September 23, 2010 Editorial Update:
Two recent articles appeared in the news written by proponents of the status-quo freeways, sand and gravel boys:
San Francisco Chronicle: Air Resources Board’s pollution targets unrealistic
San Jose Mercury News: Opinion: Air board overreaching in greenhouse gas reduction(GHG) targets
Both articles state that the Bay Area’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Reduction’ Targets are too high and unrealistic. They are both wrong, in so many ways. First, note the authors–Bob Alvarado is executive officer of the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council; and Jim Spering and Bill Dodd, Commissioners on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission from Solano and Napa Counties, who undoubtedly voted against the modest Greenhouse Gas Increase targets of 5% and 15% (see below for more info). Mr Alvarado represents many workers who benefit from building new homes in areas only served by driving. He probably has not thought much about how many jobs are created by urban infill projects. In fact, in the Bay Area, many more jobs are being created today by urban infill than sprawl housing.
More on point (and accurate) is:
Why Californians Must Crush Prop 23
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction targets are not “reduction” targets at all, as explained below. They are increases masked by the new catchy slogan “One Bay Area.” There’s an old southern saying where I come from “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” Shame on our elected officials for misleading the public on such an important issue as air pollution and climate change.
July 28, 2010 Update:
At its July 28, 2010 meeting, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved targets of 7% Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reductions by 2020 and 15% reductions by 2035, thanks to the urging from a coalition of organizations lead by Greenbelt Alliance (including the East Bay Bicycle Coalition). The Commission was ready to approve a lower 2035 target of 10%, but raised that to 15% thanks to the organized turnout at the Commission’s meeting. Numerous advocates spoke in favor of the higher targets, and several EBBC members wrote letters and signed on in support online. Commissioner Tom Bates (Mayor of Berkeley) voted in support of a 15% target, while Commissioners Amy Worth (Contra Costa) and Federal Glover (Antioch) voted no for the 15% target. Commission Scott Haggarty (Tri-Valley) was absent.
Issues:
- What do ‘Per Capita’ reductions achieve?
The Commission and the Air Resources Board have changed their approach to GHG reductions by looking at “per capita” reductions, i.e. reduction amounts per every person in California. However, AB 32, Governor Schwarzenegger’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction legislation, calls for absolute GHG reductions by the year 2020 of the levels that occurred in 1990.
Quite a good goal! But as more people move to California and our population increases, GHG will continue to increase overall, even if on a per capita basis, we see reductions of 7% and later of 15%. MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger stated as much at the July 28 Commission meeting. Per capita reductions are a worthy goal, but they will not achieve the goals of AB 32.
- More than Land Use and Clean Vehicles are needed:
The Commission is looking primarily at changes in land use (urban infill vs. sprawl) and clean vehicles (electric cars) as the ways to achieve the GHG reduction targets. A much more broad approach is needed! The Commission needs to hear from us that they should implement world-class walkable and bikeable Bay Area, as well as parking and roadway pricing strategies (congestion pricing), a vehicle mile traveled fee of 25 cents (yes, they studied this!), and of course more funding for transit.
What you can do
Contact the Air Resources Board and let them know you support higher targets for Greenhouse Gas Reductions. Contact the ARB at:
- Climate Change Program
email: Johnnie Raymond
at (916) 445-8279
Key Upcoming Meetings:
The Air Resources Board will release draft final GHG reduction targets on August 9, 2010 and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission will take final action at the following meetings:
- MTC Planning Committee Planning Committee
Friday, September 10, 2010
9:30-11:30am
Joseph P. Bort Metrocenter, main auditorium
101 8th Street, Oakland
- MTC Board of Commissioners monthly meeting
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
9:30-11:30am
Joseph P. Bort Metrocenter, main auditorium
101 8th Street, Oakland
Voice your support for higher targets and more agressive measures to achieve real GHG reductions.
Please look for updates on our website and in our bi-monthly eBlasts on this important policy decision that will influence Bay Area transportation programming for decades to come. More info available at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Greenhouse Gas Webpage.
Background
In 2006, the Governor signed AB 32, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gases by the year 2020 to the emission levels of the year 1990. The Air Resources Board has already determined that this is 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The hard work for all of this starts in 2011, and to get ready for next year, the Air Resources Board is busy setting GHG reduction targets, hence these targets approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. One thing that is not clear, and our crack staff is busy working to get clarification on is this; the adopted targets of 7% and 15% reductions are per capita reductions from a baseline year of 2005. How this ‘per capita’ approach satisfies AB 32’s mandate of absolute reductions to 1990 levels is not clear. If you have some insight, please share with us.
To reach these targets, the Commission considered a ‘VMT tax’ of 25 cents/mile driven, to encourage commute alternatives and to help pay for better transit, walking and bicycling. Also considered are road pricing strategies (congestion pricing), cleaner vehicles, and more focused growth.
The Commission also heard evidence that a 15% GHG reduction by 2035 would provide $140 million in health benefits to Bay Area residents, 40% higher than a 10% target achieves. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission website has more information on these statistics.
Read more: SF Gate Article on the Targets