Tar Sands Collage - cc Jungbim

House Republicans, who control the U.S. House of Representatives, are launching a massive assault on the environment.  Their latest five-year transportation bills would eliminate funding for mass transit, high-speed rail, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements, decrease funding for Amtrak, and expedite environmental reviews of proposed oil and gas drilling projects.  It would also permit drilling off the shores of California, the East Coast, and Florida.

That’s because Republicans are pretending that Americans can domestically drill their way out of dependence on foreign oil, that climate change is not real – or if it is, it is not caused by human behavior, or it will be good for the planet – and that returning the economy to good health is all about sustaining an industrial way of life based on fossil fuels.

Environmental organizations and transit advocates are crying foul – but not to worry.  The bills have no chance of passing in their current forms, as the U.S. Senate is still controlled by Democrats, and Democratic President Barack Obama would be sure to veto it.

While the bills are likely to change (the original bill, H.R. 7, has been split into multiple parts), right now they underscore the fact that Republicans – and many Democrats – are almost wholly-owned by the energy industry and Tea Party allies.  Tea Partiers have started to organize in their communities in defense of the energy-intensive American way of life that former President George H. W. Bush once called ‘not negotiable.’  These Tea Partiers, some of whom may in fact receive funding from the energy industry, attend meetings in which local land use and transportation policies to address climate change are discussed.  In general, they testify against policies that they think may force people from their suburban homes into what they fear may be ‘stack and pack’ communities around transit hubs.

Ideologically, Republican candidates for president have joined them.  One candidate, former US Senator Rick Santorum, has called global warming ‘political science,’ not climate science; and with gasoline prices already on the increase, months before the start of summer when they traditionally go up, another Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, has started to campaign on a pledge to force gasoline prices down to $2.00 a gallon, should he win, through increased domestic drilling for oil.

The Keystone Pipeline

Meanwhile, environmentalists have been organizing to oppose plans for expanded domestic drilling and the proposed Keystone Pipeline.  The Keystone Pipeline would bring oil from the tar sands of northern Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast in Texas for resale on the international market.  Controversial climate scientist James Hansen has said construction of the pipeline would mean ‘game over’ for efforts to stabilize the climate.

In January, President Obama rejected Republican efforts to force the US State Department to give the pipeline a green light, perhaps in part because a key 2008 supporter and fundraiser, Susie Tompkins Buell, has publicly announced her disenchantment with the president because of his positions on the environment.

Nonetheless TransCanada, the pipeline owner, says it will reapply for the permit, and congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to help.  In particular, Republicans are pulling the usual jobs-creation rabbit out of the hat – the pipeline will create anywhere from 20,000 to 250,000 jobs they say.  But the number of jobs the pipeline will create is in dispute: some studies say the number of jobs created could be as low as 500.

And none of them, we know, would be about creating a truly sustainable economy or even lowering the price of a gallon of gasoline.

New Auto Emissions and MPG Standards

At a late January meeting in San Francisco, California, held by officials with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), testimony was heard about new national proposed greenhouse gas emission standards and new corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFÉ) for automobiles.

The proposals would apply to passenger cars and light-duty trucks and, finally, Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), which have frequently been left out of prior efforts at regulation, setting national fleet-wide averages of 163 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per mile and 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2025.  Right now, according to a December 2011 EPA report, American cars emit on average 423 grams of CO2 per passenger mile and get on average 21 MPG.  The new standards, according to the EPA and NHTSA, will save 1.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2030 (currently Americans use about 8 million per day) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of the emissions of 474 coal-fired power plants.

Several environmental organizations, including the nation’s oldest the Sierra Club, are on board in support of the new proposals as are a host of auto manufacturers. However, the Sierra Club remains concerned that the proposed standards include a loophole in which manufacturers will be able to treat electric vehicles (EVs) as zero emissions vehicles.  It is true that EVs emit no emissions while in operation – but when they are at rest, the power plants that generate the electricity to recharge their batteries do produce emissions, and it is this loophole that the Sierra Club seeks to close.

In addition, David Dempsey, a professor of meteorology at San Francisco State University, testifying about the unknown costs of driving induced climate change to California’s agriculture and forest industries, called the proposed standards “the next best thing” since “carbon taxes are not politically acceptable.”

Can You Say ‘Inefficient Use of Energy?’

Indeed, the federal gasoline tax remains at 18.4 cents per gallon, where it has been since 1993.  Without a switch to taxing per dollar of gasoline sales and a switch to a percentage based tax that is programmed to go up over time, given inflation and the fact that cars will become more fuel-efficient as the new CO2 and CAFÉ standards kick in, will Americans have incentives to decrease the amount that they drive?

Jeanne Rosenmeier, former treasurer of the Green Party of California and chair of the San Francisco Peak Oil Preparedness Report, recently authored an analysis of energy use in San Francisco.  She noted that nearly half of all energy used in San Francisco is for transportation purposes, though only two percent is used to power three systems of mass transit – combined – that traverse the city.  Rosenmeier asks the question: “Can you say ‘inefficient use of energy?’” and then asks, “How about ‘plenty of room for improvement?’”

—  Susan Vaughan is a bicyclist living in San Francisco, California.

Cycling is healthy, compared with driving. Everyone knows that, even the most high-octane petrol head. This might not matter much if transportation were a marginal activity that took up only a very small part of people’s time and the world’s resources. But the trend all over the world is toward less physical activity, more driving and consequently worse health, primarily through obesity and pollution. Car driving is only one factor in this, but a very important one.

Then there are road deaths and injuries. The World Health Organisation (WHO), in its Global Status Report on Road Safety, 2009, predicts that deaths in road traffic will increase from 1.2 million per year (the ninth biggest cause) now to 2.4 million per year (the fifth biggest cause) in 2030. In 2007, road accidents cost the UK’s National Health Service £470m a year and the UK economy £8bn a year; all money that could have been better spent.

A Major Killer

The pollution and lack of physical activity that cars entail contribute to most of the other major killers that the WHO identifies in the world today. We have collectively achieved extraordinary reductions in deaths from communicable diseases. But we seem unable to deal with the threat from cars, a prime cause of other preventable diseases, like coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancers which are affected directly by our habits. Our assessment of the health risk our lifestyle brings seems at fault, as though we are in denial.

Car driving has a still wider effect on health. Most deaths from road traffic injuries in most of the world, as calculated by the WHO in the report above, are not those of drivers but of vulnerable road users (cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians). The ill health from vehicle pollution disproportionately affects the world’s poor. Ultimately cars are contributing to climate change and so threatening the environment on which the health and well-being of all of us depend.

Medical care is a part of what determines health. The others are genetic, which can’t be changed, and environmental and societal, which can be changed, for better or worse. Car culture damages many of them: social support networks and an environment safe from pollution and the threat of injury, that offers the opportunity to be physically active.

If we are aware of its adverse health consequences, why does car culture have such a hold? Why, for many individuals, can it seem like an addiction? How has it become a pandemic? And what can we do about it?

A Complex Phenomenon

There is no single answer. Most of the relevant responses are perspectives on what car culture is. It’s seen as an ideology; a belief system; economics; disease, and habit. If we are to tackle it, we should first recognise it is a multi-faceted phenomenon that operates at many levels that reinforce each other. If we are to make any impact on any one aspect of it, for example if health agencies want to lessen its adverse health impact, we have to tackle it at all levels.

It would be useful to look at the ways through which other preventable health emergencies have been addressed. Since 1945 many major communicable diseases have been curbed. Recently there has been success on banning smoking in the west/north. None of these issues was a disease requiring a purely medical response.

Attitudes to smoking have changed in a generation. Where smoking was the norm for most adults and exposure an accepted part of everyday life, things are now very different. Many states, all receiving tax revenue for cigarettes legitimately sold and some profiting from a monopoly of domestic tobacco manufacturing, have tried to dissuade people from smoking for health reasons. Their motives are not only altruistic. The cost for dealing with smoking related disease is gigantic.

And all this has been achieved despite tobacco advertising, partly because this has often been restricted since the 1960s. The popular view of smoking has changed. In many places, it is now socially and legally unacceptable to smoke in public places including workplaces.

Just some of the lessons for addressing car culture are:

1. Seemingly entrenched attitudes can change. Think how the Dutch increased their cycling in the 1970s as a result of government action (see Lyn Sloman’s Car Sick, Green Books, 2006, p. 98).
2. Legislation can help persuade people to change behaviour, but can’t work on its own.
3. Political will is crucial. Governments want economic growth and car manufacture is seen as a keystone of national economies. So challenging the car industry is not an option for most governments. This article is written during the UK’s general election campaign. All major parties firmly agree on the need to boost economic growth, including through the car industry.
4. Influencing people through the media can be effective. Both advertisers and public health specialists can make a difference.

These lessons can help us to frame different responses to match the many aspects of car culture. Perhaps the most important changes need to be made in people’s minds.

Incentives and Disincentives

At the economic level there is a wide range of incentives and disincentives to persuade people to change modes of transport: improvements to public transport and better conditions for pedestrians and cyclists as well as taxation, congestion charging and carbon rationing. Other economic issues, like car ownership (and the low extra marginal costs of using cars), need to be addressed. In democratic states it is also important to spread awareness of the financial costs the car manufacturers currently externalise from their balance sheets, obliging the state to pick up: especially in the costs of treating preventable disease, transport infrastructure and more. Wouldn’t we rather be able to spend this on something else?

Another area of influencing people is advertising itself. Car culture is constantly reinforced by the auto industry’s advertising and its power is enormous, much stronger than the tobacco industry’s ever was.

The car industry would no doubt argue, as tobacco companies do, that they do not aim to increase the total number of people buying cars, merely to increase their company’s market share. It is true that there are many other ways in which car culture recruits converts, from children’s (especially boys’) toys, to popular magazines on cars and dedicated TV programmes. As commercial products, they exist because of demand for them. But they are, with car advertising, the everyday means by which car culture is stimulated.

The “Nudge” Effect

A related avenue for influencing people is the “nudge” effect (Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge, Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, Penguin, 2009). While preserving people’s right to choose an unhealthy option, “nudging” designs the way people are offered choices so, unless they have strong feelings, they are more likely to choose the healthy option. Examples include British local authorities successfully nudging people to switch from cars (see www.smartertravelsutton.org).

Public health campaigning can guide us in choosing messages. Studies show people may resolve to change health-related behaviour in response to shocking or shaming messages at times. But people are more likely to respond to encouraging, practical messages to help them deal with practical problems that could otherwise make them go back to their old ways. (See Geoff Mulgan, Influencing Public Behaviour to Improve Health and Wellbeing, an independent report, 2010.)

The treatment of addiction also offers models for influencing individual car addicts. Here are just a few of the many parallels between addiction and car culture:

• a pleasure-seeking risk-taking activity
• dependency that is both psychological (we believe we can’t do without it) and physical (poor health such as obesity, engendered by cars, makes us more dependent on them)
• denial about the scale of the problem
• withdrawal symptoms – what else are the stress and road rage associated with being stuck in traffic?

A “Natural Right”?

Finally, one of our core beliefs about car driving is that it is a “natural right.” Hence we encounter deep-seated attitudes, for instance that drivers have a right to use roads as they please, and to fuel at what they define as an affordable price. These are reinforced by advertising and other transmitters of car culture: the car lobbying organisations and media. But we know that such attitudes are not universal. Lyn Sloman (op. cit. p. 56) explains car drivers are not all unshakeable in their “addiction.” She cites evidence that around half of all car drivers would need little incentive to cut their car use. Different means might be needed to change other drivers’ behaviour; but already car culture does not seem as monolithic as before.

This article’s thumbnail picture of some possible responses only skims the surface of the subject. The key is to get a better understanding of how varied car culture is. This calls for that most difficult of tasks: looking at what we take for granted everyday and questioning it.

Roger Bysouth works in local government in the UK and is a freelance writer and illustrator. He owns one bike and has a Brompton on order, via his employer’s tax-free cycle loan scheme.

Follow the Money…

On February 1, president Obama unveiled his Fiscal Year 2011 US$3.8 trillion budget. Sustainable transportation activists saw some reason to celebrate: out of US$6.7 billion dedicated to transportation, US$530 million was allocated to the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a programme aimed to enhance metropolitan affordable housing and transportation connections. Obama has also set aside US$1 billion for high-speed rail (HSR), adding to the US$8 billion that went to HSR from last year’s US$787 billion stimulus measure, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). And on February 17 the administration announced the winners for US$1.5 billion in another part of the ARRA, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) awards. Highway projects received 23% of funding, while rail projects won 19%, transit projects 26%, ports 7%, and multimodal projects received 25%.

“I think this administration has given the signal that it’s serious about making communities livable,” said Caron Whitaker, campaign director for the advocacy organisation America Bikes. “It’s serious about biking and walking.”

Construction and Cars versus Operations

Still, the amount of money being dedicated to any kind of transportation revolution is small. One of the largest single recipients of ARRA money in the country is the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, a US$420 million project to relieve congestion on a California highway that carries about 160,000 vehicles daily. The Department of Transportation (DoT) has awarded US$197.5 million in ARRA money to the project. The rebuild of a highway from the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco has also received stimulus money – US$122 million – and then an additional US$46 milion in TIGER funds. And those are just two out of many highway construction projects that received ARRA funding.

Add to those figures last year’s US$3 billion Cash for Clunkers programme, in which consumers traded in old gas guzzlers for new, slightly more fuel efficient cars, and the combined US$52 million that General Motors has received in the form of loans and the taxpayer purchase of 60% of its stock. Then compare this amount to US$114 million: the projected deficit for the San Francisco public transportation system – which carries about 700,000 passengers daily – over the next two years. In order to eliminate that deficit, the agency may cut service by 10%. (SamTrans, the transit agency south of San Francisco, has cut its service by 15% in order to close its budget gap.) Yet no – or very little – money goes from the federal government to transit operations. “It’s a matter of political will,” said Jim Berard, director of communications for the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

On February 12, San Francisco Bay Area transit advocates received a sign that this political will may be emerging: the Federal Transit Administration announced it would deny US$70 million for a rail extension to the Oakland Airport. The money that would have gone to construct a project widely considered a boondoggle will, instead, be divided among the region’s ailing transit agencies for maintenance.

Congress

Meanwhile in the House and the Senate, the US$500 billion renewal of the 2005 Surface Transportation Bill languishes. “The big issue,” said Berard, “is how we’re going to pay for it.”

According to Berard, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure James Oberstar (D-Minnesota) has recommended an increased federal gasoline tax (now 18.4 cents), which has not gone up since 1993. Another possibility is taxing people based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). But both these revenue-generating measures come with problems. People are buying more fuel-efficient cars, thus lowering what lawmakers can expect to generate from a gas tax; and both gasoline and VMT taxes depend on people doing something that good transportation policy seeks to discourage: driving.

In lieu of the stalled transportation bill, the House passed a job creation bill in December. “Ten percent of the transportation money in the bill will go towards operations,” said Matt Lewis, transportation staff writer for the Center for Public Integrity. “At the forefront is the idea that saving a job that is going to be cut is just as good as creating a job through a capital project.”

Susan Vaughan is a San Francisco bicyclist, gardener, artist and public transportation activist in search of that most elusive of all luxuries: free time. She also occasionally maintains the blog Car-Free Talk.

The schemes have generally been presented as pro-environment, often with names like the Austrian “Okopramie” (Eco Premium). There is at least some evidence to back up the green claims:  In the US, for example, in the month the scheme ran, the top trade-in was the Ford Explorer 4Wheel Drive; while the Toyota Corolla and the hybrid Prius were top-sellers, luxury car sales plummeted. Compared with a year before, 18% fewer BMWs sold in the US in August, the month of most “cash for clunkers” transactions. In the same month, Ford sales were 17% higher than in August 2008. But not thanks to their gas guzzlers.

The issue of when it becomes environmentally beneficial to scrap a car is hotly contested. Professor Baback Yazdani, Dean of Nottingham Business School, UK, suggests that when an average car reaches four to six years old, its emissions make it greener to invest in a new car. Others argue it is never green to replace a roadworthy car with another car.  Willem Buiter, Professor of European Political Economy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and no environmentalist, wrote: “It’s like being paid to burn down your house to encourage the residential construction industry”.

Professor Buiter and others make another point. If the schemes are short term, then people will probably buy sooner than they might otherwise. So after the scheme ends, sales will fall. This briefly delays bankruptcies and unemployment, but it does not effectively protect the car industry.  If governments fund the schemes long term, then demand might stay artificially high – good for the car industry, but worse for the planet. And it would mean a new form of protectionism. Protecting national car industries has always been the primary aim of the scrappage schemes. Governments reason that the recession risks destroying car industries so that “when” prosperity returns there will not be the capacity to take advantage. Governments also get more tax revenue from a prosperous economy.

It’s taken for granted that the car industry is an essential part of national economies. As the Managing Director of Nissan UK, Paul Willcox, said when the UK extended its scheme, it “has rightfully placed the car industry at the top of the economic agenda where it belongs”. And President Sarkozy promised, “La France ne laissera pas tomber son industrie automobile”(France won’t give up its car industry). As one country adopted a scheme, others felt they could not be left behind.

Keynes said in an economic downturn there could be a “liquidity trap”. Consumers may stop spending because they fear recession. Demand falls; bankruptcy and unemployment rise. Demand falls further, so governments want us to spend our way out of recession.

Much of the opposition to scrappage schemes comes from the right. They argue the state should not take on more power and interfere in markets. This would at least be consistent with their approach to other industries in decline. A taxpayer does not have a choice about supporting the car industry and may never want to or be able to benefit from the scrappage scheme. These arguments are similar to what might be heard from many carbusters, who could find themselves with some very strange bedfellows in the coming months. Why should we all subsidise an industry which damages the planet? Would resources not be better used in unhooking us from dependence?

Some of the schemes point to how they could be applied in a truly green way. The Canadian scheme “Retire Your Ride” offers cash in exchange for an old car, or alternatives like a bicycle, public transport pass or membership of a car sharing scheme. Here perhaps is a model that can be developed, along with employers’ incentives as in Belgium, Britain and Holland that encourage cycling. These schemes, coupled with a movement towards more sustainable production in the auto industry, and the kind of “green new deal” John Urry outlined in Carbusters #39, could be the key to help individuals and the economy kick their car habit.

article and illustration by Roger Bysouth

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Early in his administration Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – a US$787 billion stimulus bill, US$48.2 billion of which will go towards transportation. Most of that – US$27.5 billion – is dedicated to highways and bridges. The rest gets distributed to various mass transit systems, with almost US$10 billion for state and local public transportation – but only capital projects.

Buried in the ARRA is the US$1 billion “Cash for Clunkers” programme in which car owners with vehicles that get 18 miles per gallon (mpg) or less can exchange their gas guzzlers for US$4,500 towards the purchase of a new vehicle that gets at least 22 mpg. Some environmentalists, however, see this programme as a handout to automakers, rather than a serious way to tackle foreign oil dependence, climate change, or any one of the other dire problems associated with car dependence.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)

In mid-May, the Obama administration announced new automobile fuel economy standards, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), which call for improvements of 5% every year – standards that will require that cars achieve 39 mpg and light trucks 30 mpg by 2016, 40% more efficient than cars are now. The new CAFE standards underscore the irrelevancy of the Cash for Clunkers program, but have their own weaknesses: sport utility vehicles, or SUVs, those humongous gas guzzlers long the favourites of families, have always been classified as “light trucks”. These new mandates also leave the American fleet at 2 mpg lower than the European fleet.

California Waiver

In June, the Obama administration reversed Bush administration policy by granting waivers long sought by California and 13 other states to set auto emission standards higher than national ones. Those emission standards will be higher for about two years – when the new national CAFE standards start to kick in.

American Clean Energy and Security Act

Passed by the House of Representatives in June, the American Clean Energy and Security Act addresses greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, but it overrides the United States Clean Air Act by permitting the construction of new coal-fired power plants for up to a decade with no additional emission reduction requirements. According to Auto Glass and Insurance Industry News, if the bill passes, the US Secretary of Energy would have to create a large-scale plug-in programme and assist car manufacturers financially in their transition to producing electric vehicles.

Surface Transportation Bill

Work has begun on a half trillion-dollar reauthorisation of the 2005 Surface Transportation Bill. Currently the bill seeks to set aside nearly US$100 billion for public transit. However, in June the Obama administration announced its wish for an 18-month postponement, a decision that has been opposed by many. Jeff Mapes, news writer and author, surmises that Congress will have to raise taxes in order to pay for this bill and that perhaps the Obama administration is just not ready for it. “I do think Obama is interested in change”, says Mapes. “But it’s politically difficult to do… One can argue that the 18-month delay will give his transportation department time to craft a plan”.

GM and Chrysler

Obama appointed a “car czar” to tackle the collapse of auto giants General Motors (GM) and Chrysler. Under this czar, American taxpayers have become majority owners of GM and are likely to end up contributing US$50 billion for its transformation into a leaner manufacturer of smaller, more fuel efficient cars with fewer dealerships. Meantime, Chrysler got US$6.6 billion from the government to finance its exit from bankruptcy and its sale to Fiat. Many more billions in taxpayer dollars are likely to be funnelled to GM’s suppliers and financial supporters. In addition, now that Americans are majority owners of GM, congressmen and women are making efforts to keep dealerships in their own districts open.

GM and Chrysler “were both clearly failing enterprises and the bailouts were done just to… prevent massive numbers of unemployed [from hitting] the claims lines all at once”, says James Howard Kunstler, author of The Geography of Nowhere. “I doubt that they will survive in any recognisable form … Personally, I think the whole Happy Motoring paradigm is in its death throes, though most Americans don’t realise it”, he adds.

Does Obama realise it? That is hard to say. If he does, he may not be politically in a position to say so, and he certainly has not been heard calling for similar fuel taxes as in Europe.

By Susan Vaughan

“If the new administration doesn’t consider transportation for its climate and its energy impacts, then…ultimately we’ll have dire economic consequences,” said Randy Neufeld of the Chicago-based Active Transportation Alliance and president of the lobbying group America Bikes. The key, he said, is moving more federal funding into metropolitan areas for bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements. Right now, no one knows whether the Obama administration and the new Congress will do this, but environmentalists are studying the signs.

Change?

Within a week of his inauguration, Obama reversed a Bush administration executive order forbidding states – especially the state of California, which had passed a law to get it into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol – from regulating auto emissions. He is also permitting federal agencies to raise fuel efficiency standards.

But Obama’s big test will come with the US$825 billion stimulus package that should be ready for him to sign by mid-February. This package, the largest in American history, is intended to lift the national economy out of its malaise.

Sustainable transportation organisers have their own ideas for that bill – and for a transportation bill that may be voted on in the fall – but right now, they are struggling to get Congress to restore funding for local and regional mass transit agencies, funding that had been cut by late January to make way for tax cuts.

San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency alone, which records about 700,000 daily trips, is projected to be short US$90 million out of an annual budget of US$787 million this year. Transportation for America, a mass-transit lobbying group, is organising now to get money restored for transit agencies.

Signs of Hope

Nonetheless, many environmentalists are optimistic. During the campaign, said Jeffrey Miller, president of the Washington, DC- based Thunderhead Alliance for Biking and Walking, Obama talked about Safe Routes to School, the federal programme geared at increasing the number of children walking or bicycling to school. “He gets it and supports it,” said Miller.

Obama also pledged to have Americans getting 10% of their energy from renewable sources by the end of his first term, and to achieve a 15% reduction in electricity demand by the end of the next decade. In addition, he took Amtrak from Philadelphia to Washington, DC for his inauguration.

Balancing Change with Business as Usual

However, just as Obama was declaring victory in November, American auto company executives were lining up at the congressional trough, begging for handouts to keep their struggling industries in operation. Congress gave them nothing, but they did get a US$13.4 billion bailout from Bush, with another US$4 billion to come in February if needed. This lifeline has given Obama time to create a plan around the auto industry. But what kind of plan will he create?

Obama, a Democrat, has chosen former Republican Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood to be transportation secretary. He has also chosen Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, to be agriculture secretary, and Steven Chu, the former head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to be his energy secretary. Through these appointments, Obama may be indicating his support for ethanol, a plant-based alternative to petroleum: Iowa and Illinois are two big growers of corn for ethanol, and Chu has voiced support for cellulosic ethanol.

But, for many sustainable living advocates, ethanol can enrich agribusinesses, yet it is unlikely to give Americans the “energy return on energy invested” that they are used to from oil, natural gas and coal, especially without seriously impacting soil health and world food supplies. Ethanol “doesn’t really address the core energy issue in terms of using less,” said Neufeld. “I think conservation is where it’s at.”

Wish Lists

In the interests of conservation, sustainable transportation activists have wish lists. “I would like an incremental downsizing of the highway system, and an upsizing of the rail system,” said San Francisco State geography professor and bicycle activist Jason Henderson.

Henderson would like Obama to give “fireside chats” like those given by president Franklin De- lano Roosevelt. “Americans could save energy,” said Henderson, “if Obama told Americans, ‘We gotta slow down. ’Otherwise we’re going to go medieval. Al Gore told us we had 10 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

As to the transportation bill that should now be in the works in Congress, said Caron Whitaker, campaign director for America Bikes, “We need…to build a green infrastructure and active public transportation systems.” Such a system would ensure networks for bicycle and walking in every community, and safe routes to transit stops, schools, and shopping centres for everyone from school-age children to seniors.

By Susan Vaughan