|

Will Motor Vehicles Continue to be our Only Access to the Mountains?

How will continued I-70 Highway Expansion help reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Cars By The Numbers
Statistics on automobiles and their global warming contribution
Posted on: 03/20/2007
Automobile emissions account for more than 20 percent of U.S. global warming emissions each year. Car companies could do more and it's time that they do. Check out our facts about cars and global warming and then take action.
232 Million Number of registered vehicles in the U.S. That's almost one per person!
600 Gallons Average amount of gasoline consumed by one U.S. car each year.
12,000 Pounds Amount of carbon dioxide emitted from one U.S. car each year.
240 Number of trees needed to absorb the 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emitted from one U.S. car each year.
2.7 Trillion Number of miles U.S. cars and light trucks traveled in 2004. That's the equivalent of taking 10 million trips to the moon.
5% Percent U.S. population is of the world population.
30% Percent of world's automobiles in the United States.
45% Percent that the United States contributes to the world's automotive carbon dioxide emissions.
4 Number of car companies that support a national cap on global warming pollution. They are Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota.
0 Number of bills passed by Congress to cut global warming pollution.
Sources: Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures 2006, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2005, Automotive News, The ABCs of CO2, Feb 5, 2007, NASA website, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks, Global Warming on the Road report, Energy and Commerce Hearing, Climate Change and Energy Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry

Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Problems Today
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions (primarily Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide) that contribute to global warming are largely a product of the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. Continued highway expansion of I-70 as promoted by CDOT in the I-70 PEIS, will only attract more motorists to Colorado's high country, increase greenhouse gas emissions and continue to contribute to global warming.

The 2006 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card, released in April 2006, cites a climate-trend model that shows that snow pack levels in Colorado could decline by as much as 82 percent in San Miguel County; 57 percent in Eagle County; 54 percent in Grand County; 50 percent in Summit, Routt and Gunnison counties; and 43 percent in Pitkin County by 2085 if the current global warming trend is not reversed. This would create such a short ski season, that ski areas couldn’t stay open long enough each year to be profitable.

It is ironic that CDOT leadership along with the big Ski Corporations in Colorado are pushing for additional I-70 highway capacity over more energy efficient and lower greenhouse gas emitting electric mass transit alternatives that could help reverse the current global warming trend and protect Colorado's tourism economy. CDOT's motto, "CDOT doesn't do transit" is an example of their remarkable vision and total lack of concern for global warming implications due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Human Health and Climate Change impacts for Colorado
Record high temperatures in the U.S. and Europe show health hazards of global warming. Heat waves cause large increases in sickness and death rates, with 2 to 3-fold increases over baseline levels in episodes.

Environmental Justice populations – elderly and low income – will be more impacted than others. In most U.S. cities, it is expected that heat waves will double in number by 2050. Nighttime minimum temperatures are rising twice as fast as overall warming. In July 1995, Chicago’s heat index peaked at a record high 119 F; 1177 deaths occurred, 85% more than in 1994. Some who had heat stroke but survived had long-term neurological effects. People with chronic illnesses were at greatest risk. Socioeconomic factors were involved: poor and socially isolated people without access to air conditioning were disproportionately affected.
Climate change also may affect cardio-respiratory disease, asthma and other health conditions:
(1) Higher levels of carbon dioxide increase pollens.
(2) Long high temperatures cause increased ozone
formation and temperature inversions that trap
air smog and particulate pollutants.
(3) Geographic ranges of diseases can change, and
higher minimum winter temperatures can bring
winter diseases vectors (e.g., ticks or mosquitoes)
formerly not found in winter.
Recommendation of this referenced study: “Developing alternatives to fossil fuels is fundamental for the protection of public health.” (Source: The Impacts Of Co2 And Climate Change On Public Health In The Inner City, Paul R. Epstein and Christine Rogers, the Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.)

Courtesy of World Architecture News
STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change
Summary of Conclusions
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.
The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat and it demands an urgent global response.

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.
So prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at national, regional and international level.
Climate change could have very serious impacts on growth and development.
If no action is taken to reduce emissions, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could reach double its pre-industrial level as early as 2035, virtually committing us to a global average temperature rise of over 2°C. In the longer term, there would be more than a 50% chance that the temperature rise would exceed 5°C. This rise would be very dangerous indeed; it is equivalent to the change in average temperatures from the last ice age to today. Such a radical change in the physical geography of the world must lead to major changes in the human geography – where people live and how they live their lives.
Even at more moderate levels of warming, all the evidence – from detailed studies of regional and sectoral impacts of changing weather patterns through to economic models of the global effects – shows that climate change will have serious impacts on world output, on human life and on the environment.
All countries will be affected. The most vulnerable – the poorest countries and populations – will suffer earliest and most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change. The costs of extreme weather, including floods, droughts and storms are already rising, including for rich countries.
Adaptation to climate change – that is, taking steps to build resilience and minimize costs – is essential. It is no longer possible to prevent the climate change that will take place over the next two to three decades, but it is still possible to protect our societies and economies from its impacts to some extent – for example, by providing better information, improved planning and more climate-resilient crops and infrastructure. Adaptation will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in developing countries alone, and will put still further pressure on already scarce resources. Adaptation efforts, particularly in developing countries, should be accelerated.
The costs of stabilizing the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly.
The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilized between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. Stabilization in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.
Ultimately, stabilization – at whatever level – requires that annual emissions be brought down to more than 80% below current levels.
This is a major challenge, but sustained long-term action can achieve it at costs that are low in comparison to the risks of inaction. Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilization between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now.
Costs could be even lower than that if there are major gains in efficiency, or if the strong co-benefits, for example from reduced air pollution, are measured. Costs will be higher if innovation in low-carbon technologies is slower than expected, or if policy-makers fail to make the most of economic instruments that allow emissions to be reduced whenever, wherever and however it is cheapest to do so.
It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilize at 450ppm CO2e. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilize at 500-550ppm CO2e may slip away.
Action on climate change is required across all countries, and it need not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.
The costs of taking action are not evenly distributed across sectors or around the world. Even if the rich world takes on responsibility for absolute cuts in emissions of 60-80% by 2050, developing countries must take significant action too. But developing countries should not be required to bear the full costs of this action alone, and they will not have to. Carbon markets in rich countries are already beginning to deliver flows of finance to support low-carbon development, including through the Clean Development Mechanism. A transformation of these flows is now required to support action on the scale required.
Action on climate change will also create significant business opportunities, as new markets are created in low-carbon energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services. These markets could grow to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year and employment in these sectors will expand accordingly.
The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. Changes in energy technologies and in the structure of economies have created opportunities to decouple growth from greenhouse gas
emissions. Indeed, ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth.
Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.
A range of options exists to cut emissions; strong, deliberate policy action is required to motivate their take-up.
Emissions can be cut through increased energy efficiency, changes in demand, and through adoption of clean power, heat and transport technologies. The power sector around the world would need to be at least 60% decarbonized by 2050 for atmospheric concentrations to stabilize at or below 550ppm CO2e, and deep emissions cuts will also be required in the transportation sector.
Even with very strong expansion of the use of renewable energy and other low-carbon energy sources, fossil fuels could still make up over half of global energy supply in 2050. Coal will continue to be important in the energy mix around the world, including in fast-growing economies. Extensive carbon capture and storage will be necessary to allow the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere.

Cuts in non-energy emissions, such as those resulting from deforestation and from agricultural and industrial processes are also essential.
With strong, deliberate policy choices, it is possible to reduce emissions in both developed and developing economies on the scale necessary for stabilization in the required range while continuing to grow.
Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen, and it interacts with other market imperfections. Three elements of policy are required for an effective global response. The first is the pricing of carbon, implemented through tax, trading or regulation. The second is policy to support innovation and the deployment of low-carbon technologies. And the third is action to remove barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change.
Climate change demands an international response, based on a shared understanding of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks for action.
Many countries and regions are taking action already: the EU, California and China are among those with the most ambitious policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol provide a basis for international co-operation, along with a range of partnerships and other approaches. But more ambitious action is now required around the world.
Countries facing diverse circumstances will use different approaches to make their contribution to tackling climate change. But action by individual countries is not enough. Each country, however large, is just a part of the problem. It is essential to create a shared international vision of long-term goals, and to build the international frameworks that will help each country to play its part in meeting these common goals.
Key elements of future international frameworks should include:
• Emissions trading: Expanding and linking the growing number of emissions trading schemes around the world is a powerful way to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and to bring forward action in developing countries. Strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.
• Technology cooperation: Informal co-ordination as well as formal agreements can boost the effectiveness of investments in innovation around the world. Globally, support for energy R&D should at least double, and support for the deployment of new low-carbon technologies should increase up to five-fold. International co-operation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency.
• Action to reduce deforestation: The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; large-scale international pilot programs to explore the best ways to do this could get underway very quickly.
• Adaptation: The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honor their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance. International funding should also support improved regional information on climate change impacts, and research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.

Fast Light Rail

Recent new figures on preliminary studies for the fast light rail system, now that the Mountains to Plains Transportations Solutions Group is espousing this project, are:
- Fast Light Rail Plan should provide for about 900 million person miles of travel annually on the rail system with a full system of central spine plus spurs to gaming and other ski resorts.
At one pound per mile carbon dioxide (CO2) emission weighted average of cars and light trucks*, and 2.4 persons per vehicle per Corridor studies, the rail passengers will remove 187,500 tons of CO2 that cars/trucks would produce in year 2026. If the rail system could be entirely powered with renewable energy, this 187,500 tons would be the net energy savings of direct energy for passenger travel. A full net energy analysis would add:
(1) the net of construction energy including materials for the highway and the rail
(2) the net of maintenance energy expenditure (repaving, snow removal, new automotive tunnel exhaust, etc)
(3) the energy in the life cycle from "womb to tomb" of the vehicles used in travel and maintenance
(4) the energy used to produce the fuels (if shale oil or ethanol from corn were the fuel, almost as much energy could go into producing the vehicle fuel as is yielded by the shale oil or ethanol as fuel, for example.) The 187,500 tons is a rough preliminary estimate at this point, and in the net energy context, is conservative.
Aspen Ski Company plans to use renewable energy for 100% of its electrical use: its 21,000 megawatt hours (MWh) purchase keeps 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, out of the atmosphere each year. Vail Resorts estimates the 152,000 megawatt hours of wind energy credits it will buy through a Colorado-based broker are equal to eliminating 211,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year. This is for their national system of five major resorts and sundry other properties. That is the equivalent of taking 18,000 cars off the road, the Vail Resorts press release said.
The I-70 rail system will equal about 8% of national Vail Resorts GHG reduction annually, and almost as much as the Aspen Ski Company will do, if the rail can also obtain 100% of its power from renewables as Vail and Aspen most laudably plan to do. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper states: We will construct solar and methane power plants capable of powering and heating the equivalent of more than 2,500 homes by 2007.
* References:
(1) CDOT-released FTA-funded Colorado Maglev Project Report, 2004
(2) Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9 No.3, 2006, National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida
(3) Net Energy Analysis: an Energy Balance Study of Fossil Fuel Resources, Colorado Energy Research Institute. The 1lb per vehicle mile does not assume any reduction in emissions per vehicle mile in 2026, and it is highly probable that reductions will occur, although the diminishing net energy yield of alternative fuels could offet this..
Win-Win Transportation Solutions

The National Academy of Sciences did its first rigorous global warming study in 1979. Panel members weren’t sure how long it would take for changes already set in motion to become manifest because the climate system has a built-in time delay. For this reason, what might seem like the most conservative approach—waiting for evidence of warming in order to assess the models’ accuracy—actually amounted to the riskiest possible strategy. “We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable,” they said. (Excerpts: “THE CLIMATE OF MAN-I” by Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker, 4/25/05.)
Forecasting the future remains a contentious exercise. “Most Scientists … have only recently been able to approach a basic agreement about our changing climate. First, the Earth has gotten warmer. Since 1850, average global temperatures have risen about .6 degrees Celsius, the United Nations says. Greenhouse gases (“GHG”) such as carbon dioxide released by humans burning fossil fuels and clearing land are the likely culprits.” (Michael Coren CNN Friday, April 8, 2005).
Carbon Dioxide levels have been fluctuating up and down within limits for 400,000 years until the Industrial Revolution — about 1800 — then skyrocketing well beyond the former stabilizing limits.
Warming triggers some processes that are “positive” feedbacks and which speed further warming, and others - "negative” feedbacks - which mitigate it. The balance between positive and negative feedbacks is a major cause of uncertainty in climate predictions. There is concern that these are or may soon become out of balance, with positive feedback overwhelming any negative and stabilizing feedback.
Climate Disruption Is Under Way In the West
The scientific community now accepts that human activities are changing climates. In Colorado, climate disruption is under way. There will be more heat, less snowfall, smaller snowpacks, earlier snowmelt, less groundwater, more flood-control releases early spring, more droughts and more wildfires. These impacts have huge ramifications for Colorado land use, farming and travel demands, especially in mountain regions and recreation resorts and in suburban sprawl where water may limit expansion. In-stream flows for fisheries, river running, water for snow-making, mountain and urban golf course watering are some effects. (Source: “Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Change in the West” by Stephen Saunders and Maureen Maxwell, Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, www.rockymountainclimate.org.)
Growth since 1990 means that transportation emissions represent 37.1% of the growth in energy-related CO2 emissions from all sectors, and are the largest contributing end-use sector to total emissions. Transportation planning should consider scenarios with these travel-affecting factors. (Primary references: U.S. Global Change Research Program (2003; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001); National Science Foundation; U.S. Global Change Research Program National Assessment Synthesis Team; Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003 Report #: DOE/EIA-0573 2003, Dec. 13, 2004 Transportation Sector.)
SMART UNDERTAKINGS ARE NEEDED
Smart Efficiency Benefits:
There are savings and other benefits when transit substitutes for car travel: Examples are vehicle cost savings, efficient land use, congestion reductions, infrastructure economics, parking cost savings, increased safety and health, energy conservation and emission reductions. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction is critical: one transit passenger-mile reduces VMT by 4.4 or more; one Light Rail Train line can replace 10 highway lanes. Planning and policy process must devote attention to these needs and efficiency benefits. This Litman VTPI reference identifies these matters. (References: “Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs; Best Practices Guidebook” Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI); “Smart Transportation: Choices for Colorado 2002”, CMC 2002.)
Sustainability Links Global Warming and Petroleum Resources
Some say that Global Warming is our major threat. Some say it is “Peak Oil” and rapid depletion in the face of increasing global demand. Both are joined as a “Siamese Twin” threat, and the nature of it is “Irreversiblity.” Oil depletion is irreversible; the rate can be slowed and high-cost high-impact high-greenhouse gas emitting substitutes such as tar sands can be developed. Is Global Warming reversible?

Courtesy of the Sierra Club
Global Climate Change and Energy Resource Depletion
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are causing a measurable increase in global average temperatures. To stabilize the Earth’s climate, this increase must be halted.
Stabilization of the global climate is an urgent matter requiring an immediate and effective response. International scientific consensus, confirmed by the most respected national scientific bodies in the U.S. and worldwide, indicates that continuing “business as usual” for even a few more years will greatly increase the risk of harmful and irreversible climate change, affecting the productivity of natural systems, the survival of species, and the safety and well-being of all human societies on Earth.
Our society’s actions within the next decade will determine the level of eventual success. Starting quickly and decisively is the most important element in our climate stabilization strategy, because greenhouse gases emitted now will persist in the atmosphere and have effects for centuries to come.
At present, the world’s climate scientists believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels above 450 ppm would result in severe climate impacts. To keep below that level, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced substantially to stabilize the global climate. Most importantly, CO2 from fossil fuels must be reduced 70% to 90% by the middle of this century.
As the nation with the largest emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.S. has a moral obligation to respond vigorously. To reach levels at which climate stabilization is more likely, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at least 2% per year – well within reach as the U.S. economy shifts to a clean energy path. Because the precise level for avoiding dangerous climate change cannot be determined in advance, the Sierra Club places primary emphasis on making substantial cuts in CO2 emissions as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.
Fossil fuels contribute a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time supplies of cheap and easily available oil, gas and coal are diminishing, leading the energy industry to explore and produce these resources from increasingly remote areas. This results in higher costs, more unconventional techniques and greater environmental damage. Production of oil and gas in the U.S. using conventional drilling techniques has been in decline since the early 1970s, and the industry has turned increasingly to offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico, foreign sources of oil, and unconventional natural gas techniques such as coalbed methane. |