PSC's Open Salon Blog

Republican House Takeover Bad News for Jobs, Unless You Pump

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:11:25 -0500

After the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections, Republican strategist Karl Rove told a crowd of oil producers that “climate is gone.” The Chicago Tribune reported that Republican leaders plan to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency in a bid to block any regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

That's to be expected. The Republicans insist that any efforts to reduce GHG emissions would be bad for the economy. What they really mean is that any such measures would be bad for certain parts of the economy, specifically, coal, oil, and gas producers.

What Republicans never talk about is the enormous job-creating potential of renewable energy production and retrofitting of buildings to be more resource-efficient. Nor do they talk about the economic payback cities are hoping to get by reducing suburban sprawl and growing inward instead of outward.

Although the nation as a whole voted in a new Congress that doesn't understand the economic calculus of climate change, California voters went in the opposite direction.

On November 2, California voters rejected Proposition 23, a ballot measure to suspend California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). Companies directly involved in oil production, refining, or retailing funded most of the cost of the campaign to pass the measure.

California voters also elected Jerry Brown to be our governor (again). He supports strong efforts to promote a new economy and curb GHG emissions, just like his Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Brown soundly defeated Meg Whitman, who said she'd suspend AB 32 until the economy improves.

California voters rejected the argument that reducing GHG emissions is bad for our economy (as opposed to just affecting oil and coal company profits). They ignored the claim that countries that pursue alternative energy development have lost jobs as a result of their progressive energy and environmental policies.

With good reason. Having just visited the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai, China, I can tell you that dozens of nations and major cities are counting on just the opposite effect. As a group, they are investing billions of dollars in the proposition that green building, sustainable cities, and alternative energy generation will fuel the economic boom of this century.

All over the world, cities and nations are already seeing economic dividends from that investment. In fact, some of them are moving so fast, it makes the U.S. look like it's standing still.

For example, London is pushing to become the world’s “low carbon capital” in time for the Olympics in 2012. England will require all new residential buildings to be zero carbon by 2016, just six years from now. Portugal set a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 7.6 tons per capita by 2020, a level it claims is the lowest of any European country. And that's just the tip of the melting iceberg.

China has huge pollution issues from the growing use of cars and continues to rely heavily on coal. But it is moving rapidly to develop solar power and perfect zero carbon building construction. Other countries are not pursuing alternative energy and sustainable development just because they believe global warming is a threat, though that's part of it. They are doing it because they see money in it. They take a longer term view than U.S. policymakers. And they are not as indebted to the political support of oil, gas, and coal.

Other countries know that in today's service economy, alternative energy is a long-term jobs generator and that clean, green cities attract the kind of well-educated young people that in turn attract high-tech and service industries.

The truth is, many nations are way ahead of the U.S. in tapping the economic potential in these areas, and if Rove is right, the rest of the world will be thrilled to know it can widen the gap even more in the next two years.

Texas oil companies and West Virginia coal miners can breathe a sign of relief (if the air isn't too dirty), but for the rest of us, the election results are bad economic news. Californians will be among the few Americans to reap economic benefits from the new clean energy economy. When power in the House of Representatives moves to the Republicans, dirty energy interests will be emboldened to attack California’s precedents again and again.

Andre Shashaty is a writer, editor, and policy advocate with a focus on housing and urban issues. He is president of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities in San Rafael, Calif., a nonprofit organization that does research and advocacy around climate change and the built environment.

Big Oil vs. Sustainable Communities

Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:10:25 -0400

California: Oil Interests Fight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Advocates for suspending California’s ambitious effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions say they are concerned it will hurt the economy. But the big money behind the campaign suggests another motivation: Oil companies worried that the legislation will reduce private vehicle usage not only in the Golden State but nationwide as other states follow suit.

Companies directly involved in oil production, refining, or retailing—many located outside California—have contributed the vast majority of the $4.2 million raised by supporters of Proposition 23, which would suspend California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). AB 32 requires that the state's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. A companion bill (Senate Bill 375) requires localities to plan for more compact, transit-oriented, "sustainable" land use patterns: in other words, to craft plans that encourage walking and the use of transit and discourage driving.

Other states are headed in the same direction, most notably Oregon and Washington, with more studying options to reduce GHG emissions.

The oil interests remember that California was among the states that fought the Bush Administration for the right to enact tough automobile fuel efficiency standards. California's standards prevailed, and similar standards are now being implemented nationally.

The oil interests also know that a successful effort by California to reduce GHG emissions and encourage cities to plan for compact, less car-dependent communities will set the direction for the nation, and they are pumping millions into the fight to suspend AB 32 in the November 2 election.

Flint Hills Resources, an independent refining and chemicals company based in Wichita, Kansas, donated $1 million to support suspension of AB 32. Other major donors include Occidental Petroleum Corp. of Los Angeles and two Texas-based firms, Valero Services Inc. and Tesoro Companies.

According to the California secretary of state, the only donors of $50,000 or more that are not directly involved in oil production, refining, or retailing are the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Adam Smith Foundation, and the California Trucking Association.

Proposition 23 does not address Senate Bill 375, which requires all areas of the state to develop plans to show how they will change land and transportation use to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles. However, the GHG reduction targets are the driving force behind SB 375, and suspension of AB 32 would almost certainly reduce the value of the plans required by SB 375, if not derail the process completely.

Don't let the oil companies shape policy to line their pockets.

Rethinking Sixty Years of Sprawl

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:11:20 -0500

Much has been written about 1969 as a year of upheaval and social change. But in 2009, when home mortgage foreclosures and global warming pose major threats to our society, looking back another 20 years may prove more valuable.

In 1949, President Harry Truman convinced Congress to break with the past and inject the federal government into process of developing cities and financing housing. The 1949 Housing Act expanded the availability of federal insurance for home mortgages, igniting the growth of new suburbs farther and farther from the centers of our cities.

Together with federal highway funds that came a few years later, the 1949 law started what we now describe as “suburban sprawl.” The two initiatives put Americans on the path of long commutes, heavy traffic, air pollution, water shortages, and a long-term increase in carbon dioxide emissions, which fuel global warming.

Policymakers and the general public are starting to recognize how that pattern of development hurts the environment and puts our climate at risk. With the home mortgage foreclosure crisis, the impact of sprawl on household finances has become crystal clear. Traditional mortgage underwriting considers only costs for shelter. But as the cost of housing rose, more and more families had to live farther and farther from their jobs to afford homes. The cost of transportation combined with mortgage debt forced many of these families into foreclosure.

The time has come to declare that the “General Motors model” of urban planning is officially bankrupt. We must reinvest in existing urban centers, because reusing the infrastructure and restoring underutilized real estate is far more environmentally efficient than new construction, no matter how green that construction is. It’s also time to change local land use laws to promote more compact development around transit and the availability of affordable housing close to jobs and services.

The Obama Administration is moving in this direction by beginning to coordinate federal housing and transportation policies that encourage more compact, transit-oriented development. It has created a White House Office of Urban Affairs and laid out six livability principles to guide housing, transportation, and environmental policy. It is working on ways to measure housing and transportation costs that would allow mortgage bankers to offer a “location-efficient” mortgage.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has proposed a major new federal program of grants to help local governments formulate regional plans for growth around transit corridors.

Federal money and policy leadership help a lot. But the federal government has limited power to change local decisions governing land use and real estate development.

A reversal of the ill effects of sprawl will take committed local officials who are willing to change land use policy and zoning even in the face of resistance. Architects, real estate developers, bankers, and city planners must collaborate to create vibrant urban spaces that meet consumers’ needs.

In California, that’s exactly where we are headed. The state legislature has unleashed the biggest change in how communities are shaped and land use is planned since highway construction took off in the 1950s. A recent state law relies on the transportation planning process to focus the attention of local leaders on climate change, land use, zoning, and the need for affordable housing. State legislators hope that transportation spending will spur community cohesion and efficiency instead of encouraging more sprawl.

It will be years before there is a measurable reduction in the environmental damage of sprawl, and it’s unclear how quickly other states will follow California’s lead. But there’s no turning back: Americans have begun the long process of changing land use patterns and rethinking how and where we live.

Change won’t come easy. Americans still value big houses with big yards. They don’t want to conserve water or cut back on how much they drive. But many understand that the issue is not just about the environment but about how we live and how we connect with each other.

Many residents of today’s faceless “sprawlburbs” realize that they are missing out on the connections and richness of real communities like the ones our parents and grandparents inhabited. More Americans are starting to seek out places in which to gather and attractive streets and parks in which to stroll to the store and mingle with their neighbors.

If the outer limits of sprawl have indeed been reached, and if we begin to look back toward the urban cores, there is hope for even the most distressed cities to make a comeback.

The harder question is whether Americans can deal with environmental challenges and at the same time honor the most fundamental promise of the 1949 act: that every American family have “a decent home and suitable living environment.” This poses a huge challenge, but more compact development that reduces energy costs and commuting costs moves us a step closer toward finally fulfilling that promise.

Andre Shashaty is president of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (www.p4sc.org), a national nonprofit organization based in San Rafael, California.