5 Frameworks for Considering H.R. 803

Bill H.R. 803 in the 111th Congress proposes to amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to require metropolitan planning organizations to consider greenhouse gas emissions in long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. This bill known as the "Green Transit Act" has very little wording or direct specifications for greenhouse gas reductions. Below are five frameworks for considering this proposed regualiton.

Values Framework
The issue of transit related greenhouse gases directly stems in from our lifestyle. Americans are automobile oriented and rely heavily on it as a primary means of transportation. Certainly comprehensive transit networks are available in limited locales like NYC, but on balance transportation in America is equated to personal automobiles. As a result of this general orientation to transportation, a perceived tradeoff between ecological well-being and human well-being exists because people feel that forgoing the use of their automobile to be incredibly detrimental to their lifestyle. This also plays into a fundamental issue of conflicting values for Americans who place high regard on personal space, individuality, and the “freedom to drive.” Real or perceived, Americans do feel that forgoing automobile use for mass transit to compromise these values.

Political Framework
There is a matter of “degree of legitimacy” in the political framework. There has been some controversy about linking climate change with greenhouse gas emissions. Some scientists have gone on record to state that there is no direct link correlating greenhouse gasses with current climate events and that these changes are a naturally occurring fluctuation in Earth weather patterns. This has had detrimental effects to making inroads in emissions caps or aggressive improvements in automobile gas mileage efficiencies. This has also lead to some political controversies over greenhouse gas emissions. For example, President Bush would not agree to the greenhouse gas emissions caps of the Kyoto Protocols. We still fail to have a comprehensive g greenhouse gas emissions cap and reduction plan at the federal level. Currently each state determines its own policy regarding vehicle emissions and tolerable output levels.

Science Framework
There has been debate over the cause and effect of greenhouse gases equating to climate change. As mentioned above some scientists have denounced any link between the two, even though the vast majority of the scientific community asserts that the two are directly correlated. There are further issues within the scientific framework that plague transportation related greenhouse gas reductions. Primarily the auto industry has lobbied against such reductions based on claims that increased vehicle gas mileage efficiencies or a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is far too costly. Proponents of regulation argue that new enforcement levels will create green jobs as new technologies will be developed to meet the challenge of delivering low cost emissions improvements. However, the cost have been a notable adversary to attempts to improved regulation.

Policy Design Framework
This policy design reflects a Solomon like wisdom to balancing political considerations and stakeholder compromise. This regulation does not provide for any binding reduction levels or means of enforcement, monetary penalty, or otherwise for noncompliance. It does however prompt metropolitan planning organizations to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their long range transportation plans. In my estimation this policy design is not likely to generate large progress away from the problem and towards a solution. This is because the policy has not teeth or guiding tenets to ensure metropolitan planning organizations achieve any measurable improvement in transportation related greenhouse gas emissions. This also equates to the policy design framework question of whether the regulated community understands what they are being asked to do. The vagueness and open ended nature of the regulation offers little insight as to how or how much these organizations should accomplish in their consideration of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Management Framework
It is difficult to surmise if the organizational capacity exists for the level and depth of strategic planning necessary to achieve meaningful reductions in transit related greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the proposed regulation places the burden on metropolitan planning organizations, of which there are many. Certainly it is reasonable to assume that many will lack any number of necessary elements to create meaningful emissions reductions, like intellectual capital or transformational leadership. Because of its decentralized nature, it is also incredibly difficult to ascertain the quality of leadership, the resources available, or the operating procedures for each organization. Ultimately, it is likely that regions that have already embraced more stringent pollution controls will find more success in achieving reductions related to this proposed regulation.

The Developing Country Debate

I do think that currently developing countries have the ‘right’ to exploit their natural resources to increase their economic wellbeing, with exception. As Richard J. Tobin points out in chapter 15 of the Vig text, there is hypocrisy in developed countries asking developing nations to forgo resource consumption while simultaneously stimulating demand for their resources. “Developing countries quickly emphasize how ironic it is that developed countries, whose increasing consumption creates the demand for tropical woods, are simultaneously calling for a reduction of logging and shifting cultivation in developing countries.” In this way developed countries have forgone their say in the matter. However, if developed countries act in accordance with the greater good and perform environmental due diligence, then it is reasonable to conclude developing nations do not have a ‘right’ to exploit resources that are necessary for the sustainability of the human species.

This of course would naturally include developed countries dramatically reducing their overall consumption as they disproportionally consume energy and produce over 90% of all hazardous materials. In essence developed countries asking developing nations to forgo their economic development via resource consumption, is akin to a junkie asking his family to forgo dinner so he can use the money to buy more drugs. It is self-serving an unsustainable. Until resource consumption parity occurs, resource “rights” are up for grabs.

In regards to climate change expectations, I don’t think industrialized nations should have expectations for developing nations, but rather the other way round. As evident in the Vig readings developed nations use an unreasonably disproportionate amount of resources. This is a minority of the population living unsustainably. Therefore, it is the developed nations that must ameliorate the problem, as they simultaneously are a greater share of the problem and have greater ability to reconcile it.

• As evident in my discussion above I do believe equity between nations should be a goal. It is unreasonable to conclude that an ovarian lottery that determines your place of birth also determines your ‘right’ to a level of pollution emissions and resource consumption.
• If developing nations value economic development more than slowing global warming, developed nations should offset this via economic means. I propose that a willingness to pay for global warming prevention should be included into the price of all products similar to CAFÉ. (the gas guzzler tax.) Developed nations should pay a tax on all goods which can be used to offset the cost of greenhouse gas abatement in nations that can’t afford those costs. In this way all nations participate in the reduction of emissions. Even an extremely nominal tax would amount to a huge financial resource pool for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the tax could also be tied to a products carbon footprint and increase with the resources and pollution required to produce the good. In some ways this would be a progressive resource/pollution tax. Of course finding/creating a global entity to administrate this tremendously complex task would be difficult.
• As indicated above, I believe it is reasonable and justified for developing countries to expect a more judicious use of resources by industrialized nations. On balance developing countries are utilizing far less resources.

Green Transit Act

I have decided to pursue bill H.R. 803 in the 111th Congress as the topic of my final policy paper topic. This bill proposes to amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to require metropolitan planning organizations to consider greenhouse gas emissions in long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. This bill known as the "Green Transit Act" has very little wording, but the potential to make a large impact. The actual wording of the bill, as seen below, only amends two existing pieces of legislation and is not a substantively new piece of legislation.

(a) Highway Planning- Section 134(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following sentence: `Such plans and TIPs shall be developed after consideration of emissions of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)) and shall provide for reductions in such emissions.'

(b) Public Transportation Planning- Section 5303(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following sentence: `Such plans and TIPs shall be developed after consideration of emissions of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)) and shall provide for reductions in such emissions.'

The co-sponsors of the bill are Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3], Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1], Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7], Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] and Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1]. As expected these are representatives from more liberal state, in this case states located in the pacific northwest and California. What is surprising is that the bill's sponsor is Rep Doggett, Lloyd from Texas. Texas, the land of expansive highways and oil, does not typically conjure images of environmental activism. Currently, H.R. 803 has been referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

In essence this bill will require metropolitan planning organizations to consider greenhouse gas emissions in long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't specify any caps or limitations on greenhouse gases, but it is certainly a move in the right direction.