The IATA has announced industry goals for carbon neutral growth by 2020, and a 50% absolute reduction in emissions by 2050, with a little help from their friends: their service providers, fuel companies, and the world's governments, whose cooperation on cap-and-trade schemes would be needed.  The IATA's statement reads like a riposte to widespread criticism, often from politicians, that paint the industry as a leading climate villain, while simultaneously challenging the world's politicians to enact serious cap-and-trade legislation.

• 0 Comments

In light of President Obama's call for US development of the world's fastest trains, Slate discusses the degeneration of US rail travel since the early 20th Century. 

From old train timetables, an indication of the current state of the industry:

"[The] Montreal Limited, for example, circa 1942, would pull out of New York's Grand Central Station at 11:15 p.m., arriving at Montreal's (now defunct) Windsor Station at 8:25 a.m., a little more than nine hours later. To make that journey today, from New York's Penn Station on the Adirondack, requires a nearly 12-hour ride. The trip from Chicago to Minneapolis via the Olympian Hiawatha in the 1950s took about four and a half hours; today, via Amtrak's Empire Builder, the journey is more than eight hours. Going from Brattleboro, Vt., to New York City on the Boston and Maine Railroad's Washingtonian took less than five hours in 1938; today, Amtrak's Vermonter (the only option) takes six hours—if it's on time, which it isn't, nearly 75 percent of the time."

It will be interesting to see whether there is political and popular will to recreate America's railways as a viable alternative to cars.  Of course, for vast stretches of the US, automobiles will probably always be the best transportation option, but for densely populated areas, there's no reason that trains couldn't compete with cars--and planes--as a speedier, greener (if done right), less-hasselsome option, both for commuting and longer distances.  And, of course, it would provide a new lease on life for train geeks around the country, who are currently largely reduced to, say, poring over old schedules and fantasizing over how cool a high-speed network would be...

• 1 Comment

The way I see it there are 3 ways that technology rapidly advances:

1) Greed - Somebody is going to make oodles of money if…

2) Space - “How the heck are we gonna win this here space race?”

3) War - “How do we kill more of them and save more of us?”

Let’s think about this in terms of our quest for alternative fuels.

Since we’re not launching poop-powered rockets into space…yet. And the green revolution has yet to fully evolve. War might be our best hope. (That’s a sentence I never thought I’d ever write.)

Consider this piece in the Washington Post:

“Every time you bring a gallon of fuel forward, you have to send a convoy,” said Alan R. Shaffer, director of defense research and engineering at the Pentagon. “That puts people’s lives at risk.”

Spurred by this grim reality, the Pentagon, which traditionally has not made saving energy much of a priority, has launched initiatives to find alternative fuel sources. The goals include saving money, preserving dwindling natural resources and lessening U.S. dependence on foreign sources.

“The honest-to-God truth, the most compelling reason to do it is it saves lives,” said Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, director of operations and logistics for the Army. “It takes drivers off the road.”

And because turning water to wine is so B.C…

Two prototypes — known as the Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery — were deployed to Iraq in the summer and were initially successful, converting field waste — paper, plastic, cardboard and food slop — into biofuel to power a 60-kilowatt generator. “We were able to get oil out of trash,” Shaffer said.

Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery…Cool!

• 1 Comment

Joel Makower says it's time to rethink the hallowed place of the car in American and other societies.  I couldn't agree more.  His recent post on this topic had me jumping up and down at my desk, saying "yes, yes, yes."

"Consider: It's become dogma in the United States and other developed and developing countries that "Cars give us freedom." Entire generations of Americans have been reared on that assumption. Detroit was built on it.

But cars are a burden: You have to purchase them, maintain them, fuel them, park them, and insure them. If you live in a city and lack a garage, the challenges and costs multiply. They're expensive and a hassle, and they sit idle 95 percent of the time. When you actually use them, there's the challenge of getting around on ever-congested streets and highways. Not exactly "freedom."

What gives us freedom isn't cars, but mobility, the ability to go where and when you want in the way that's most appropriate and affordable for your needs and style. That's true at every point on the economic spectrum. Indeed, in emerging economies, mobility is a prerequisite to sustainability. When people can move freely from hither to yon, they're better able to have a job, trade goods, seek an education, obtain health care, perhaps even explore other places to broaden their horizons."

I gave up my Jeep Cherokee when I moved to Manhattan several years ago.  I hadn't planned to get rid of it before the move, but quickly found it was more of a burden than a boon once I'd settled in.  That was in 2001.  I haven't had a car since and haven't missed it one bit. 

For vast portions of the US, cars will probably remain the only viable mode of transport, possibly forever.  In the mind-boggling expanses of the West, where population density is very low, public forms of transit have a kind of bridge-to-nowhere quality.  But in--and in between-- the nation's cities, towns, suburbs and exurbs, cars aren't necessarily the most logical transportation choice.

• 2 Comments

Phil Bridge of Sheffield University has invented a £15 bicycle that is made out of industrial-grade cardboard.

However, surely the point of sustainable transit is to buy one thing that will last a long time rather than something that you have to buy again and again every sixth month, which isn't that sustainable anyway? All of the energy that is used to recycle and remake these bikes, can be used to make a bike that will last twenty years or longer, and this could save much more energy (remember that reuse is better than recycling and reduce is better than reuse). A longer-lasting bike will reduce and reuse.

• 0 Comments

Federal Express has declared that it will be forced to cancel a multi-billion dollar contract for cargo planes with Boeing if it becomes subject to union organization.   The Teamsters, likely to be the key union in question, contend Fed Ex is trying to blackmail Congress by threatening further economic instability at a critical time.  

WSJ: "At issue is a bill approved March 5 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that could take away a key advantage FedEx has over UPS. Because Memphis-based FedEx was formed in the 1970s as an airline, it came under the jurisdiction of the railway act, which was written decades earlier to limit commerce-crippling strikes at railroad companies. The law complicates union organizing by requiring company-wide employee votes on labor representation.

UPS, which began as a trucking company before the era of large scale commercial aviation, is governed under the National Labor Relations Act, which allows unions to organize companies on a location-by-location basis.

The bill, co-sponsored by House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., is part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. A nearly identical bill passed the House in 2007 but died in the Senate.

"That's huffing and puffing, that's all that is," said Rep. Oberstar, in response to FedEx."

• 1 Comment

With the post-Kyoto carbon emissions regime coming up for negotiation with a willing US government, the Guardian maps out the lobbying terrain.

"If the stage is now set for the climate battle to begin, there is no shortage of combatants. A Center for Public Integrity analysis shows that, by the end of last year, more than 770 companies and interest groups had hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change. That's an increase of more than 300 percent in just five years, and means that Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress."

• 0 Comments

• 0 Comments

• 1 Comment

• 1 Comment