Wouldn't it be nice if every time you did something for the planet, someone kept a tally? Well, for electric vehicle drivers, there's an app for that.

The latest cool thing to come out of the "Car 2.0 era" was unveiled last week from the makers of PlugShare, which is a program that acts as a social network of EV-charger locations. They have designed and released an app called GreenCharge, which calculates how much oil, and how many dollars, you save with each mile you drive your EV. And like other EV apps, it will monitor the car's remaining charge and driving range.

But the best feature on this app is that it totals how many pounds of carbon you're keeping from the atmosphere by driving a plug-in vehicle. It will also keep track of local electricity rates and compare those to your local gas vendor.

It then allows you to share these results on Facebook and Twitter. With constant stories of Big Oil profits and volatile gas prices in the news, what's not to "like" about this? Techcrunch points out, "A vague sense of helping the environment isn't enough. EV sales won't surge until their financial benefits become common knowledge. By educating drivers and their social networks, GreenCharge could get the mainstream to plug in."

This is a pretty useful tool, because it makes it clear as day how much cleaner plug-in vehicles are than the typical hunk of metal that depends on oil. Plug In American president and Sierra Club member Marc Geller explains, EV fuel gets cleaner over time "because the grid is getting cleaner. Electricity might not be getting cleaner as quickly as we would like, but it is getting cleaner. The dirtiest day you drive your Nissan Leaf is the first day you drive it."

Click here for a video demonstration. You can expect more interactive apps like this one as more plug-in cars hit the road and drivers chat about the experience.

Want to learn more about electric cars? Visit the Sierra Club's Go Electric campaign.

-- Brian Foley/image: GreenCharge

(via ThinkProgress.)

Washington, DC – (February 8, 2012)  Two national environmental protection groups have launched a six-figure online advertising campaign  applauding the EPA and President Obama for proposing life-saving standards aimed at reducing dangerous air pollution caused by auto emissions and dirty power plants. 

If you want to spread the good news about EVs, I hope you'll join our new EV Media Rapid Response Network.

Lately, many of us have been frustrated with the negative media coverage that electric vehicles have been getting. Few in the press seem to focus on the fact that 2011 was an incredibly exciting year for the EV market: There are thousands of new EVs on the road for the first time; customers are thrilled with switching from a gas guzzler; charging stations are popping up in states nationwide; and finally, EVs are proving to be a vital new way to reduce oil consumption and emissions.

Some in the media are instead focusing on sales numbers that fell a little bit short of manufacturer estimates. There has also been a deluge of misleading coverage of the safety of the Chevy Volt after a couple of simulated crash test fires. But the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Consumer Reports all agree that the Volt is among the safest.

And let's put car safety in context. There were 184,500 reported gasoline vehicle fires in 2010, according to the National Fire Protection Association.

We need to get back to applauding the innovation that the Volt and other plug-in vehicles have showcased. EVs are significantly cleaner to operate than traditional vehicles, even when taking account the emissions from the electricity used to charge EVs.

The EV Media Rapid Response Network is a new informal group of people that will quickly respond when we see EV misinformation or missing information in print, on TV, or on the Internet.  

We need the focus to be on our country's foreign oil dependency. We need to talk about the Obama administration's proposed fuel economy standards of 54.5 miles per gallon average by 2025 –- and how EVs will help us meet these standards. We need EV owners to talk about how much they love their cars and the fact that they don't need to burn money at the pump anymore. In fact, when Consumer Reports surveyed Volt drivers, 93 percent said they would "definitely buy (the Volt) again," the highest ranking ever found by this survey of any car.  

Members of our new network have already begun to get out the message. For example, in his letter to the editor (see last letter on the page) published in the Oakland Tribune, Jack Lucero Fleck discussed the necessity of a switch to EVs in the larger effort to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

More than 20 different electric drive vehicles will be on the market within the next three years from Ford, Nissan, GM, Mitsubishi, Toyota, and others. Thousands of American workers will build electric vehicles and components in at least 20 states, finally giving us viable oil-free vehicle alternatives.

The commercial success of EVs will depend on a range of factors, including media coverage. You can help us deliver your EV story and EV views by joining the new EV Media Rapid Response Network.

-- Gina Coplon-Newfield, Sierra Club Senior Campaign Representative for Electric Vehicles

(image: Brian Foley)

With drilling and fracking happening at such a fast pace, natural gas companies are seeking ways to maximize profit margins by exporting their product to foreign countries.

That's why the Sierra Club has ramped up efforts to keep the industry in check, filing the first formal objection with the Department of Energy against the export of domestic gas produced from fracking. This export proposal would make a dirty fuel even more dangerous.

Although Monday's filing marked a new phase in Sierra Club's efforts, this is the third liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility the organization has opposed. Facilities in Coos Bay, Oregon, Sabine Pass, Louisiana, and Cove Point, Maryland, have all been challenged by the Sierra Club.  

"Liquefied natural gas is not only the dirtiest and most polluting form of gas, but it also requires an increase in fracking; a process we know to be unsafe and dangerous," said Deb Nardone, Director of Sierra Club's Natural Gas Reform Campaign. "The industry is pushing forward with these export facilities with their profits in mind, not the families who will bear the burden of increased fracking."

Yesterday's filing challenges the export of Marcellus shale gas and others from its Cove Point facility, citing that exports would raise gas and electricity prices nationally and expand destructive natural gas fracking. The filing also called for a full Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of increased Marcellus fracking that would be brought on by this export proposal. 

In addition to yesterday's filing, legal protests were filed in Sabine Pass, Louisiana, and Coos Bay, Oregon. On January 27th, the Sierra Club submitted comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on their Environmental Assessment of the proposed export facility in Sabine Pass, LA. Their current assessment does not consider the damaging effect of extracting natural gas through fracking.

On January 18th, the Sierra Club and coalition partners filed an appeal of the Oregon Department of State Lands' decision to issue a dredging permit for the Port of Coos Bay that would allow the port to export dirty coal and LNG. The "multi-purpose" dredging permit could cover the Port of Coos Bay's confidential agreement with an undisclosed coal export company seeking to ship between 6 and 10 million tons of coal overseas annually, and other agreements to export domestic liquefied natural gas. 

This is one more reason why we need federal safeguards in place to protect us from fracking. Send EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a message.

Image of drilling pad by Kate Bartholomew.

There are high costs to our automobile-oriented transportation system, and one of them is our health. 

While there is much more than money to consider when dealing with issues of public health, a recent study estimated the monetary cost of children’s asthma in Long Beach and Riverside, CA, to be $18 million per year. And what’s to blame for these health costs? 

Traffic.

More specifically, pollution from traffic is to blame.  Tailpipe pollution contains smog-forming chemicals and particulate matter (and carbon dioxide, of course), both of which are known health hazards.  The junk coming out of a car’s tailpipe is directly linked to lung disease, heart disease, diabetes, and even diminished brain function. 

So, cars, trucks, buses, and other motor vehicles are a big public health threat because of the tailpipe pollution they produce - but also to blame is the design of our communities that forces people to drive in the first place. 

This is the not-so-obvious conclusion of Dr. Richard Jackson, former head of the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Environmental Health, professor at the UCLA School of Public Health, and now host of the new PBS mini-series “Designing Healthy Communities” (check your local listings).  The series outlines the wide range of health costs as a result of our built environment as well as highlighting positive solutions to our problems.

Sprawling development forces Americans to live far away from work, school, and each other.  The sprawling transportation infrastructure that goes along with it - highways, high speed limits, and lack of safe sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike infrastructure - forces people off of their feet and bikes and behind the wheel of a car.    

Sprawling development forces us to build massive highways we can’t afford to maintain, to link our economic well-being to the price of oil, to breathe toxic air tainted with vehicle exhaust, and to dramatically alter our climate for generations to come.

Americans need - and want - to build communities that don’t require driving, where people can walk or bike, and where transit is accessible and practical.  When we take cars off the road, we can take pollutants out of our air and out of our lungs, and make space for people to get back on it through walking, biking, and transit.  Americans deserve healthy alternatives to the car and a clean transportation system that doesn’t depend on oil.

There are real costs to our backwards transportation system that puts cars over people.  We pay in money, in time, in oil, and with our health.  Sometimes, it’s hard to tell if we’re sick of our transportation system, or sick from it.  More and more, it seems like it’s both.

-- David Loss, Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign intern

WASHINGTON  (February 7, 2012) – The following is a statement from Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council,  on H.R.  3458, a bill introduced by Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., and approved today by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

This weekend Politico reported on polling (paywall article) showing that Americans support President Obama’s decision to deny TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.

The Hart Research Associates poll (PDF) surveyed voters in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado and showed that after hearing the pro and con arguments about Keystone XL, 47% of voters said President Obama made the right decision in denying the permit (36% were against his decision).   Among those polled, concern about drinking water contamination resulting from an oil spill was a major reason to support President Obama’s decision to deny Keystone XL.

Women are also overwhelmingly opposed to the pipeline and supportive of Obama’s decision.

Pollsters Geoff Garin and Allan Rivlin concluded that “there is broad concurrence that the President should not give the project a go ahead until he is satisfied that the project will not be dangerous or lead to an environmental and economic disaster.”

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress keep trying to push through a bill that would approve Keystone XL and expedites its construction. By 45% to 38%, the poll showed that voters in these states trust Obama over congressional Republicans on addressing America’s energy needs.

It’s time for Congress to listen to Americans – we don’t want the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.

-- Lena Moffitt, Washington Representative for the Sierra Club Dirty Fuels Campaign

What began as a social crisis borne of forced evictions, loss of livelihoods, and brutal police repression, has quickly evolved into a financial one. In a series of excellent posts (part one here, part two here) my colleague Carl Pope has laid out the economic basis of the problem India now faces. The reality of which - that, geologically-speaking, coal is abundant, but economically speaking. cheap coal is not - has hit India hard threatening a vast pipeline of coal projects, and a banking sector that has underwritten them.

While the unfolding crisis has been chalk full of dramatic events, including a frantic meeting of large private power producers (Tata, Reliance) and Prime Minister Singh, it has largely been ignored by the broader public. Now the proverbial calm has descended before the financial storm as ministries have issued a deep freeze on the sector before the house of cards comes falling down – and billions of dollars in public money along with it.

High Stakes Drama

While policymakers in Delhi have been slow to react, power producers are fully aware of the dire situation they face. After two of the world’s largest coal plants faced bankruptcy due to skyrocketing prices, industry reacted with desperate demands, including requesting that the Indian government lobby Indonesia to reduce coal prices (think US begging the Saudis to lower the price of oil – which of course happens frequently). Their demands from the government to help reduce import prices have however seen little movement, and even less effect.

Turning their eyes to a solution to domestic supply constraints, India’s largest business houses demanded Prime Minister Singh exact promises from Coal India (CIL) – the world’s largest coal miner - to provide cheap coal to struggling projects. Bowing to their pressure, the Prime Minister convened a high level panel that issued stark warnings of fines for CIL if it failed to provide producers with what they wanted.  However, just like efforts to reduce the price of imported coal, the panel’s recommendations did little to stem the financial hemorrhaging.

Stewing in the background of this high stakes drama were recent moves by CIL to raise its prices – for the first time ever (remember internationally coal prices have tripled over just the past three years). CIL, which has been in ongoing discussions with its union over wage increases, rightly understood that prices must rise if workers are to be paid fair wages for the terrible working conditions they endure. Power producers were outraged and again pressured the government to quickly reverse a historic, yet modest, increase in coal prices while simultaneously forcing CIL to absorb a 40% increase in wages.

Then, in a move that was perhaps meant to cover these costs without the political backlash the private power producers would unleash on direct increases in the price of coal, the mining giant decided to move forward with upgrading and standardizing its coal classification system. The move would have raised the price of coal 25-40% as coal prices would be revised up to prevailing international levels – and help cover the cost of providing fair wages to its employees. This of course was met with fury by power producers forcing CIL to limit the price increase to certain grades of coal to quell their anger.

The Deep Freeze

Then came the bombshell – just a few days ago the coal minister sent a letter to the power ministry requesting an immediate freeze in the pipeline of coal projects. His reason: the worlds’ largest coal miner is unable to ensure adequate supply of coal and therefore the financial health of the coal project pipeline.

Almost immediately after CIL announced its desire for a freeze, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) followed suit by suggesting banks freeze lines of credit for this “distressed sector.” The move followed months of warnings from financial analysts that systemic defaults loomed on coal plant loans and the widespread impact it would have on Indian banking sector due to high exposure. This was the moment the drama that had been under the public radar went mainstream.

Now that the coal ministry and the RBI have placed India’s coal crisis is in a deep freeze policymakers, civil society, and industry have a unique opportunity to reflect before they take a crucial step that will determine India’s future. In doing so a lesson from the US experience may prove uniquely useful. As Carl Pope puts it:

“Between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. almost locked itself into a generation of 180 costly and unneeded coal-fired power plants. Campaigns led by the environmental community, the enacting of state renewable energy standards, and more-abundant competitive sources like wind and natural gas, headed off that almost catastrophic coal rush. Now Asia faces a similar choice -- overbuild coal plants and guarantee bloated prices that will depress its economic potential, or pivot away from reliance on new coal and start deploying the new, low-cost power leaders -- efficiency, distributed generation, wind, and solar.”

Carl’s right - if there is one lesson that must inform this critical point in Indian development, it’s this: coal is not cheap and its costs threaten not only social and environmental destruction but the stability of the Indian banking system itself, with as much as 56,000 Crore ($12.6 Billion) in public funds on the line.

The choice is clear: bailout private power producers on the backs of average citizens or make a break with the financial basket case that is the coal industry. Now that the public is watching, industry is wounded, and the government is forced to act, there is an enormous opportunity to ensure the latter. After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

-- Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Program. Photo is of fishermen near Tata Mundra.

I clearly remember the Sunday headline in early May 1982. "Exxon Abandons Oil Shale Project" was the exact wording, followed by a story that told how at least 2,200 workers had just received their pink slips from a project that was going to be America's version of Saudi Arabian oil. Whether the technology to recover oil from oil shale just isn't ready, or will never be, for 100 years oil shale, like snake oil, has never lived up to its promises.

I'm reminded of that day today, nearly thirty years later, as we witness the latest chapter unfold in the ongoing, century-long saga of oil shale. Only this time the federal government is not rushing in blindly, but asking oil companies to prove their ability to extract usable oil from a rock formation found in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Today the Bureau of Land Management released a long-awaited Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the leasing of millions of acres for the purpose of developing oil shale. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar ordered the study back in 2009. After a thorough scientific review, the agency recommends a dramatic scaling back of federal lands available for leasing, and only for research and development -- not full-scale commercial leasing -- until the industry can demonstrate that oil shale is a viable energy source that won't have unintended consequences on a region that is defined by a lack of water. 

According to a statement released by the BLM:

Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we're proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity," BLM director Bob Abbey said in a prepared statement. "If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first.

BLM's new approach reduces the Bush-era plan to lease nearly 2 million acres down to 461,000 acres, split unevenly among the three states. Utah will be allowed to lease 252,000 acres, Wyoming gets 174,000, and Colorado gets 35,000.

Some would say that it's politics. I'd say that it's common sense. Why allow oil companies to lease and tie up large chunks of federal lands for speculation (some would say their real goal is to pad their portfolio in order to attract investors) when, after a century of trying, no one has demonstrated a viable process to extract usable oil from a rock?

Common sense tells us that caution is the best approach when it comes to the nexus between historical snake oil, like oil shale, and the very real potential impacts to air and water, specifically the Colorado River watershed, which provides water for roughly 30 million people, some spectacular lands and wildlife, and outdoor opportunities enjoyed by millions every year.

It should go without saying that the BLM is demonstrating sound public policy in this recommended action alternative. In plain English, it says, "Hold on, folks. Before we go whole-hog in leasing all this land for something that we still aren't sure will work, let's make sure that it can be done and that it can be done safely. And we'll let you try on over 400,000 acres of publicly-owned lands. When you get that figured out, come back and we'll talk."

This is a common sense approach and a conservative approach.

Ironically, the conservative approach is not how I would describe the reaction of some elected officials. Like U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch who blamed the Obama Administration for preventing oil companies from accessing, "nearly a trillion barrels of recoverable oil." Did he just say "recoverable?"

Right. Senator Hatch's comments remind me of another headline that reads "Shale Will Yield Gasoline Supply." Only thing, I wasn't around when this one was written. Senator Hatch wasn't either. This one ran in the New York Times ... in 1916.

-- Tim Wagner, Sierra Club's Resilient Habitats Campaign/image: Argonne National Laboratory

Climate deniers can't get their stories straight. They'll say the world is warming, but it's not due to human activity. Then they'll say the world is cooling. Or rather, it was warming but now it's cooling, so don't worry.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to use ... science! to explain our planet's climate. For example, this week a study was released that sheds light on the Little Ice Age that took place centuries ago. Namely, that this cold period happened because of four violent volcanic eruptions. The ice age lasted centuries because the eruptions probably triggered a lasting chain reaction in the ocean currents, "affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries," says the study's co-author.

Previously, scientists thought a drastic drop in solar activity played a role in causing this cold era. But "this study showed that even if the Sun were less active, and therefore not warming the Earth as much, it would have had little effect," writes science blogger Phil Plait. The Little Ice Age ended with the commencement of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

The point here is that scientists use data and evidence to draw conclusions. Not talking points. And the consensus says that the planet is warming at an unnatural rate because of human activity.

Unfortunately, some in the media in recent weeks have perpetuated the myth of an upcoming mini-ice age even though no one in the science community is making such predictions. The above video, by Peter Sinclair of the "Climate Crocks of the Week" YouTube series, showcases the perfect example of cable news gone awry with distortions and fabrications. Sinclair in the video then tracks down and interviews an actual scientist, something some media outlets rarely take the time to do.

-- Brian Foley

This article originally appeared on Coming Clean.

Have you ever had to turn away millions of dollars? It sounds crazy, but here's why the Sierra Club chose to do exactly that.

In 2010, soon after I became the organization's executive director, I learned that beginning in 2007 the Sierra Club had received more than $26 million from individuals or subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy, one of the country's largest natural gas companies. At the same time I learned about the donation, we at the Club were also hearing from scientists and from local Club chapters about the risks that natural gas drilling posed to our air, water, climate, and people in their communities. We cannot accept money from an industry we need to change. Very quickly, the board of directors, with my strong encouragement, cut off these donations and rewrote our gift acceptance policy. Let me tell you how it came about. 

In the fall of 2005, Sierra Club staff and volunteer leaders agreed to make the enormous challenge of climate disruption the Club's highest priority. By that time, we had already begun to have great success with our Beyond Coal campaign, which had started in 2002, and which had already stopped the construction of several dozen new coal-fired power plants.

This Beyond Coal initiative has continued to have unparalleled success working with literally hundreds of other organizations, small and large, and using grassroots power to stop more than 160 new coal plants and prevent 500 million tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Sierra Club activists are now fighting Big Coal pollution in all 50 states and on college campuses nationwide. Today, the Sierra Club is not just focusing on stopping new plants from being built but is also accelerating efforts to retire old and dirty coal plants nationwide.

As this campaign was gearing up, the Sierra Club board of directors, working with the best science at the time and with extensive input from staff and volunteers, determined that natural gas, while far from ideal as a fuel source, might play a necessary role in helping us reach the clean energy future our children deserve. It was also during this time, in 2007, that the first contributions to the Sierra Club were made from entities or individuals associated with Chesapeake Energy. The idea was that we shared at least one common purpose -- to move our country away from dirty coal.

The big challenge, however, is what follows coal. How do we keep the lights on as we move quickly to an economy powered by clean, renewable energy? During the period that the Sierra Club first started receiving donations, several of our local chapters were becoming increasingly alarmed by dangerous and disruptive natural gas industry practices in their communities -- particularly horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a technique where millions of gallons of water, laced with other ingredients (including, often, toxic chemicals) are pumped into rock to release gas deposits. Gradually, more and more legitimate questions were raised about the risks that fracking poses to our air, water, communities, and indeed our climate.

By the time I assumed leadership of the Club in March 2010, our view of natural gas had changed -- so I made sure our policy did, too. We created a strong natural gas campaign comprised of staff and volunteer leaders. Some chapters sought to establish tough safeguards at the state and federal level to protect their air and water; others sought to suspend fracking completely until those standards were in place. By mid-August 2010, with gas industry practices and our policies increasingly in conflict, I recommended to the Board, and it agreed, to end the funding relationship between the Club and the gas industry, and all fossil fuel companies or executives.

Our position today could not be more clear: We still need to move America beyond coal, as quickly as we can while taking care of the workers in the mines and at coal-burning utilities. And as we retire these coal plants, we'll need to replace them with as much clean energy as we possibly can. In the process, we'll use as little gas as possible and work to ensure that the gas that is used is produced as responsibly as possible.

It's time to stop thinking of natural gas as a "kinder, gentler" energy source. What's more, we do not have an effective regulatory system in this country to address the risks that gas drilling poses on our health and communities. The scope of the problems from under-regulated drilling, as well as a clearer understanding of the total carbon pollution that results from both drilling and burning gas, have made it plain that, as we phase out coal, we need to leapfrog over gas whenever possible in favor of truly clean energy. Instead of rushing to see how quickly we can extract natural gas, we should be focusing on how to be sure we are using less -- and safeguarding our health and environment in the meantime.

The Sierra Club opposes any natural gas development that poses unacceptable toxic risks to our land, water, and air. We insist that the volume and content of all fracking fluids and flowback should be disclosed, and that all toxics should be eliminated. There should be proper treatment, management, and disposal of both fracking fluids and toxic flowback. Fracking should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that drinking water is protected and that all cumulative impacts can be mitigated. And, of course, many beautiful areas and important watersheds across this country should be off-limits to drilling.

Exempting the natural gas industry from environmental protections was a terrible idea. It looks even dumber today, when the real risks that natural gas drilling poses to water supplies and critical watersheds are that much more apparent.

Ultimately, the only safe, smart, and responsible way to address our nation's energy needs is to look beyond coal, oil, and gas, and focus on clean, efficient energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. It's clear to countries around the world that the most successful 21st-century economies will be based on using energy that is safe, secure, and sustainable. Let's get to work building that economy right here at home.

-- Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director

“Don’t think it can’t get any worse, because it can.” Flip Saunders, former Washington Wizards head coach, said that just before getting fired after starting 2-15 in this year’s NBA season. He might as well have been talking about the transportation bill being rammed through the House of Representatives by Republican leadership.

Earlier this week House Republicans unveiled their 5-year transportation bill, which would eviscerate our nation’s bedrock environmental review laws, eliminate dedicated funding for biking and walking infrastructure, cut funding for Amtrak, and allow traditional highway widening projects to qualify for funds meant to improve air quality and reduce congestion.

To add insult to injury, House Republicans aim to pay for part of their bad transportation policy by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off Florida’s Gulf coast and everywhere in between. Indeed, the bills passed yesterday by the House Natural Resources committee read like a wish list for Big Oil.

That’s bad, but you guessed it, it gets worse. This morning, the House Ways and Means Committee announced that it would consider their title, which provides the funding structure for the transportation bill. Historically the federal gas tax has been split between highway and transit, with the vast majority going to highways, a deal which was struck during the Reagan administration. The bill released by the Ways and Means would upset decades of agreement, putting all gas tax and drilling revenues towards highways, then paying for transit out of the general fund.

In practical terms, this is a cynical attempt to push public transit off the rails. By supporting public transit with money from the Treasury’s general fund, House Republicans are throwing transit into the ring to compete with all other national funding priorities, jeopardizing its historically consistent stream of funding.

As each part of the House transportation bill is released, it is increasingly clear that House Republicans are intent on delivering a sweetheart deal to Big Oil, not seriously legislating. Fortunately, today the Senate Banking committee is considering the transit title of their transportation bill, which is a step forward for transit and supported on a bipartisan basis.

The House transportation bill is extremely bad, but being written by the most anti-environmental Congress in history, don’t think for a second it can’t get worse.

Tell your member of Congress today to oppose this bill.

-- Jesse Prentice-Dunn, Associate Washington Rep for the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 2, 2012) – The Obama administration today moved forward with plans to develop the enormous offshore wind energy resources along the Mid-Atlantic, using a smart-from-the-start approach that has the potential to expedite the process while incorporating strong environmental protections, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.