Prop. 1 and Global Warming
Trying to contain the fallout from Ron Sims' decision last week not to support Prop. 1, Governor Gregoire says:
"Maybe (the measure) isn't perfect. ... I don't care if it's not perfect, we have got to move forward. And the last thing we need is to have the 1.2 million (people) that are coming into the Puget Sound area over the next decade, and leave the status quo. Want to talk global warming? That is a disaster."
It's a clever move, trying to pivot off of global warming, which, as Josh Feit argued, was the "one cogent moment" of Sims' editorial.
But I think we need to step back for a moment and acknowledge that there are limits to what highway planning can and cannot do to halt global warming. The single largest cause of global warming is the burning of coal for electricity. Car and light truck emissions are just 20% of the total. More controversially, gridlock, too contributes to global warming. And though I'm not naive enough to believe that simply adding more lanes will end gridlock, adding HOV capacity to the 520 bridge will do far more good than harm in that regard.
(To be fair, transportation -- including planes -- accounts for over half the CO2 emissions in the Northwest specifically, but (a), that's only because we get much of our electricity from hydro, and (b) because CO2 is only one of the gases that contribute to global warming)
So while I completely agree that denser, transit-oriented urban development is one key component to reversing climate change, it's not the only one. Increasing fuel efficiency, reducing the use of coal-fired electricity plants, and somehow figuring out how to stop cows from passing gas are just three things that would do more to stop global warming than whether or not we pass Prop. 1 this November.
The Sierra Club and Ron Sims (both of whom I admire) would like to make this vote a referendum on global warming. It's just not that simple.
- Frank's blog
- Login or register to post comments
...how to stop cows from passing gas."
Funniest "serious" line in a transportation blog entry EVER. Made me laugh out loud.
hehe...thanks. It's true! Scientists are actually working on changing the cow's diet so they fart less. It's a huge problem for global warming, and unless we convince the world to go vegetarian, it will continue to be, no matter how many highway-miles we build...
Frank, while I agree that both transportation and climate change are two of the most complex dilemmas we face, I disagree with one of your main points. You say that stepping back for a moment allows us to see the largest causes of global warming. Though true, this perspective doesn’t help us here in the Puget Sound decide what to do. We need to address our own actions, and as you reluctantly admit, almost half of our emissions come from vehicles. Were we talking about a national proposition, then I would be referencing such national stats.
On a lesser but equally popular point in the broader discussion, I would love to read (not enjoy) an analysis of the net effect of congestion on VMT, peak congestion, fuel consumption and GHG emissions. I know that I avoid gridlock by riding my bike, driving at a different time, getting a ride or just not making the trip. I guarantee you that congestion reduces my transportation footprint.
Morgan,
Thanks again for your comments, and for reading all of my blogs! :)
My problem with the current debate is that I feel like we're starting to equate building highways with global warming. The relationship is there, but it's tangential. Highways themselves do not clause global warming. It's the cars that drive on them.
It's convenient to use global warming as another reason to oppose highways, but I don't think it's a very good one.
I wholly agree, as I've said before, sprawl is inherently problematic because it requires great energy to move people great distances. Even the electricity in electric cars has to come from somewhere. So I'm all for denser development in general.
I just worry about the aims getting confused here. If we're worried about global warming, yes, you're right, cars are the issue, and so Washington State can do what California does, and impose strict emissions standards on the cars that are sold here, or more easily, we could impose a much higher gas tax. Either would do wonders directly for global warming.
Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think it's important to clarify the debate. For example, a few years ago, lots of environmentalists (like myself) got all excited when conservatives started worrying about oil addiction as a national security issue. It was another tool in our arsenal, we thought, to convince people to stop burning fossil fuels.
The problem was that those same conservatives turned around and said, "okay, so we'll just have to drill in ANWR and make more ethanol in Iowa." Egads, that's an environmental disaster on so many levels!
And of course, there are problems to sprawl in and of itself: congestion, destruction of farmland, obesity, etc. All of these things are problems and arguments need to be -- and can be -- made against them on their own terms.
Washington State's Growth Management Act is one of the best tools we have for dealing with this at the state level. At the county level, look what they're doing to make more walkable neighborhoods throught King County. This is all good stuff. More of that, I say.
Frank, I hear your points. I too would prefer that GHG was not the only leverage point in the dialogue on roads. We don't want to put all our eggs into the climate change basket. But, the Climate Change metaphor is effective, because it is current with year's wave of attention on the topic. It is the vehicle of the day; it is in vogue.
What I hope is that we continue working on other arguments, like those you listed. I don't think that the issue of Climate Change is likely to disappear any time soon, but as we make progress on it we still need to be able to make progress on other issues, like flood control and water purification (wetlands). For now, arguing that roads can kill wetlands, which impact the water cycle and habitat, is too complicated for most venues.
btw - Shellenberger & Nordhaus will be at Town Hall later this month talking about exactly this stuff. I loved their opening salvo in 2004.