Car sharing programs are really important:

Carsharing is a mode of transport where vehicles are owned by a separate firm or an organization, and shared amongst a number of people throughout the day. Carsharing can also be considered an organized short-term car rental where users access a firm’s vehicles maintained in a close network of vehicle locations called “Pods”. Starting in Europe, carsharing came to North America in 1994 as an alternative solution to meet the mobility gaps between public transit, taxi, bike, car rental, and private vehicle travel. Carsharing provides its members with the benefits of private cars without the costs and responsibilities of ownership.

The two major social benefits of carsharing are fewer vehicles on the road and lower emissions. Research from Frost & Sullivan estimates that, on average, each shared vehicle replaced 15 personally owned vehicles in 2009 and carsharing members drove 31% less than when they owned a personal vehicle. These two factors translate into 482,170 fewer tons of CO2 emissions and less travel congestion in urban areas.

This matches pretty closely with my experience. After living in the Washington DC area for about two years it became obvious that it was no longer worth owning a car. Registration, vehicle inspection, purchasing gas, $100/month for insurance, parking, traffic cameras and broken windows added up, so we switched to Zipcar. I couldn’t be happier with the switch. I drive less but can still get a car any time I need one, while saving money and avoiding the annoyances listed above.

And according to this study carsharing programs are having great success and will likely continue to do so:

Those benefits, plus the influence of the economic recession and the increasingly stringent global greenhouse gas emissions regulations, fostered the growth of carsharing in both North America and Europe. Between 2007 and 2009, carsharing membership rose by 117% in North America.

The trend is expected to continue over the next 5 to 10 years. According to Frost & Sullivan research, carsharing membership is expected to reach 4.4 million in North America and 5.5 million in Europe by 2016.

Here is what that looks like on paper:

I say bring it on. Here are some of the benefits I’m looking forward to:

• Assuming supply keeps up with demand, it will be even easier to find a zipcar.
• My bus will go faster.
• Less idling cars to walk past every morning.
• Less traffic accidents, safer roads.
• Less noise outside my window.
• Less drunk drivers on the road.

President Obama spoke today at the GOP House Issues Conference. After his remarks, he took questions from several Republican members of Congress. In response to a question from Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the president expanded on his praise of polluting energy sources in this week’s State of the Union Address.

On coal, President Obama said:

“For example, nobody has been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. Testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.”

“We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it’s going to be different. And that means there’s going to be some transition. And that’s where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there’s going to be a transition process — and we’re not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away — that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.”

On nuclear, President Obama said:

“I’ve said that I’m a promoter of nuclear energy, something that I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don’t think it makes sense.”

On energy policy in general, President Obama said:

“So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again with respect to energy, I’m for a lot of what you said you are for.”

The full exchange is below.

Update — JW Randolph at the Front Porch blog has the video.

Read the rest of this entry »

Streetsblog DC:

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama hinted at what many in the transportation world have anticipated all week: Florida’s emergence as a winner in the race for a share of the White House’s $8 billion (and growing) high-speed rail fund.But Florida will not be the biggest beneficiary of the administration’s first rail rollout. The state taking home the most high-speed aid today is California, which snagged $2.25 billion to begin the process of linking Anaheim and San Francisco. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration had sought more than double that amount to begin its $42 billion rail project.

Florida is set to receive $1.25 billion for Tampa-to-Orlando rail service, while Illinois is getting about the same amount to begin environmental studies on a Chicago-to-St. Louis route and improve speeds between Alton and Dwight to 110 miles per hour (mph).

Other states celebrating this morning include Wisconsin, which got $810 million for upgrades to trains between Madison and Milwaukee; North Carolina, winner of $520 million for improvements of service between Raleigh and Charlotte; and Washington and Oregon, which got $590 million to boost the rail link between Seattle and Portland.

Here is the map of big winners:

Here is a summary of the awards:

hsr_awards_summary_public –

Matt Yglesias makes a good point on all of this though:

In that context, it’s worth noting that the new high-speed rail initiative the administration was touting today in Florida will still leave China and Europe with much faster trains. They’re anticipating this Central Florida rail corridor to operate at a maximum speed of 168 miles per hour. The Lorraine-Champagne TGV line in France goes 173 miles per hour on average with a maximum speed of about 200 miles per hour. The Shanghai maglev has a max speed of around 270 miles per hour.

Axelrod is always coy, but he seems especially reluctant to commit in this brief interview with The Hill. Here is the full transcript:

The Hill: There were quite a few mentions of climate change in the president’s speech.

Axelrod: I don’t know. There was a couple of paragraphs.

The Hill: I think a lot of activists were worried that there would be even less than that. To what extent is the White House prepared to put political capital behind emissions limits in 2010?

Axelrod: We are working with, as the president said, a bipartisan group on the issue and we want to get something done. We are going to be working closely with them to see to it that that happens. But obviously it is going to require support from both sides of the aisle.

The Hill: Are you confident that you can get that support?

Axelrod: I think there is a great deal of support for energy legislation, and the president laid out an aggressive agenda there that includes nuclear, that includes some additional domestic exploration, that also includes alternative energy sources. And I think there is a great deal of support for that, and this ought to be part of that.

The Hill: Do you think you can get that blended with the actual limits on greenhouse gas emissions?

Axelrod: I think that we want a comprehensive energy package, and that is what members on both sides of the aisle are working for.

League of Conservation Voters:

“Instead of embracing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that creates jobs, reduces carbon pollution and increases energy independence, Senator Lincoln has decided to cast her lot with Big Oil and other corporate polluters who oppose transitioning to a clean energy economy,” said Gene Karpinski, LCV President. “Most regrettable is the fact that Senator Lincoln is walking away from her previous support for climate legislation – and given the scope, urgency and magnitude of this issue, she has more than earned a spot on LCV’s Dirty Dozen.”

Senator Lincoln recently announced her opposition to comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, despite the fact that it will create new clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and curb harmful carbon pollution.  Senator Lincoln recently co-sponsored Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution, largely written by Washington energy lobbyists, designed to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon pollution endangers public health and welfare. Senator Lincoln has taken more than $1 million in campaign cash from Big Oil and other energy interests, with oil and gas companies being among the top five contributors to her campaign this cycle. She has a lifetime LCV score of 49%, the second lowest score for any Democratic Senator up for re-election this cycle.

Here is Lincoln’s response:

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln today said that threats from outside special interest groups will not deter her from remaining a strong and independent voice for Arkansas.

Lincoln was targeted today by a Washington-based, liberal environmental group because she stood for jobs and economic growth last week as a cosponsor of a resolution of disapproval to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Ironically, this comes just two months after the Nature Conservancy of Arkansas awarded her the Dale Bumpers “Forever Arkansas” award for her significant and enduring contributions to the conservation of natural resources in Arkansas.

Lincoln said she is working for a 21st century energy policy that creates new jobs and she will not be influenced by pressures from outside special interests seeking to influence Arkansas voters.

“I have built a practical, common-sense record on energy and environmental issues while working closely with Arkansas environmental advocates,” Lincoln said. “Threats from extremist groups from outside our state tell me I’m doing something right for Arkansas.”

You be the judge.

This is outrageous. In the wake of President Obama’s woefully inadequate and largely Orwellian remarks on climate legislation in last night’s State of the Union address, several prominent environmental organizations released statements deliberately misleading their members.

Exhibit A: Repower America
Repower America sent an email to its list this afternoon that said the following (emphasis in original):

“And as our video shows, we have a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.

Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Opposition from the fossil fuel industry is fierce, but we have a campaign plan to win. Together, we can make 2010 the year we begin to Repower America — and the first step is to help spread the word about Obama’s commitment to comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation”

The video included in the email omited the part of Obama’s speech in which he explained what he thinks needs to be done to create clean energy jobs.

Beginning at 1:17, the video includes Obama saying:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. [footage missing here] And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

Here is the part that was omitted:

That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.

These are quite plainly not the words of “a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs… and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.”

Exhibit B: Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the speech even ended, NRDC released a statement that included the following:

“President Obama issued a clear and unmistakable call to action tonight, charging the Senate to pass the comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we need…”

“Obama made an urgent case for clean energy legislation that promotes conservation as well as wind, solar and other sources of renewable power.”

“The president is right on the money.”

Does NRDC really consider referring to increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants as ‘clean energy’ to be a ‘clear and unmistakable call to action?

Does NRDC really think Obama made an ‘urgent case’ for ‘wind, solar and other sources of renewable power?’

Do they really think Obama’s promotion of dirty energy sources were ‘right on the money?’

NRDC’s statement goes beyond wishful thinking. Like the Repower America email above, it is deliberately misleading.

Exhibit C: National Wildlife Federation
Also prior to the end of the speech, the National Wildlife Federation issued a statement that included the following:

“His call for action tonight was clear. He is ready to help the Senate take on Big Oil and move a bipartisan clean energy and climate bill that creates jobs, limits pollution from energy companies, and reduces our dependency on oil from hostile nations.”

How can the president simultaneously advocate for ‘opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development’ and ‘help the Senate take on Big Oil?’ The two are mutually exclusive.

And can a bill that includes ‘increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants’ be considered a ‘clean energy and climate bill?’ I don’t think so. Does NWF?

All three of these organizations failed to push back on President Obama’s Orwellian characterization of oil, gas, nuclear and coal as ‘clean energy.’ If environmental organizations aren’t willing or able to tell the truth when the President promotes polluting industries as clean, who will? Fortunately, members of these three environmental groups aren’t likely to be fooled by their ridiculously optimistic interpretations of Obama’s remarks on ‘clean energy’ last night. If they are anything like Move On’s members, they like ‘clean energy innovation’, they don’t like ‘nukes and oil drilling,’ and they can tell the difference:

In addition to deliberately misleading their members and taking the risk of damaging their credibility, these organizations are enabling President Obama to greenwash polluting industries. Brad Johnson at Think Progress explains:

President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs.”

A few environmental organizations told the truth about President Obama’s speech last night.

Center for Biological Diversity:

“President Obama is correct that we need energy innovation and clean-energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean-energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.”

Friends of the Earth:

“While we welcome President Obama’s call for comprehensive climate and energy reform — as well as his focus on job-creating high-speed rail and solar power — it was alarming to hear him refer last night to a variety of dirty energy sources, including nuclear, coal, offshore oil drilling and biofuels, as clean.

President Obama’s support for all these dirty energy sources was a big win for corporate polluters and their Washington lobbyists, but it was a kick in the gut to environmentalists across the country. The President was essentially telling these Americans that their voices don’t matter.”

Greenpeace:

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama said that “(t)o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Despite his statement, the President knows better.

Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a “safe” dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s “clean.”

While I appreciate the candor displayed by these three groups, I am truly perplexed as to why Repower America, NRDC and NWF think misleading their members and enabling Obama’s greenwashing could possibly lead to anything good.

All three are invited to respond on this blog in order to clarify their positions.

Move On:

Last night over 10,000 MoveOn members participated in our first real-time dial test of the President’s State of the Union Speech. Below is a chart showing their reactions to President Obama’s speech, with the points of strongest approval and disapproval highlighted:

Brad Johnson has much more on this.

This is encouraging:

“I like what he said about nuclear energy,” said Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, one of the few Republican senators who has expressed interest in the climate issue. “I like what he said about drilling, if we do it the right way. … I hope there will be some energy and effort on it. And I’m a person who’s open to working on it.”

Via Talking Points Memo.

PolluterWatch:

PolluterWatch Director Kert Davies sent a letter to Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) urging him to release information about any conversations he may have had with lobbying firms or other potential employers regarding a job once he retires from the Senate early next year. In the letter Davies also calls on Dorgan to state unequivocally that he will refrain from engaging prospective employers and focus solely on his work as a Senator throughout the remainder of his term.

Here is the full letter:

Office of Senator Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3405

Senator Dorgan,

It is no secret that Americans are increasingly cynical about their government. With influence peddling as a $4.5 billion a year “growth” industry, there are now 1,300 Washington lobbyists for every Senator. The revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill does nothing to improve people’s faith in the independence of their elected leaders.

Throughout your public service career, you have been a strong leader on a wide range of issues including several key energy initiatives that are essential to America’s future. Given how much the nation’s clean energy future is at stake this year, I was disappointed when, earlier this month, you announced your decision to retire – and that you are considering several career options, including working “on energy policy in the private sector.”

As a longtime member of Congress I am sure you are aware that, regardless of your actual intentions, this language is often code for legislators who have begun trolling for an influence peddling job after they leave Congress. And, the path from public servant to influence peddler is a sadly well-worn one: Rep. Bob Livingston, Senator John Breaux, Rep. Billy Tauzin, and Senator Trent Lott.

I recall seeing you as a speaker at the oil industry’s controversial, pay-to-play forum on December 1st, just five weeks before you announced your retirement. As you will recall, this highly questionable exercise was one in which Newsweek was caught renting out its name, credibility and top pundit to big oil’s influence peddler, Jack Gerard. We were able to document Mr. Gerard’s unwillingness to answer basic questions about the purchase price of Newsweek’s credibility, and you can see the results at youtube.com/polluterwatch.

We are all confident that you will have no shortage of job options open to you at the end of this year. Why let dirty energy lobbyists, who are working overtime to imperil America’s clean energy interests, threaten your legacy as an independent advocate for what’s best for North Dakota and the people of this country?

To prevent that from happening, I call on you to:

· List the dirty energy lobbyists and their respective clients with whom you have had contact about your next job.

· Release all details of phone calls, emails or meetings you have had with prospective employers from energy interests who have lobbied you or your office. Of particular interest are Washington-area lobbying and public relations firms.

· Pledge that you will wait until after an energy bill is passed this year to engage in any further discussions about future employment with interests that lobby you.

This year the Senate is likely to debate and act on several key pieces of legislation that will shape the future of the American energy industry, our economy and our efforts to fight pollution. Regardless of your final positions on these bills, I am sure you agree that Americans deserve to be absolutely certain that your votes reflect your genuine view of what is best for them.

I am sure that you would not allow future career prospects to influence your legislative judgment. However, by releasing your records and pledging to refrain from any employment discussions, you can avoid creating any perception to the contrary.

Sincerely,

Kert Davies

PolluterWatch Director
Greenpeace