Last Tuesday a majority of Americans 'voted green'. They voted for, and the Electoral College is duty-bound to select Senator Barack Obama as President, whose platform contained an extensive list of green energy and employment initiatives, along with funding for Amtrak and mass transit along with highway improvements.
President-Elect Obama appears to be strong believer in technology, and has promised to place resources in R&D and in rural broadband. There is every reason to believe that of all the policy stances produced that he will deliver on this one, because technology delivered for him. He and his team successfully used advanced communications and marketing technology to create, mobilize, and bring on home one of the most successful grassroots-based election campaigns in modern times.
President-Elect Obama wants action on climate change but he also is seeking energy security, which according to an editorial in The (Toronto) Star may mean accepting Canada's 'dirty oil' from the Alberta tar sands in exchange for Canada adopting his tougher emissions policies.
(One wonders just how 'filthy' Alberta tar sands-derived oil really is: from source to refinery compared to shipping 'cleaner' crude from the Middle East on diesel-burning and pollutant-spewing tankers. Answers, please)
Americans also, in a majority of cases, approved ballot initiatives to finance mass transit, including new and expanded bus and rail systems and high-speed intercity rail. The American Public Transit Association reports that voters in 16 states approved 23 out of 32 transit-related ballot measures, or 72 percent, that authorize up to $75 billion in spending.
Examples include:
* A $10 billion bond issue to construct the first phase of a $45 billion high-speed rail line that will eventually stretch from San Diego to San Francisco, Calif. The project will require matching federal and private matching funds
* $40 billion in local transit and highway improvements in Los Angeles including light rail and rapid transit extensions, including at long last, links to LAX, to Santa Monica, and between the separate rail lines in downtown L.A
* A diesel commuter rail line in Sonoma and Marin counties north of San Francisco
* A $4.3 billion rail rapid transit line in Honolulu
* Proposition 1, a half-cent sales tax increase to supply nearly $18 billion in new and expanded light rail lines and improved commuter rail and bus in the Puget Sound (Seattle/Bellevue/Everett/Tacoma) region
The news was not all good. Kansas City voters rejected funding for a new 14-mile light rail system while St. Louis elector rejected a sales tax increase to continue financing its rail, bus, and paratransit network. This last one is a head-shaker: the St. Louis region's transit system is a star performer: its MetroLink LRT has imaginatively used existing railroad rights-of-way (including a downtown tunnel) to cost-effectively connect the metro region.
What makes these votes all the more significant even with the setbacks, are the overriding concerns over the economy and the ability of taxpayers to finance transit expansion. There are already growing reports of transit cutbacks.
Yet it is important to remember that keeping transit going represents a sound investment because it provides mobility for people who can no longer afford to keep the number of cars they do, or cars altogether, and that it provides good, clean, and green employment at a time when we need jobs, economic infusion, and take action on climate change.
--BR
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
Great post. I didn't know that so many mass transit initiatives passed across the country. Every extra piece of transit infrastructure will go a long way to reducing the dependency on oil regionally and nationally.
Two caveats: mass transit is great IF it's needed. Before I moved (mainly due to the excessive tax rate), the city I lived in had a citizen's "initiative" (put forth by the people who'd stand to make the most from building light rail) to install light rail. The initiative passed, in the form of a "bond." Bonds are taxes when you boil them down, as the money is raised by selling bonds and then paid back by the government, which gets its money from taxes. So it's sneaky, like the inflation tax.
The city didn't need light rail. It was a waste of money and runs now at 80% empty nearly all hours of the day. But, they have alternative transport!
As for Obama, I'll believe it when I see it. Every politician promises the world in an attempt to appeal to the people they want to vote for them. Obama promised all those great Al Gore-sounding things to get elected. He won't deliver. Just as the Democrats didn't deliver on Iraq when they were voted into Congress. Just as GW didn't deliver when he was elected on a "Ronald Reagan platform."
So be optimistic if it makes you feel better, but don't expect anything to really change. If you want to see true change in this country and our energy policies, start voting to GET RID of government intervention instead of new plans to further intervene.
Our so-called medical crisis is thanks to government. Our so-called education crisis is thanks to government.
Our so-called energy crisis is thanks to government.
Government makes problems and then makes more government to solve those problems. I have a better idea: pin your hopes on free enterprise and watch entrepreneurs come up with new vehicles, new technologies, and new ways of doing things green. Government is our nation's top polluter. You trust them to fix it?
Nice blog, I will most certainly continue to visit your blog often to read even more of your posts, you've done a great job. Thank you.
"from source to refinery compared to shipping 'cleaner' crude from the Middle East on diesel-burning and pollutant-spewing tankers."
Actually, diesel powered ships are one the most efficient ways possible in terms of energy comnsumed per tonne of cargo moved. I am willign to bet that the lorries that ship petrol use more fuel than the ship that brought the oil there in the first place.