Obama wants to get moving on high-speed rail

Obama wants to get moving on high-speed rail

From the LA Times Reporting from Washington — President Obama touted his plan for developing high-speed railways Thursday, detailing how $13 billion in federal money would act as a "down payment" on creating speedier passenger train service.

"High-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways," Obama said. "There's no reason why we can't do this."

The proposal lists the long-planned rail corridor from Los Angeles to San Francisco as one that could receive funding, as well as a network featuring Chicago as the hub of a system reaching to Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis and St. Louis.

"The Midwest has some good planning going on," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "If you look at the Chicagoland area, the Metra system delivers thousands of people into the city every day, and obviously it's conceivable that those people could get on a high-speed rail line and go somewhere."

Also possible are high-speed rail lines in Florida, Texas and the Pacific Northwest, as well as an expansion of the nation's only existing high-speed rail system, which runs from Washington to Boston.

The plan is no surprise, with $8 billion coming from January's economic stimulus package and $5 billion potentially coming from Obama's budget over the next five years.

The administration has not announced the criteria on which it will award funding, but it aims to release money by the end of the summer.

Vukan Vuchic, a University of Pennsylvania professor of transportation engineering, agreed with Obama that federal support for high-speed rail was long overdue.

"We are, frankly, several decades behind if we compare ourselves with our peer countries," Vuchic said. "The country badly needs high-speed rail in all these regions."

At the same time, the administration plan drew some skepticism.

Creating the corridors would require massive subsidies from federal and state governments for a service that few people would use, said James Moore, professor of industrial and systems engineering at the USC.

"There's just not a lot of room for high-speed rail to compete in the U.S. market," he said.

California officials who hope to build a rail line that would whisk passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes welcomed Obama's enthusiasm for high-speed rail.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared that California was "far ahead of any other high-speed rail system in the nation" and cited voter approval of nearly $10 billion of bonds for the project.

California's proposed project would initially run between Anaheim and San Francisco at a cost of $34 billion, taking 10 years to build, and would eventually go to Sacramento and San Diego.

Although a long-discussed high-speed rail line from Las Vegas to Anaheim was not included on a White House map of those likely to receive funding, supporters said they would seek a share of the federal money to advance the project.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Finding: Greenhouse Gases Pose a Threat

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare

 

Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

 

(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009)  After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

 

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

 

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.  Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

 

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem.  The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

 

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

 

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

 

·         increased drought;

·         more heavy downpours and flooding;

·         more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;

·         greater sea level rise;

·         more intense storms; and

·         harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

 

In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

 

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

 

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input.  Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

 

More information:  http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

 

R097

Youth Lobby for Bold Climate Law in 2009

In Congress Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced a discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 to create a renewable energy standard, and the youth of the US stand ready to help lobby for a strong bill for clean energy.

On Saturday April 18, the advocacy group Focus the Nation is coordinating a Nationwide Town Hall on America's Clean Energy Future in more than 200 Congressional districts.

On April 22, Earth Day 2009, hundreds of communities across the country will participate in the National Conversation on Climate Action. This initiative will engage thousands of people in discussions about making the most of climate action opportunities at the local level.

Based in Portland, Oregon, Focus the Nation works to empower young leaders to accelerate the transition to a just and prosperous clean energy future.

Northeast Utilities Plans Charging Stations

BOSTON (AP) -- One of New England's largest utility systems has applied for a federal grant to help build 575 stations to charge electric vehicles in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Northeast Utilities said Tuesday two of its companies expect the Department of Energy to decide by June on a grant to cover half of the project's estimated cost of nearly $1.4 million.
The Connecticut Light & Power Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company plan to build electric charging stations at homes, workplaces and publicly accessible sites in their service territories over the next two years.
Spokesman Al Lara says the stations would help the region adopt the next generation of vehicles, and help the company assess the impact of electric cars on its distribution system.

The Bonn Climate Talks- Leading Up to Copenhaegan

On Thin Ice

The Arctic sea ice cover is shrinkin as well as getting thinner, according to satellite measurements and other data released yesterday, providing further evidence that the region is warming faster than expected.

Mortgaging our Energy System

I saw a republican pundit, on Bill Maher this week say we can't have solar or wind because it's ten times more than coal.  

What I don't get is, we have mortgages to pay for homes that are more than ten times what people can afford, the bonus, after you pay it, it's yours forever, and you can pretty much not have to pay that fee ever again.  Why can't we do that for energy.  Use the mortgage system to build an independent energy future.  Use the mortgage concept to build  Solar or wind.  

It wouldn't even have to be pay more now, than it's yours forever, why because it's renewable you don't have to continue to find the energy source.  If you price that in, why should you have to pay more?

So I propose we pay for our energy system as if we were buying, not renting.  It's the best deal for the long haul.  

Much like a home has taxes and fees for upkeep, our energy system would have the same type of fees.  What I'm wondering is that if solar and wind is in fact 10 times more, why can we pay for it in installment plans, and know that once economies of scale and the initial investment come in to play it's going to be a hell of a lot less.