also sets the goal of establishing an“interactive five-year process, commencing in 2005, to adjust the goals if necessary and set future emissions reduction goals.” As in prior years, the 2006 Report Card evaluates and grades the progress the states and provinces have made towards achieving eight of the nine Action Items (“policy grades”). Since we are more than halfway to the 2010 GHG reduction target, this year’s Report Card also adds a new grading category (“pollution reduction grades”), based on whether the states and provinces are on track to reduce their GHG emissions and meet the 2010 target. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/2006-report-card-on-climate-change-action Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:34:05 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states Extensive scientific evidence demonstrates that global warming is real, that it is affecting us now, and that human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels—are the primary cause. Science is also clear about what we need to do to address the problem: immediately and significantly reduce emissions of the pollutants that cause global warming. Avoiding the worst consequences of global warming will require the United States and other industrialized countries to stabilize emissions within the next decade and reduce them by about 80 percent by midcentury. Achieving those reductions won’t be easy, but it can be done. By improving the efficiency with which we use fossil fuels and increasing our use of clean, renewable energy, the United States can reduce its global warming emissions in the near future, while putting America on a path toward dramatically lower global warming emissions in the decades to come. This report lists six challenging but feasible strategies that, if implemented, could achieve these reductions, while improving America’s environment and our energy security. Global warming is real, is happening now, and poses a serious threat to America’s future. • Global average temperatures increased by 1Ëš F in the 20th century and are now increasing at a rate of about 0.36Ëš F per decade. Sea levels are on the rise, ice and snow cover are decreasing, and hurricane intensity has increased. • The consensus view of the scientific community is that most of the global warming that has occurred is due to human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel consumption releases carbon dioxide, which traps the sun’s radiation near the earth’s surface. Since 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 35 percent—a rate of increase unprecedented in the last 20,000 years. • Should the world continue on its present course, global warming emissions could triple in the next half century, with global temperatures increasing by 8Ëš F by 2100. Sea levels would rise by one and a half feet (and possibly more), threatening low-lying coastal areas. And the ecological balance upon which life depends would be irrevocably altered. The United States has a responsibility to take leadership in reducing global warming pollution. • The United States is far and away the world’s largest global warming polluter, accounting for 23 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. • Should current trends continue, by 2030 the United States will emit 37 percent more carbon dioxide than it does today, increasing the likelihood of dramatic global climate change. • To avoid the worst consequences of global warming, scientists believe that the United States needs to stabilize emissions within a decade, begin reducing them soon thereafter, and cut global warming pollution by 80 percent by the middle of this century. The United States can achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution by improving the energy efficiency of our economy and using more renewable energy. The United States can reduce its global warming emissions by as much as 19 percent by 2020 by taking a set of aggressive but achievable steps toward improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy, within the context of mandatory limits on global warming pollution. 1) Stabilize vehicle travel. Americans drive nearly twice as many miles per year as they did a quarter-century ago, leading to increased emissions of global warming pollutants. Americans are already cutting back on driving as a result of higher gasoline prices, but many Americans have few realistic alternatives to driving. Through changes in public policy and development patterns, Americans can be given more transportation choices, thus reducing the growth in vehicle travel. Such changes include: • Encouraging the development of compact neighborhoods with a mix of land uses, where more tasks can be completed by foot, bike or transit. • Expanding the reach and improving the quality of transit service. • Supporting programs to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting and other alternatives to single-passenger car travel. 2) Increase vehicle fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon and set fuel economy standards for large trucks. The creation of federal fuel economy standards for cars during the 1970s succeeded in reducing gasoline consumption and oil imports, as well as global warming pollution. But the fuel economy of new vehicles is now lower than it was during most of the Reagan administration. Several recent studies show that we could increase the fuel economy of new vehicles to 40 miles per gallon within the next decade using technologies that already exist or will be available soon. All types of vehicles— from SUVs to compacts—can be designed to be far more energy efficient. And most of the improvements in fuel economy can actually save money for consumers over the long term, especially with gasoline prices at nearly $3 per gallon. Similarly, major improvements in fuel economy are possible for heavy-duty trucks, which are currently exempt from fuel economy standards. 3) Replace 10 percent of vehicle fuel with biofuels or other clean alternatives. Ethanol and biodiesel that are produced cleanly and sustainably have the potential to significantly reduce global warming emissions from transportation—especially if these biofuels are produced from plant wastes and cellulose. Other vehicle technologies—like “plug-in” hybrids, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles—have the potential to dramatically reduce global warming emissions in the future. 4) Reduce energy consumption in homes, business and industry by 10 percent from current levels. Dramatic improvements in energy efficiency are possible in virtually every aspect of American life. Studies show that we could reduce our electricity consumption by as much as 20 percent at no net cost to the economy. For now, the U.S. can encourage weatherization of buildings, deployment of more efficient appliances and equipment, and efficiency improvements in industry. Soon, using new technologies such as those in zero-energy homes, we can transform the way we consume energy and achieve even larger improvements in efficiency. 5) Obtain 20 percent of our electricity from new renewable energy sources. America has virtually limitless potential for the generation of power from natural forces. By ramping up our use of wind power, solar power, geothermal and biomass energy and other renewable forms of energy—and using much of that energy to replace power production at dirty, coalfired power plants—the United States could dramatically reduce global warming emissions from electric power production. 6) Hold emissions from other sources to current levels. The five strategies listed above would address the largest sources of energy use and global warming emissions in the United States But some other sources of global warming pollution—such as emissions from air travel and emissions of some non-carbon dioxide global warming gases—are projected to increase significantly in the years ahead. The United States must remain vigilant about stabilizing, and eventually reducing, global warming pollution from all sectors of the economy. Mandatory limits on global warming emissions would help to achieve that goal. These six steps would enable the United States to reduce its global warming emissions by 19 percent below 2004 levels by 2020. • Taking these six steps would reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by about 23 percent and global warming emissions by about 19 percent by 2020. (See Table ES-1.) Table ES-1. Global Warming Emission Impact of the Six Steps (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent) Strategy Savings MMTCO2E Stabilize Vehicle Travel 0* 40 MPG Fuel Economy and Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Economy Standards 383 10% of Transportation Fuel from Renewables 61 10% Reduction in Energy Consumption 400 20% of Electricity from New Renewables 511 Total Savings 1355 2004 U.S. Global Warming Emissions 7122 Reduction Relative to 2004 19% * Avoids increase in emissions resulting from projected increases in vehicle travel between now and 2020. • In addition, taking these steps will reverse the trajectory of global warming emissions, putting the United States on a path to achieving the even greater reductions in global warming pollution that will be required in the decades to come. The United States should adopt a series of public policies designed to quickly and significantly reduce emissions of global warming pollutants: Cap global warming emissions. The United States should establish mandatory, science-based limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants that reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years, by 15-20 percent by 2020, and by 80 percent by 2050. Adopt complementary policies to reduce global warming emissions. The United States should adopt policies that would achieve the targets laid out in this report, including, but not limited to: • Transportation policies designed to reduce growth in vehicle travel and promote alternatives to automobile travel. • An increase in federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. • Creation of federal fuel economy standards for heavy trucks. • A renewable fuel standard requiring a significant share of transportation fuel to come from renewables by 2020. • Policy support for the development and introduction of plug-in hybrid, electric and fuel-cell vehicles. • Stronger appliance efficiency standards, energy efficiency programs and other policies designed to improve energy efficiency. • A federal renewable energy standard requiring a large and increasing share of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable energy. Encourage action at the state level. Federal action to reduce global warming pollution should promote innovative approaches at the state level and not impede individual states or groups of states from pursuing policies that go above and beyond the commitments made by the federal government. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/rising-to-the-challenge-six-steps-to-cut-global-warming-pollution-in-the-united-states Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:44:51 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states In 2006, Americans experienced a summer heat wave that broke records from coast to coast and killed almost 200 people. The year ended and 2007 began with the warmest winter on record globally. This unseasonably warm weather is part of a long-term trend toward rising temperatures and extreme weather events resulting from global warming. Global average surface temperatures have increased by more than 1.4°F since the second half of the 19th century. Earlier this year, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the evidence of global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activities are responsible for most of the rise in temperatures. To examine recent temperature patterns in the United States, we compared temperature data for the years 2000-2006 from 255 weather stations located in all 50 states and Washington, DC with temperatures averaged over the 30 years spanning 1971-2000. Overall, we found that temperatures were above the 30-year average across the country, indicating pervasive warming. SUMMER 2006: RECORD-BREAKING HEAT A long-lasting summer heat wave hit most of the country in 2006, making it the second warmest summer on record for the contiguous United States. Heat waves have serious implications for human health, causing heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and even death. Our analysis of climate data for June-August 2006 showed: • During the summer of 2006, the average temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 82% of the locations studied. In Rapid City, South Dakota and Helena, Montana, average summertime temperatures were 5°F above normal. • The average maximum temperature — the peak temperature on any given day — was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at two-thirds (67%) of the locations studied. The Great Plains and Mountain West suffered some of the most above-normal summer temperatures in 2006. • The summer heat wave produced a high number of dangerously hot days at or above 90°F across the country. Almost three-fourths (71%) of the locations examined recorded more frequent (compared with the historical average) days with peak temperatures of at least 90°F. Tupelo, Mississippi experienced 40 more 90°F or warmer days than normal in 2006. • The 2006 summer heat wave was marked by above-average minimum temperatures— the lowest temperatures recorded on a given day, usually at night. The average minimum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 81% of the locations studied and 9.7°F above normal in Reno, Nevada, the highest in the country. Warmer nighttime temperatures exacerbate the public health effects of heat waves, since people need cooler nighttime temperatures to recover from excessive heat exposure during the day. In April 2007, the IPCC warned that North American cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to face “an increased number, intensity, and duration of heat waves,” threatening public health, particularly that of elderly Americans and infants. 2006: SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD With a scorching summer and mild start to winter, the 2006 average temperature for the contiguous United States was the second warmest on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Every state in the Lower 48 experienced above normal temperatures in 2006. Our analysis of 2006 climate data showed: • In 2006, the average temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 87% of the locations examined. The Upper Midwest and Mountain West in particular experienced warmer-thannormal average temperatures in 2006. • The average maximum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 81% of the stations examined. Warmer-than- average days hit Texas and the Great Plains the hardest in 2006, with average peak temperatures soaring more than 5°F above normal in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. • The average minimum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 80% of the stations examined. Minimum temperatures were particularly mild in the Upper Midwest, where temperatures soared almost 5°F above the 30-year average in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester, Minnesota. 2000-2006: TEMPERATURES RISING The above-average temperatures of 2006 are part of a broader warming trend since 2000. Our analysis of climate data for 2000-2006 showed: • Between 2000 and 2006, the average temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 87% of the locations studied. Average temperatures in Alaska were the most anomalous, with Talkeetna near Denali National Park averaging more than 4°F above the 30-year average. • The average maximum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at more than two-thirds (68%) of the locations studied. Average maximum temperatures in Pueblo and Alamosa, Colorado were 2.6°F above normal. • Overall, temperatures are not dropping at night as much now as they did in the past. Between 2000 and 2006, the average minimum temperature was at least 0.5°F above the 30-year average at 80% of the locations studied. Albuquerque, New Mexico and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan reported average minimum temperatures of more than 3°F above normal. Even though the IPCC identified significant risks with continued global warming, the panel also concluded that “many impacts can be avoided, reduced, or delayed” by quickly and significantly reducing global warming pollution. To protect future generations, the United States should: • Cap global warming emissions. The United States should establish mandatory, sciencebased limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants that reduce total emissions from today’s levels by the end of the decade, by at least 15-20% by 2020, and by at least 80% by 2050. • Adopt complementary clean energy policies to reduce global warming emissions. To achieve these reductions, the United States should adopt strong policies and financial incentives to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of clean, renewable energy. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:14:16 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/making-sense-of-the-coal-rush-the-consequences-of-expanding-americas-dependence-on-coal Energy companies have proposed building a fleet of new coal-fired power plants across America. As of June 2006, power producers have approximately 150 new coal-fired plants on the drawing board, representing a $137 billion investment and the capacity to supply power to 96 million homes. If energy companies succeed in building even a fraction of these new power plants, it would have major impacts on America’s environment and economy. Further, this “coal rush” would consume investment dollars that could otherwise promote more sustainable energy sources. Fortunately, alternatives exist that would reduce or eliminate the need for new coal-fired power plants. By funneling investment instead into improvements in energy efficiency and expansion of renewable energy, the U.S. can avoid the potential impacts of the “coal rush” and improve the economy, the environment and public health. The “coal rush” would increase U.S. global warming pollution at a time when aggressive action is needed to reduce emissions. • To avoid the worst consequences of global warming, scientists believe that the U.S. needs to stabilize emissions within a decade, begin reducing them soon thereafter, and cut global warming pollution by as much as 80 percent by the middle of this century. New coal-fired power plants will take us in the wrong direction. • If all of the proposed plants are built, they would increase U.S. carbon dioxide pollution from electricity generation by more than 25 percent above 2004 levels. This would be equivalent to a 10 percent increase in total U.S. emissions and a 2.4 percent increase in world emissions. • The vast majority of proposed plants use traditional coal-burning technology, which emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Only 16 percent of the proposed plants would use coal gasification technology and could someday be equipped to capture and store carbon dioxide. Even these plants would require costly future upgrades to avoid large releases of global warming pollutants. Increasing America’s dependence on coal carries significant economic risks for power generating companies, their shareholders, utility ratepayers, and the economy as a whole. • The growing urgency of addressing global warming makes limits on carbon dioxide pollution a virtual certainty for the future. As these limits are set, coal-fired power plants will decline in value compared to lesspolluting resources. Additionally, companies or ratepayers may be forced to pay the significant cost of retrofitting the new plants to capture and store carbon dioxide. • Companies that build coal-fired power plants today knowingly and significantly contribute to the public health, environmental and property damage that will result from global warming. Such companies face potential legal risks, similar to the lawsuits filed against the tobacco industry in the last decade. • The new coal-fired power plants, if built, will strain the U.S.’s ability to extract and deliver enough coal to keep them running. U.S. coal demand would increase by over 30 percent if all the plants are built, requiring additional mines and expanded railroad infrastructure to move the coal around the country. Mining additional coal would damage America’s land and water. • According to the U.S. Department of Energy, currently operational coal mines have enough recoverable coal to supply the power industry for only 18 years at current levels of demand (and fewer years if demand increases). • While the U.S. has enough coal supplies to sustain current levels of consumption for nearly 200 years, extraction of that coal is likely to damage wide areas of land now used for agriculture, housing and recreation, while fouling water supplies and harming wildlife. • Between 1985 and 2001, “mountaintop removal” coal mining in Appalachia cut down more than 7 percent of the region’s forests and buried more than 1,200 miles of streams. • In 2004, coal mines across the U.S. reported the release of more than 13 million pounds of toxic chemicals, including over 300,000 pounds dumped directly into streams and rivers. The “coal rush” would increase health-threatening air pollution. If all of the planned coal-fired power plants are built, they would increase total pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities on the order of 1 to 3 percent, including: • 120,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, a major ingredient in fine particle pollution, linked to premature death and respiratory and cardiovascular disease; • 240,000 tons per year of nitrogen dioxide, a major ingredient in the photochemical smog that plagues many cities across the U.S. on summer days; and • 3 tons per year of mercury, a neurological toxicant that contaminates fish in rivers, lakes and the oceans. The “coal rush” would consume investment dollars that could be used to promote safe and sustainable energy sources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy. • Building all of the coal-fired power plants on the drawing board would require capital investment of 6 Making Sense of the “Coal Rush” $137 billion. On top of that, energy companies would have to spend more than $100 billion to operate, maintain and fuel the plants and build transmission lines. • If that $137 billion in capital were instead directed toward energy efficiency, it could reduce electricity demand in 2025 by about 19 percent compared to a business-as-usual forecast (1 million GWh/year), without additional investment for transmission and distribution. In other words, energy efficiency could completely alleviate the need to build any new coal-fired power plants—and do so for less cost and with zero global warming pollution. • Directed instead toward renewable energy, that $137 billion could develop 110 GW of the best wind resources in the western U.S. with a cost of electricity comparable to conventional coal. Alternatively, the money could build over 50 GW of promising zeroemission solar technologies like concentrating solar thermal power plants—predicted to provide electricity at prices competitive with coal within the next 10 years, with the potential to supply energy day or night using thermal storage. • Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and biomass resources—coupled with energy-saving renewable technologies such as passive solar heating and lighting, solar hot water heating and geothermal heat pumps—could provide a large and growing share of America’s energy. A consistent emphasis on renewables in public policy and in research and development funding could bring many of these technologies into the mainstream—but not if America’s investment dollars are staked on coal. Citizens and government should act to stop the “coal rush” and instead pursue a cleaner, more sustainable path to satisfying America’s energy needs. • States and the U.S. as a whole should impose strong caps on global warming pollution from power plants at levels that are sufficient to minimize human interference with the global climate— on the order of 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. States and the federal government should not allow any new coal facility to be built, unless: • All the costs of coal-fired power plants—including the societal cost of global warming and the probable cost of additional pollution control requirements—are fully considered when utility investment decisions are made; • Gasified coal with carbon storage is demonstrated to be the least-cost way to reduce global warming pollution consistent with climate stabilization goals, compared to other clean resources that could satisfy or reduce energy demand, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency; and • Any new gasified coal plants with carbon storage are used to replace old, inefficient coal-fired power plants, not augment them. • Public funds should not be used to support the construction of any coalfired power plants. • Leaders at all levels of government should take aggressive action to encourage the development of cleaner alternatives to coal-fired power plants, particularly measures to improve energy efficiency and encourage the development of clean renewable resources. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/making-sense-of-the-coal-rush-the-consequences-of-expanding-americas-dependence-on-coal Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:58:39 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 The early effects of global warming are already evident across the United States and worldwide. The year 2005 was the warmest on record. Left unchecked, temperatures will continue to rise, and the effects of global warming will become more severe. This report examines trends in U.S. global warming pollution nationally and by state and concludes that the failure to limit emissions from burning oil, coal, and natural gas has allowed global warming pollution to grow out of control. Human activities over the last century – primarily burning fossil fuels – have changed the composition of the atmosphere in ways that threaten to dramatically alter the climate in the years to come. In a December 2005 speech, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated, “The Earth’s climate is nearing, but has not passed, a tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to avoid climate change with far ranging undesirable consequences.” These consequences, he said, would “constitute practically a different planet” and include sea level rise, heat waves, rought, more intense hurricanes, decreased crop yields, water scarcity, and the spread of infectious diseases. The United States is by far the largest worldwide contributor to global warming, releasing a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant. Power plants, cars, and light trucks are the largest U.S. sources of carbon dioxide. Existing technology could substantially reduce global warming pollution by making power plants and factories more efficient, making cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and shifting the country to clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. These solutions also would reduce our dependence on oil, reduce air pollution, protect pristine places from oil drilling and mining, and save consumers money. Unfortunately, the United States has rejected mandatory limits on global warming pollution, opting instead to allow global warming pollution to increase unabated. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed nationally and in most states. Using data compiled by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, this report examines trends in carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel combustion nationally and by state for the four decades spanning 1960 to 2001. Our major findings include the following: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Booming • Between 1960 and 2001, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide almost doubled, jumping from 2.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1960 to almost 5.7 billion metric tons in 2001, an increase of 95 percent. • In the 1990s, carbon dioxide emissions grew more quickly than in the 1970s and 1980s, increasing steadily at an average rate of 1.5 percent each year. The Energy Information Administration estimates that emissions grew by 1.7 percent in 2004, increasing to almost 6.0 billion metric tons. • Regionally, carbon dioxide emissions rose most rapidly in the Southeast and Gulf South between 1960 and 2001, increasing by 163 percent and 175 percent, respectively. • Among the states, Texas ranked first in the nation for the highest emissions of carbon dioxide in 2001, releasing 12 percent of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions. In 1960, Texas emitted 240.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide; by 2001, the state’s emissions had grown to 668.5 million metric tons, an increase of 178 percent. • Twenty-eight (28) states more than doubled their carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001. The 10 states that experienced the largest overall increases in emissions in this period include Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and Arizona. Driving the Boom in Carbon Dioxide Emissions A dramatic growth in oil emissions from the transportation sector and coal emissions from electricity generation fueled the rapid increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1960 and 2001. • Carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion jumped 1.1 billion metric tons from 1960 to 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The transportation sector drove this rapid increase. Carbon dioxide emissions from oil burned in the transportation sector increased by more than 150 percent over the period, largely due to a substantial rise in vehicle travel and the stagnating fuel economy of vehicles. In every other sector, carbon dioxide emissions from oil combustion peaked in the 1970s. • Carbon dioxide emissions from coal climbed 1.1 billion metric tons between 1960 and 2001, accounting for 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Increased electricity generation from coal-fired power plants fueled this rapid growth. Emissions from coal combustion in the electricity sector skyrocketed from 1960 to 2001, increasing by 370 percent, as demand for electricity boomed. At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions from the industrial sector declined steadily after 1966. The longer we wait to reduce global warming pollution, the harder the task will be in the future. Key components of an action plan to protect future generations from global warming include: • Establish mandatory limits on global warming pollution that reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years, by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. • Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by making our homes and businesses more energy efficient, making our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and generating more electricity from renewable energy sources. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/the-carbon-boom-national-and-state-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1960 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:09:06 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/shifiting-gears-20-tools-for-reducing-global-warming-pollution-from-new-englands-transportation-system Transportation is the leading source of global warming pollution in New England, responsible for more than one-third of the region’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading global warming pollutant. Worse, transportation-sector emissions have been rising for decades and are projected to continue to increase if trends toward more vehicle travel and less fuel-efficient cars and trucks continue. For the New England states to follow through on their historic commitment – made in concert with the eastern Canadian provinces in 2001 – to reduce global warming pollution, reducing global warming pollution from transportation is job number one. Thankfully, there are many good opportunities for the region to reduce global warming pollution from transportation, while at the same time reducing oil consumption and insulating the regional economy from energy price shocks. Shifting Gears lays out 20 “bright ideas” that the region’s leaders should consider in their efforts to build a more sustainable transportation system for the region with less impact on the global climate. Many of these ideas are already being implemented in parts of New England or elsewhere. Reducing Per-Mile Vehicle Emissions 1. Adopt the clean cars program with carbon dioxide tailpipe limits – States adopting the full clean cars program can expect to roughly stabilize emissions of carbon dioxide from cars and light trucks within the next two decades. 2. Create incentives for the purchase of more fuelefficient vehicles – A program that combines fees for gas-guzzlers with cash rebates to purchasers of fuel-efficient vehicles could reduce global warming pollution from light-duty vehicles in the region by 5 to 31 percent below projected levels by 2020. 3. Require fuel-saving tires – By setting energy efficiency standards for tires, states could achieve a roughly 3 percent increase in vehicle fuel economy at little cost and without compromising safety. 4. Reduce emissions from government and transit fleets – Hybrid-electric buses can curb global Executive Summary warming emissions by 10 to 15 percent versus conventional buses. Encouraging Transit and Transportation Alternatives 5. Invest in the region’s rail infrastructure and develop a long-term rail plan – Passenger trains emit about half as much global warming pollution per passenger-mile as car or air travel. 6. Expand suburb-to-suburb transit opportunities– By using smaller vehicles and more flexible routes, transit agencies in states like New Jersey have delivered effective service in hard-to-reach suburbs. 7. Improve transit in small cities and towns – Partnerships with local governments and major employers have helped rural and small-city transit agencies in New England extend their reach and bolster service. 8. Expand pedestrian and bicycling opportunities– Careful planning and infrastructure investments can reverse the decline in non-motorized transportation. Promoting “Smart Growth” 9. Redevelop urban areas in a sustainable way – State policy can encourage the redevelopment of old industrial and residential areas in cities, where per-capita global warming emissions from transportation are much lower than in newer suburbs. Redevelopment should be pedestrian friendly, incorporate mixed uses, be accessible to transit, and provide opportunities for existing residents to benefit from neighborhood improvements. 10. Encourage compact development – Through revised zoning laws, many towns are returning to a more compact, traditional New England style of development that relies less on the automobile and can allow people to complete more of their daily tasks via transit, by bicycle or on foot. 11. Support transit-oriented development – Providing residential and commercial opportunities near transit stations can magnify the benefits of transit and reduce vehicle travel. 12. Discourage sprawl by making it pay its own way– In Maryland and elsewhere, state and local governments are eliminating public subsidies for sprawling development, thereby encouraging more sustainable use of land and resources. Reducing Single-Passenger Automobile Commuting 13. Create and expand commute-trip reduction programs– Employer-based programs to discourage single-passenger commuting can cut rush-hour automobile trips by as much as 20 percent. 14. Encourage workers to live near their work or live near transit – Long automobile commutes are responsible for an increasing share of global warming emissions. Public and private policies should encourage people to live nearer to their work or closer to public transit, thus reducing the need for long trips to and from work. Reallocating the Costs of Driving 15. Calculate auto insurance rates by the mile – Shifting automobile insurance from a flat, yearly rate to one calculated by the mile can discourage excessive driving (particularly among the most dangerous drivers) – both reducing crashes and global warming pollution. Other insurance reforms can assign the proper risk premium to heavier, lessefficient SUVs. 16. Allocate fairly the costs of parking – Many employers provide free parking to employees – and many towns require ample parking for stores and businesses – but few subsidize transit or provide equal benefits to pedestrians or bike riders. Reducing parking requirements and “leveling the playing field” for transportation alternatives can eliminate these subsidies for driving. 17. Eliminate other subsidies for driving – From government highway maintenance expenditures to fuel subsidies, taxpayers often subsidize excessive driving. Making individuals pay the full cost of driving will encourage cleaner and less-expensive alternatives. Reforming Transportation Planning and Finance 18. Consider adoption of least-cost planning – Demand reduction, transit and other alternatives are often cheaper and less polluting ways to solve transportation problems in the long run than building new highways. “Least-cost” planning that incorporates the social costs of automobile driving and the long-term benefits of stable transit infrastructure may reduce global warming emissions and reduce the cost of transportation overall. 19. Consider global warming in transportation planning– Transportation plans should fully factor in the impact of new highways and other projects on the climate. 20. Fund transit and other alternatives at higher levels – New England states have not taken full advantage of the ability to use federal funds for cleaner transportation options, and several lack any stable source of funding for transit. Prioritizing funding for transit and other clean options can help get badly needed projects off the drawing board and into place, as well as help transit agencies maintain high levels of service and reasonable fares. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/shifiting-gears-20-tools-for-reducing-global-warming-pollution-from-new-englands-transportation-system Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:20:24 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/the-carbon-boom-state-and-national-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1990 The early effects of global warming are already evident across the United States and worldwide. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest for the contiguous United States, a streak unprecedented in the historical record. If emissions are left unchecked, temperatures will continue to rise, and the effects of global warming will become more severe. This report examines trends in U.S. global warming pollution nationally and by state and concludes that the failure to limit emissions nationwide has allowed global warming pollution to grow out of control. In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body charged with assessing the scientific record on global warming, found that the evidence of global warming is“unequivocal” and concluded, with more than 90 percent certainty, that human activities are responsible for most of the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. If current trends in emissions continue, the IPCC projects that temperatures will increase anywhere from an additional 1.1° to 6.4°C (2° to 11.5°F). The consequences of this increase in global temperatures will vary from place to place but will include sea level rise, heat waves, drought, increasingly intense tropical storms, loss of plant and animal species, decreased crop yields, decreased water availability, and the spread of infectious diseases. The United States is the largest worldwide contributor to global warming, releasing almost a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant. Power plants, cars, and light trucks are the largest U.S. sources of carbon dioxide. Existing technology could substantially educe global warming pollution by making power plants and factories more efficient, making cars go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and shifting the country to clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Unfortunately, the U.S. government so far has rejected mandatory limits on global warming pollution, allowing carbon dioxide emissions to rise unabated. Using the most recent state fossil fuel consumption data from the Department of Energy, this report examines trends in carbon dioxide emissions nationally and by state for the 15 years spanning 1990 to 2004. Our major findings include the following: Carbon dioxide pollution is on the rise. • Carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuel consumption is on the rise in the United States, increasing by 18 percent between 1990 and 2004. • Electric power plants and the transportation sector—particularly cars and light trucks—drove the increase in emissions nationwide. Between 1990 and 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector jumped by 28 percent and from the transportation sector by almost a quarter (23 percent). • Carbon dioxide emissions increased the most in the Southeast, Great Lakes/Midwest, and Gulf South regions over the 15 year period. The states experiencing the largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004 are Texas, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Georgia. The electric power sector was the primary factor driving the increase in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004. • The electric power sector accounted for more than half (55 percent) of the U.S. emissions increase. Rising electricity demand from residential, commercial and industrial consumers spurred this rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector. • Coal-fired power plants accounted for most of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector. Between 1990 and 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants increased by a quarter, accounting for three-fourths of the emissions increase in the electric power sector and 42 percent of the nation’s overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions. • The states that experienced the largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants between 1990 and 2004 are Illinois, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Indiana. • Between 1990 and 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas consumption in the electric power sector increased by more than two thirds (almost 70 percent), accounting for 13 percent of the nation’s overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions. • The states that experienced the largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas-fired power plants between 1990 and 2004 are Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, and Nevada. The transportation sector also played a major role in driving up U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2004. • The transportation sector accounted for 40 percent of the nation’s overall increase in carbon dioxide emissions during this time period. • Cars and light trucks were responsible for most of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector. Between 1990 and 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline consumption increased by almost a quarter (22 percent), accounting for more than half of the emissions increase in the transportation sector. • The states with the largest absolute increases in carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline consumption between 1990 and 2004 include Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, and Arizona. The longer we wait to reduce global warming pollution, the harder the task will be in the future. Many U.S. states have started taking important steps to cut global warming pollution within their borders, but the global warming problem also demands a national solution. Key components of an action plan to cut global warming pollution include: • Establishing mandatory, science-based limits on global warming pollution that reduce emissions from today’s levels by the end of the decade, by at least 15-20 percent by 2020, and by at least 80 percent by 2050. • Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels by making our homes and businesses more energy efficient, making our cars and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and generating more electricity from renewable energy sources. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/the-carbon-boom-state-and-national-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1990 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:39:50 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/ready-to-roll-the-benefits-of-todays-advanced-technology-vehicles-for-maine Despite tighter automobile emission standards over the last three decades, Maine continues to face significant automobile-related air pollution problems. Increasing the use of advanced-technology vehicles—those that use cleaner, alternative fuels or new technological advances to achieve dramatically improved environmental performance— could alleviate the state’s air pollution problems while reducing Maine’s contribution to global warming and enhancing the state’s energy security. Policies such as the Cleaner Cars program and vehicle global warming pollution standards can help bring increased numbers of advanced-technology vehicles to Maine. The inefficient use of petroleum to power the state’s transportation system poses serious threats to Maine’s environment and economy. • Concentrations of air toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde exceed federal health standards in every county. Exposure to air toxics raises Maine residents’ cancer risk over 30 times higher than the EPA’s cancer risk benchmark. • During the summer of 2003, air pollution monitors in Maine registered 19 instances when smog levels exceeded EPA health standards. Light-duty vehicles such as cars, pick-up trucks, minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are responsible for almost one half of all emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the air. Nitrogen oxides and VOCs are the chemical components of smog. • Cars and light trucks are responsible for one-fifth of Maine’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. Global warming poses severe potential threats to coastal and forest ecosystems and public health in the state. • Maine’s overreliance on petroleum for transportation leaves the state susceptible to rising prices, price spikes and supply disruptions. These problems will become more severe over the next several decades as global petroleum supplies tighten. Advanced-technology vehicles can alleviate many of these problems. • Advanced-technology vehicles can significantly reduce emissions of air toxics and smog-forming pollutants from Maine cars and light trucks. The current generation of hybrid-electric vehicles—such as the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic—are approximately 90 percent cleaner than the average vehicle on sale in Maine today. Clean gasoline-powered vehicles with state-of- the-art emission-reduction technology, like the popular all-wheel drive Subaru Legacy Outback, are now being manufactured that attain similar air toxics and VOC pollution reductions. • Advanced-technology vehicles can also reduce Maine’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. vehicles that take advantage of the benefits of hybrid-electric motors and other advances in automotive technology can produce about one-third less global warming-inducing carbon dioxide per mile than conventional vehicles. • Advanced-technology vehicles can enhance Maine’s energy security by improving fuel efficiency or by using alternative fuels such as natural gas, electric power or renewably generated hydrogen. Environment Maine Research & Policy Center 45 Several types of advanced-technology vehicles are “ready to roll,” yet availability of these vehicles in Maine is limited. • Hybrid-electric vehicles: About 85,000 hybrid-electric vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2004, an increase of 63 percent over the previous year. As many as 60 percent of potential vehicle buyers surveyed stated that they would consider buying a hybrid, yet Maine auto dealers report waiting lists of 6 to 18 months for the popular Toyota Prius hybrid. • Clean conventional vehicles: Thirteen automakers now manufacture vehicles that meet rigorous partial zero emission vehicle (PZEV) emission standards. Some vehicles like the Ford Focus and Subaru Legacy Outback are available in Maine, yet many PZEVs have been made available only to consumers in states that have adopted the Cleaner Cars program. • Natural gas vehicles: More than 140,000 natural gas vehicles are currently on American roads in a variety of styles and configurations. Yet, only one automaker is thus far offering them for sale to the general public. • Other types of vehicles—such as battery- electric vehicles, “plug-in” hybrids and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles—also show the potential for significant environmental benefits, but will require further research and development before they become commercially feasible on the broad automobile market. Adopting the Cleaner Cars program would put tens of thousands of advanced- technology vehicles on Maine’s roads by the end of the decade, at minimal additional cost to automakers and potential net benefit to consumers. • The Cleaner Cars program would require automakers to sell approximately 2,900 hybrid-electric vehicles and 12,800 clean conventional vehicles annually in Maine starting in 2008 (when model year 2009 vehicles go on sale, and assuming no significant growth in total car sales), with the numbers increasing over time. • Producing vehicles to meet these targets in Maine would cost automakers approximately $4.8 million in 2008. The incremental cost of the program in 2008 represents 0.0006 percent of gross sales at the six major manufacturers. These costs will be offset by financial benefits from technology improvements that can be exported to other vehicle lines, assistance in complying with other regulatory standards, and consumers’ willingness to pay more for some vehicles with reduced emissions. • Consumers are unlikely to be negatively affected by the program. Most automakers have chosen not to pass on the direct additional cost of conforming with PZEV emission standards. For example, the PZEV version of the Ford Focus costs $115 more in states that have not adopted the Cleaner Cars program but in Maine Ford does not charge extra for this clean vehicle. Should the cost of hybrid- electric vehicles decrease (as is anticipated) and gas prices continue to rise, many consumers will see a net financial benefit from purchasing hybrid- electric vehicles. • Automakers have already invested in research and production facilities necessary to comply with standards in other states that have adopted the program. These states—New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and California —represent 26 percent of the national car market. California’s forthcoming requirements on global warming pollution from vehicles will begin reducing the contribution of automobiles to greenhouse gas pollution in 2008 in states that adopt the program. • The vehicle global warming pollution standards seek to “achieve the maximum feasible and cost effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.” Limits on vehicle travel, new gasoline or vehicle taxes, or limitations on ownership of SUVs or other light trucks cannot be imposed to attain the new standards. • By 2012, the standards could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars by 25 percent and from new light trucks by 18 percent. These emissions reductions would save consumers money. Adoption of the Cleaner Cars program and vehicle global warming pollution standards is essential to getting clean, advanced- technology vehicles onto Maine’s roads. • Both programs would ensure a consistent supply of clean vehicles for Maine’s consumers, create economies of scale necessary to allow the construction of alternative-fuel infrastructure, set high standards for vehicle technology, and help guide the development of even cleaner automotive technologies in the years to come. • Committing now to adopt vehicle global warming pollution standards as soon as they are finalized would ensure that Maine receives cleaner vehicles when the program begins in 2008 (when model year 2009 vehicles go on sale). The goals of the programs are attainable and achieving them would be beneficial to Maine. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/ready-to-roll-the-benefits-of-todays-advanced-technology-vehicles-for-maine Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:00:29 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/global-warming-solutions-that-work http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/global-warming-solutions-that-work Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:49:57 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/falling-behind-new-england-must-act-now-to-reduce-global-warming-pollution Executive Summary http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/falling-behind-new-england-must-act-now-to-reduce-global-warming-pollution Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:01:04 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/a-better-way-to-go America’s automobile-centered transportation system was a key component of the nation’s economic prosperity during the 20th century. But our transportation system is increasingly out of step with the challenges of the 21st century. Rising fuel prices, growing traffic congestion, and the need to address critical challenges such as global warming and America’s addiction to imported oil all point toward the need for a new transportation future. Rail, rapid buses and other forms of transit must play a more prominent role in America’s future transportation system. Clean, efficient transit service already saves billions of gallons of oil each year, reduces traffic congestion in our cities, and curbs emissions of pollutants that cause global warming. Transit also generates a host of other economic and quality-of-life benefits for our communities—indeed, every dollar we invest in transit generates approximately two dollars in these benefits. Every American can benefit if we expand the reach and improve the quality of transit in the United States. By making a bold, national commitment to expand and improve transit, the United States can address many of our greatest challenges and create a transportation system built for the needs of the 21st century. America’s transportation system is in trouble. America has grown more dependent on car travel with each passing year. America has more cars per capita than any other nation in the world. The number of miles driven on America’s highways has doubled in the last quarter-century, and our reliance on cars for transportation is at the root of many of America’s most intractable problems. • Oil dependence—Two out of every three barrels of oil the United States consumes each year are used to fuel our transportation system. Personal cars and trucks account for 40 percent of our oil consumption. The United States remains by far the world’s largest consumer of oil, leaving our economy vulnerable to oil price spikes and our national security vulnerable to dependence on unstable nations for critical energy supplies. • Traffic congestion—Gridlock on America’s highways gets worse with each passing year. The average American living in an urban area spent 38 hours—nearly a full work week—stuck in traffic delays in 2005, twice as much t ime as in 1982. Traffic congestion costs America’s economy approximately $78 billion and results in 4.2 billion lost hours each year. • Global warming – America’s transportation system produces more carbon dioxide—the leading global warming pollutant—than the entire economy of any other nation in the world, except China. America must reduce emissions from its transportation system if the world is to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming. Other problems caused by our current transportation system include: • The extraordinary expense of building and maintaining highways, which requires more than $150 billion in government expenditures each year, and the cost of owning and operating private vehicles, which costs American households $900 billion annually. • Damage to the environment from air pollution, water pollution, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. • Damage to public health from air pollution, traffic accidents and sedentary, car-dependent lifestyles. Traffic accidents alone claim more than 40,000 American lives each year, more American lives than were lost in the Korean War. • Isolation for the growing elderly population in areas not well served by transit, as well as the disabled, children and others who cannot operate or afford to own vehicles. • Encouragement of sprawling development patterns that consume open space and increase the cost of providing public infrastructure and services. Transit already plays a key role in addressing the serious problems facing America. • In 2006, transit saved an estimated 3.4 billion gallons of gasoline in the United States—enough to fuel 5.8 million cars for a year. In monetary terms, transit saved more than $9 billion that would otherwise have been spent on gasoline. • In 2005, transit prevented 540.8 million hours of traffic delay, according to the Texas Transportation Institute, equivalent to more than 61,700 people sitting in traffic for an entire year. The monetary value of those savings was $10.2 billion. • Transit reduced global warming emissions by nearly 26 million metric tons in 2006. In New York state alone, transit avoided 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution—more than was produced by the entire economies of Rhode Island, Vermont or the District of Columbia. • Transit also delivers a range of other benefits, including opportunities for economic development, mobility for those without access to cars, public health benefits, and reduced household expenditures on vehicles and fuel. States and communities that invest more in transit enjoy greater benefits. • The 14 cities that have built wholly new light rail transit systems since 1980 saved more than 200 million gallons of gasoline through those services in 2006. These cities span the nation, from Baltimore to Sacramento and from Dallas to Minneapolis-St. Paul, showing that rail transit can work in a variety of cities. • Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia reduced their oil consumption with transit in 2006. States that have invested aggressively reaped greater benefits. The 10 states that made the greatest financial investments in transit in 2004 accounted for 85 percent of the oil savings delivered by transit service in 2006. For every dollar invested in transit, America receives nearly two dollars in economic benefits. • In 2005, federal, state and local governments spent $30.9 billion to provide transit services (not including fares). These investments yielded at least $60 billion per year in benefits from reduced vehicle expenses, avoided congestion, global warming emission reductions, reduced road expenditures, reduced spending on parking, and avoided traffic accidents. In other words, investment in transit more than pays for itself. • Transit investments are potent job-creators. Investments in transit produce 19 percent more jobs than equivalent investment in new road and bridge projects. Americans support expanded transit and desire more transportation alternatives. • Transit ridership increased by 30 percent between 1995 and 2006, reaching the highest ridership level since the late 1950s. Since 1995, public transportation ridership has been increasing at a faster rate than vehicle travel. • Approximately three out of four Americans now believe that improving transit and building communities that require less driving are the best solutions for reducing traffic congestion. Many cities nationwide are considering new or expanded commuter rail or light rail networks. Despite transit’s many benefits, America has historically underinvested in transit. • Highways have received the vast bulk of public investment over the last half century. Since 1956, federal, state and local governments have invested nine times more capital funding in highway subsidies than in transit. • While the federal government invests more in transit than in the past, the process for securing funding for new transit lines is far more onerous and less certain than for highway projects, with the federal government generally picking up a smaller share of the tab for new transit lines than for new highway projects. • State funding is even more out of line with 21st century transportation priorities. In 2004, state governments spent nearly 13 times more public funds on highways than on transit. • A lack of federal and state investment has left local governments to pick up the tab for transit investments—with voters approving approximately 70 percent of transportation referendums appearing on ballots between 2000 and 2005. But an overreliance on local funding can make financing projects more difficult. It also allows people living outside of the local area to benefit from transit without paying their fair share of the costs. America must move toward a new transportation future for the 21st century, with clean, efficient public transit at its core. To get there, America needs to make transit a national priority, articulate a roadmap for the future of transit, and commit the resources necessary to build a 21st century transportation system. The vision: Transit as a national priority. Policy-makers at the state and federal level must realize that transit doesn’t benefit only those who ride it. Transit benefits all Americans through improved energy security, reduced pollution and reduced traffic congestion, among other benefits. The plan: A roadmap for transit. Policy-makers must develop and articulate a bold plan for the expansion of transit in the 21st century. That plan could include a commitment to: • Build or expand rapid transit networks in every American city with a metropolitan population of 1 million or more by 2020. Twenty-eight of America’s 50 largest metropolitan areas have some form of rapid transit service in operation or under construction. • Expand transit options in small and medium-sized cities, as well as in rural areas. • Link cities via high-speed rail. The United States should commit to building high-speed rail along the 11 federally designated high speed corridors and increasing regional rail links elsewhere. • Improve the transit experience through upgraded amenities on trains and buses, including on-board wireless Internet service; technology to provide real-time information about pickup times; giving transit vehicles priority in mixed traffic and creating more dedicated lanes for transit vehicles; and providing on-time service and clean, comfortable vehicles. • Serve suburban users through infrastructure investments—such as ring lines and commuter rail extensions— as well as through flexible transit services such as vanpools and community shuttles. • Serve the transportation disadvantaged through affordable and convenient bus and demand-response services. • Keep fares affordable, match transit investments with appropriate landuse planning, and promote other transportation alternatives, such as bicycling, walking, carpooling and telecommuting. The resources: Pay for a 21st century transportation system by more efficiently allocating costs. Federal and state governments should dedicate a greater share of transportation funding to transit. States with anachronistic prohibitions on the use of fuel tax revenue for transit should remove those restrictions. In addition, governments should identify a portfolio of funding sources—including highway taxes and user fees, and general state and local taxes—to fairly allocate the costs of transit system expansion among those who will reap the benefits. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/a-better-way-to-go Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:34:48 -0600 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/when-it-rains-it-pours Executive Summary http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/when-it-rains-it-pours Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:02:58 -0600 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/climate-change-action-report-card-2007 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/climate-change-action-report-card-2007 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:37:43 -0600 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/cleaner-cheaper-smarter-the-case-for-auctioning-pollution-allowances-in-a-global-warming-cap-and-trade-program Global http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/cleaner-cheaper-smarter-the-case-for-auctioning-pollution-allowances-in-a-global-warming-cap-and-trade-program Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:26:01 -0600 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/cool-moves-transit-in-new-england-and-its-role-in-curbing-global-warming-pollution Executive Summary http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/cool-moves-transit-in-new-england-and-its-role-in-curbing-global-warming-pollution Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:20:27 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/state-clean-cars-programs-an-effective-way-to-slash-global-warming-pollution Shrinking glaciers, rising global temperatures, increasingly severe storms, and alarming scientific predictions have led to increasing public concern about the impacts of global warming on the environment, health and society. But while the Bush administration and federal policy-makers continue to resist efforts to reduce global warming pollution, many states are taking dramatic, effective actions to address the threat – including the adoption of the “Clean Cars Program,” which sets limits on global warming pollution from cars, light trucks and SUVs. The 10 states that have adopted the Clean Cars Program will cut global warming pollution from cars, light trucks and SUVs by 64 million metric tons per year in 2020, while saving consumers money and reducing the nation’s reliance on oil. The reduction in global warming pollution that will result from the new standards is significant on a global scale, equivalent to the national annual emissions from all but 47 of the world’s countries. Put another way, by 2020 the Clean Cars Program will eliminate as much carbon dioxide annually as is produced by 63 coal-fired power plants generating enough power for nearly a quarter of U.S. homes. At the same time, the standards could reduce gasoline consumption by as much as 7.2 billion gallons per year in 2020 – nearly as much as is consumed by all the vehicles in Florida in a year – and save consumers up to $16.7 billion annually at the pump in 2020. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/state-clean-cars-programs-an-effective-way-to-slash-global-warming-pollution Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:17:46 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/driving-global-warming-commuting-in-maine-and-its-contribution-to-global-warming Transportation is responsible for just under one-third of Maine’s contribution to global warming – and the trips state residents make to and from work are a major contributor to the problem. Just over a quarter of all vehicle miles nationally are driven on trips to and from work. To reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks – and to meet the state’s climate protection goals – Maine must find ways to reduce the global warming impact of commuting. In order to find the right policy options for confronting global warming pollution from commuting, it is necessary to know who is commuting where and by what mode of transportation. A review of data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau identifies which towns in the state are responsible for the greatest amount of commuting-related emissions of carbon dioxide (the leading cause of global warming) and suggests ways that the state can effectively reduce emissions. Commuters living in bedroom communities in southeastern Maine produce the state’s highest levels of per-commuter emissions – three to seven times greater than those of workers living in the state’s largest cities. • Per-commuter carbon dioxide emissions are largely a factor of the distance that commuters travel to work. For example, the average commuter from Waterboro, Naples, and Limington travels 17 to 19 miles to work and produces over 7,000 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution annually; while the average commuter from Bangor, Portland and South Portland travels 4 to 6 miles and generates less than 2,500 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution per year. The explosion of sprawling residential development in formerly rural areas poses a major challenge to the state’s efforts to reduce global warming emissions. • Sprawling development dramatically increases the length of commuting trips. This is a worrisome trend given that the 3 percent of Maine commuters who travel at least 30 miles to work produce a disproportionately large share – around 15 percent – of the state’s commuting-related carbon dioxide emissions. • Many of Maine’s fastest-growing communities are located on the extreme fringes of the state’s metropolitan areas and in formerly rural areas where perworker emissions are very high. Shifting commuting away from drive-alone trips, developing an expanded transit network, fostering non-vehicular commutes, and encouraging homebased work can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transportation. • Throughout Maine, 78 percent of all commuters drive alone to work. However, towns with a high reliance on alternatives to drive-alone commuting – regardless of their location within the state – tend to have lower-per worker emissions of carbon dioxide. Maine should take a series of immediate and longterm actions to reduce global warming emissions from commuting. Among other actions, the state should: • Implement vehicle global warming emissions standards and other measures to encourage the purchase of vehicles that produce less carbon dioxide per mile. • Develop programs to encourage residents to live near their workplaces and to encourage employers to implement telecommuting. • Encourage carpooling, vanpooling and other programs that reduce the number of drive-alone commutes, while discouraging highway expansion projects that promote single-passenger commuting. • Further integrate the state into the regional transit network by expanding rail service in Maine. • Put the brakes on sprawling development in rural areas by encouraging urban redevelopment, transit-oriented development, the creation of more affordable housing, and mixed-use planning in new and existing suburbs, and by creating and implementing growth management plans in all towns. • Hold suburban workplaces accountable for the carbon dioxide emissions they generate by requiring large employers to implement commute-trip reduction programs. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/driving-global-warming-commuting-in-maine-and-its-contribution-to-global-warming Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:59:57 -0500