This summer, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation to reduce our country’s greenhouse-gas emissions. Through this bill we would harness market forces to fight manmade climate change and reduce emissions from power plants, factories, office buildings, and vehicles.

It might surprise some to learn that transportation is the fastest-growing source of carbon emissions. To address this, legislation was signed into law last December to require cars to average 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020, up from 25 mpg today. Our current climate-change bill includes a provision to require cleaner fuels.

But we need to do more to address how far people drive. Since 1970, overall energy consumption - in spite of vehicle fuel-efficiency improvements - has grown by 41 percent. This is partly because the vehicle miles traveled in the United States grew 148 percent. This increase is largely due to longer commutes and shifts in driving patterns, not population growth. In fact, population growth accounts for only 38 percent of the increase in vehicle miles. Between 2005 and 2030, consumption is expected to increase another 59 percent.

Across much of the United States, driving is essential to accomplish the smallest errand. In most places, one cannot get to work, pick up kids from school, or buy a gallon of milk without burning at least a gallon of gas. There simply is not reliable transit to take people where they need to go. Many kids can no longer walk to school safely, because they live in communities that are designed more for the automobile than for the pedestrian. Along many busy roads, there aren’t even any sidewalks to accommodate anyone who might want to walk instead of drive.

Living in a sprawling area without transportation options can double a family’s greenhouse-gas emissions. The negative consequences go beyond the effects on the environment. Longer commutes and increased driving distances cost time and money. Many American families must own multiple cars and spend more time away from home. This means less money to invest in your home or child’s college fund-and less time to spend with family.

The climate bill that will be considered by the Senate would place a “cap” on carbon-dioxide emissions and establish a market in which polluters could buy and sell permits to release those emissions. The proceeds from the sale of these emissions permits would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to support the deployment alternative energy, fund research into clean technologies, and address our growing transportation needs.

The current legislation provides some funding for transit - about $500 million a year - but this is less than half of what we spend annually on public transportation; if anything, we should be spending more than we have in the past to meet the large and growing need for transit options.

Additionally, we need to invest in sidewalks and crosswalks that will make our neighborhoods more walkable. Furthermore, we should offer incentives fordevelopment patterns that encourage people to walk rather than take a car everywhere they need to go.

We must offer Americans alternatives to car travel if we are going to be successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and weaning ourselves from foreign oil. Fortunately, such measures also have the welcome effect of allowing Americans to spend less time and money stuck in traffic. In other words, this policy is good for working families, good for the environment, and good for our economy.

That’s why I’m backing it, and that’s why the Senate should include it in the climate-change bill this summer.

This entry was posted on 5.06.2008 at 4:56 pm and is filed under Economic Opportunity, Government Reform, Hybrid Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.