Finally.
This echoes exactly what Stephen Gardner said at the Florida Rail Conference.
The implications of this type of thinking are literally world changing.
QuoteThe next phase of the climate change debate began Tuesday morning in the Senate, but with a big piece missing. The heads of all the relevant government agencies were in attendance at the environment committee hearing except for one: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
LaHood was also left off the guest list at the banking subcommittee hearing that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) called specifically to address concerns that transportation, which accounts for more than 30 percent of all emissions, is being left out of the climate bill debate.
"In my view, the Department of Transportation needs to be at the table," Menendez told the Huffington Post Tuesday afternoon, referring to the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing as well as the broader Senate debate. "One of the elements of this is clearly finding the right mix of mass transit and planning. They already have the expertise which would otherwise have to be created independently."
[UPDATE: A senior staffer for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told the Huffington Post that in lieu of his appearance Tuesday, Lahood is scheduled to appear at a transportation-focused EPW hearing next week. "We consider transportation a top priority," the staffer said.]
The Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which narrowly passed the House late last month, delegates authority on fuel efficiency standards to the White House and an electric vehicle grid to the Energy Department and the EPA. It does little to address transportation emissions directly, however, and Menendez wants the Senate version of the bill to correct that omission.
"Transportation accounts for nearly one-third of our emissions and yet it does not appear to be on Congress's radar screen as one third of the solution," Menendez said at the banking subcommittee hearing. "If we do not provide substantial resources in the Senate's comprehensive climate bill to fund clean transportation infrastructure projects and incentivize sensible land use policies around those projects, then we will fail to adequately address emissions reduction in the transportation sector."
That would be a mistake, say environmental advocates. Transportation emissions are responsible for 47 percent of the net increase in total U.S. emissions between 1990 and 2003 -- growing faster than any other U.S. source of greenhouse gases, according to the Department of Energy -- and the department expects transportation energy use to have increased 48 percent between 2003 and 2025.
Transportation is the largest end-use source of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, even without including emissions generated from manufacturing the vehicles or extracting and refining their fuel.
Story continues below
Additional funding for the Federal Transit Administration and greater local and regional planning is necessary to cut total vehicle miles traveled, Menendez said, noting that the FTA has $400 billion worth of projects on the books but can only spend $1.5 billion per year.
But it's the incentives that are the root of the problem, said Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis.
"Most of the funding is tied to vehicle use and population and a few other factors, so right now if you increase vehicle use you get more money." Sperling said. "Waxman-Markey has nothing to do with vehicle usage essentially, and that's a problem."
Pricing is one way to moderate vehicle usage, Sperling said, but additional land-use controls and improved public transit services -- more stations and stops, for example -- are just as important.
Sierra Club spokeswoman Ann Mesnikoff said Waxman-Markey and Obama's new fuel efficiency standards are good steps. Like Menendez, however, she said meaningful climate change legislation can't ignore LaHood's department.
"It's important that the climate bill recognizes the importance of transportation," she said. "We need to have a comprehensive policy in the climate bill that will deal with transportation effectively
So this little group of politicians in D.C. believes that they can use "pricing" (I think that means taxes) and "additional land use controls" (government telling private parties what they can do with their land, or just taking the land) as well as "improved public transit services" (trains and buses? And the laws to MAKE you ride em) and of course the grand new fuel efficiency standards ( lighter built cars with much smaller engines, and trucks are just legislated away. The government says so) to control "global warming"? Who are these people? Does anyone really think this is good? Who gave the Feds the authority to do any of this?
Our current transportation funding system (gas tax) doesn't work...first off, its a set price instead of being indexed to inlfation or even a % (like sales tax)...secondly, more fuel efficient vehicles (a good thing) leads to less gas tax revenue (a bad thing)...but "Pricing" is the perfect example of a user fee....the more you drive, the more you should pay.
I'm ok with paying for the highways, but "pricing/taxing" here is being used to alter behaviour. This is not the role of government. There is no constitutional authorization for any of this.
As long as the constitution does not say that it IS unconstitutinal, then it IS constitutional, as long as it is enacted by the democratically elected represenatives of the people.
A constitution is a broad outline of the framework of a governemnt, it is never intended to detail every aspect of what the said government does and does not do. Social Security is not mentioned in the constitution, does that make it unconstitutional?
QuoteSocial Security is not mentioned in the constitution, does that make it unconstitutional?
Many argue... yes!
QuoteMY TURN | Universal Health Care Is Implicit in Constitution
I understand the Constitution as a social contract, and as in any contract, there are rights, benefits, and responsibilities assumed by all the parties.
The Founding Fathers were very wise in that they purposefully did NOT list every right given to man. The 9th amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.†Furthermore, the preamble to the Constitution speaks of forming a “more perfect Union,†not “the†perfect union, implying that the Constitution left some things unwritten, and should be expanded in the future.
The preamble of the Constitution also lists purposes of our government’s existence: to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.†These are the benefits we receive in exchange for certain responsibilities which include following and upholding the law, and paying our taxes.
In regard to the health care debate, we must ask whether it “establishes Justice†that 46 million people do not currently have health insurance. We must ask whether denying coverage to the sick “insures domestic Tranquility.†We must ask whether “the general Welfare†is promoted by allowing people to show up in the emergency room with costly conditions that could have been prevented. I believe the answers to these are an emphatic no, no, and no!
Universal health care is both a benefit and an individual responsibility that exists implicitly in the Constitution and ought to be formally defined through legislation.
Jayson Osborne
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/jul/07/my-turn-universal-health-care-is-implicit-in/
WOW! Has anyone here actually studied US history? The US Constitution was written to SPECIFICALLY LIMIT the role of the national government. "If it is not mentioned in the Contitution, it is Constitutional" ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!? The Founding Fathers would throw up if they were presented with Social Security. Read the history of that particular boondoggle, and the manipulations that FDR went through to get it established. For God's sake folks, read a history book and understand what your government is SUPPOSED to do.
Faye, I am not particularly opposed to government health care, if that is the will of the people. But it should be a state issue. Again, read the US Constitution, esp. the 10th ammendment.
"We must ask whether denying coverage to the sick “insures domestic Tranquility.†We must ask whether “the general Welfare†is promoted by allowing people to show up in the emergency room with costly conditions that could have been prevented. I believe the answers to these are an emphatic no, no, and no!10th amendment please, its pretty specific"
Thats delightful, anything can be justified by those comments. You have a mercedes and I drive a kia, "ensure domestic tranquility and what about my general welfare" I want a mercedes and I want it NOW! The one has ordained it! I strongly recommend reading the 10th amendment !!! ;)