New Report Quantifies Benefits of Adding Smarth Growth to Climate Bill

As a new non-partisan analysis of the House climate change bill — proving that capping CO2 can save
money for the poorest fifth of the nation — continues to make waves on
the Hill, it’s worth noting that the legislation could yield even
greater savings by focusing on reducing transportation-based emissions.

waxman_markey1.jpgHouse
Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep.
Ed Markey (D-MA), his climate legislation co-author. (Photo: Washington Independent)

In
a report released Friday, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)
quantifies the benefits of setting tangible goals for reducing the
carbon footprint of transportation, which currently accounts for about one-third of total U.S. emissions.

Using
smart growth policies to reduce per-capita VMT by 10 percent below 2005
levels would achieve emissions reductions equivalent to taking 35 large
coal plants off-line or taking 30 million cars off the road by 2030,
according to the CCAP analysis.

The report, viewable in full here,
offers some interesting examples of how smart-growth proposals can pay
environmental dividends. For example, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency —
hardly known as bastions of the environmental movement — have found
that emissions reductions of up to 14.5 percent can be achieved at a
cost of less than $3 per ton of CO2 simply by encouraging carpooling,
telecommuting and eco-driving.

Perhaps
most politically relevant conclusion in the CCAP report, however, deals
with a topic very much on the minds of Congress these days: how to push
regionally favored industries, from Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D-MN) agriculture producers to Rep. Gene Green’s (D-TX) oil refiners, to accept their share of the emissions-reduction burden.

After
noting that better fuel economy means a 15 percent rise in per-capita
VMT over the next two decades would achieve a 14 percent decrease in
CO2 (relative to 2005 levels), the CCAP notes that the target needs to
be more than double that 14 percent. From the report (emphasis mine):

If we fail to pursue cost-effective GHG reductions from the transportation sector, other sectors of the economy will need to implement more expensive solutions,
ultimately costing the public more money. There is compelling evidence
that we can achieve significant, and inexpensive, transportation GHG
reductions.

The CCAP report advocates for setting aside 10
percent of the House climate bill’s emissions allocations for smarter
transportation planning.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

New Study Quantifies High Personal Costs of Building CA Cities for Cars

|
Click to enlarge: Annual household transportation costs in the Bay Area. California residents living in sprawling suburban developments could save billions of dollars every year if they lived in denser, urban zones and along transit corridors, according to a study released today by smart growth and transit advocates TransForm. Analyzing four metropolitan areas–Southern California, the […]
Photo: Martin Pettitt, CC
STREETSBLOG USA

What the US Can Learn from the European Approach to Controlling Vehicle Emissions

|
The US transportation sector isn’t adapting quickly enough to the climate crisis by reducing emissions. A better adaptation strategy will require not only shifting how people move by getting them out of cars and onto bikes and public transportation, but also replacing the vehicle fleet with more efficient automobiles that are less reliant on fossil fuels.