The Main Street Trolley in Memphis, Tenn. (NEWSCOM)
House members introduce gas-price-relief bill that doesn’t involve drilling
By Eoin O'Carroll | 07.18.08
A bipartisan group of six House members introduced a bill that seeks to relieve high gasoline prices by expanding public transportation and housing options.
The proposed “Transportation and Housing Options for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008” (H.R. 6495) was introduced by Earl Blumenauer (D) of Oregon and is co-sponsored by Chris Shays (R) of Connecticut, Ellen Tauscher (D) of California, Jay Inslee (D) of Washington, Jerry McNerney (D) of California, and Hilda Solis (D) of California.
If passed in its present form, the bill would allocate funds to:
• Expand public transportation and assist transit agencies in dealing with high fuel prices.
• Encourage car insurance policies that reward low-mileage drivers with low premiums.
• Offer incentives to employers and employees to use alternatives to commuting by car.
• Help local governments create walkable communities served by public transit.
• Encourage “location efficient mortgages” to make homes near public transit more affordable.
“This timely bill provides Congress with a great opportunity to show it is responding to Americans’ pain at the pump, insufficient public transit, and costly housing options,” said Michael Replogle, transportation director at the Environmental Defense Fund, which backs the bill. “America has less than 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, so we will never be able to produce what we need domestically. Our best bet is to use our limited domestic gas supply wisely and facilitate alternatives to driving where possible, as this legislation does.”
This bill comes at a time when public transportation could use a boost. On Thursday, the Monitor’s Mike Farrell reported that fuel prices are hitting mass transit agencies hard amid record ridership.
[via Grist]
<< New target in Colombia’s drug war: ecofriendly US users | MainComments
2. Eoin | 07.19.08
Arthur, your comment got me thinking about what kind of law would it require to, as you said, “make it illegal for people like Environmentalists, and others to interfere with projects in which they have no financial stake”
Here’s what I came up with:
“Amendment XVII
Section 1. The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.”
Any takers?
3. Jamie Walker | 07.19.08
Can you say, “social engineering?” Cuz that’s what this legislation is, pure and simple. A roaring round of raspberries to the “Don’t Drill Democrats.” They haven’t got a clue. Honestly, why do we leave these people in power. Vote em out, especially Inslee who’s just hawking his new book.
4. Robert Lewis | 07.19.08
The details of the personal automobiles of the five oil executives that testified before Congress with full registrations
5. Deborah Brasket | 07.20.08
This bill is the kind of responsible legislation that we need now more than ever. Funding for alternative transportation is crucial, especially for low-income families that can no longer afford to buy fuel. Public transportation is no “joke” to people who depend upon it, and if it was better funded, with more routes and buses, it wouldn’t take hours to travel 15 minutes. More drilling is not the answer and will only prolong the problem. We need to fully fund the development of renewable energy, which will also create new jobs to help replace those being sent overseas.
It’s time for us to think beyond our own immediate self-interests and work toward the common good–not only for this generation but for future generations. Why should we suck every last drop of oil out of the earth so we can continue to drive our SUVs at a price we can afford, and deprive future generations from a valuable resource? What ever happened to thrift and conservation and responsibility? How about self-sacrifice and leadership? At least the six House members above haven’t forgotten the values of their forefathers, unlike some of the people commenting on this page.
6. DCBird | 07.21.08
This is exactly the sort of forward thinking legislation that is needed to help get us out of this mess. Our economy was designed to run on cheap oil. We didn’t give ourselves any options besides our cars and our highways, and now we are stuck with them, at whatever cost they run, both to our wallets and to our planet.
I will grant that in many areas, public transit is a joke. However, that’s only because we’ve significantly underinvested in both building and operating these systems — you get what you pay for. People like Arthur Lemay and Jaime Walker get all bent out of shape any time someone wants to invest in public transit because they are still fighting the chimera of some perceived socialist threat. Yet they support public investment in highways - basically socialized transportation and no different from a rail system.
Which brings me to those who say public transportation is “social engineering” or that trains don’t give people what they want. I say the same thing about roads! Roads force me to own a car I can’t afford, to emit pollutants I don’t want to, and lead to the sprawling, stripmall development patterns that I don’t want to live in, that we all know are bad for people, bad for communities, and bad for the environment.
Other countries in Eastern and Western Europe, Asia, and even South and Latin America are getting it right, investing huge amounts into public transit and passenger rail. As the price of oil goes up (and it will go up, drilling or no, because of rising demand from Asia, India, and South America - China is putting 25,000 cars on the road each day), the US is going to be at a serious global economic disadvantage because we have not built efficient tranport systems for people and freight.
7. fpteditors | 07.21.08
The carbon-auto trolls and wannabe-trolls are busy here. We need free public transit. The auto and sprawl have been subsidized in the trillions of U.S. dollars. Enough!
8. Olivia | 07.23.08
Ha, I like your comeback to Mr. Lemay’s comments, Eoin.
I would add that Mr. Lemay’s suggested solution to “drill drill drill” runs counter to what billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is saying these days. Renewable “wind wind wind” is what Mr. Pickens advocates.
As for Mr. Lemay’s belief that one must have a financial stake in something order to voice an opinion, let me lift a quote or two from another ENVIRONMENT article on this site (”Why Your Happiness Matters to the Planet”):
“The pursuit of happiness can drive environmental degradation, but only a degraded type of happiness pursuit leads to that outcome,” says Kennon Sheldon, professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in an e-mail. “The standard western focus upon economic utility as the highest good (exemplified by the US) seems to encourage that kind of degraded pursuit.”
Worse, so-called “extrinsic” values (wealth, power, fame), as opposed to “intrinsic” values (adventure, engagement, meaning), seem to go hand-in-hand with more environmentally destructive behavior. Tim Kasser, an associate professor of psychology at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has found that people who are more extrinsically oriented tend to ride bikes less, buy second-hand less, and recycle less. Nations with more individualistic and materialistic values also tend to be more ecologically destructive.
“The choice of sustainability is very consistent with a happier life,” Professor Kasser says. “Whereas the choice to live with materialistic [values] is a choice to be less happy.”
I wonder if Mr. Lemay is a most unhappy man? He sounds so.
Selling my elderly diesel 15 months ago and not replacing it with another vehicle was the best one-two decision I ever made. I get around just fine on foot and use public transport when necessary. Guess what: I’ve never been happier.
Finally, I agree with DB, DCBird and fpteditors, and join their applause of this bipartisan bill that encourages not only smaller carbon footprints but also cleaner consciences!
9. aullman | 08.17.08
Along with the items in the bill, the government should provide tax incentives for companies that allow workers to work remotely. Remote workers use less energy than car poolers and mass transit users.
In the past, home telecommuting was the only option for working remotely. Workers now have the alternative of working from a Remote Office Center. Remote Office Centers lease individual offices, internet and phone systems to workers from different companies in shared centers located around where people live.
Many office workers do not really need to be onsite. They could just as easilyt work remotely. If the government wants to save on energy, it should support remote office options with tax incentives. This is a cheaper solution than building more roads and mass transit.
Remote Office Centers are fairly new. Locations can be found on the internet by searching for “Remote Office Centers” in quotes.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Today’s Science Policy News for July, 21st 2008 - Scientists & Engineers for America Action Fund | 07.21.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate – even pointed disagreement – is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Arthur Lemay | 07.19.08
This is just silly. It is an example of “feel good” legislation intended to fob off voters who ask members of legislatures “what are you doing about energy costs?”
This bill, supposedly helping public transport, is not responsive to the question. In most communities, public transport is a joke. A money losing, inconvenient, often dangerous, non-starter of a transportation solution. Except for the large, older eastern cities, it makes absolutely no sense at all. In San Jose, if rail patrons who arrive at the stations were given vouchers for taxis, and the rail system shut down, everyone would be better off. No amount of propaganda can save this, and many other, light rail system. The problems are that the trains don’t go where people want to go, trips that take less than 15 minutes by take many hours, the airport stop is a mile from the terminals, and there are no sidewalks, and the list goes on….
Michael Replogle, transportation director at the Environmental Defense Fund is blind to the fact that we don’t know how much oil we have in North America because organizations like his have prevented exploration, and go into hysterics when more drilling, or coal to oil, or oil sands conversions are mentioned. Put together the carbon energy sources are far larger than the Saudi reserves.
We just can’t talk about them constructively because of the global warming issue, which prevents all carbon energy development to avoid a small amount of warming in 100 years. By then our posterity will have unknowable energy sources and they will ask “why were people in the early 21st century so foolish as to not use the energy they had available?”
It’s a good question. The right answer to the voter’s question is drill, drill, drill, convert coal and other oil alternatives and make it illegal for people like Environmentalists, and others to interfere with projects in which they have no financial stake. It is not enough to be a self-appointed meddler who wants to stop everything to end man’s use of tecnology because of a mad dream of the environmentalist crazies.