**Mass Transit 1ac 1ac – economy advantage
**Warming Advantage** Warming/Emissions Brinks/Threshold
Download 0.91 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Warming – Greenhouse Links
- Mass Transit reduces greenhouse gas emission
- Mass Transit produces less greenhouse gas than cars do
- Public Transportation makes nearby houses greener
**Warming Advantage**Warming/Emissions Brinks/ThresholdEmissions are the biggest threat to pushing us past the 2 degree thresholdBirol 12- Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, (Fatih, “An Influential Global Voice Warns of Runaway Emissions”, Environment 360, Fen Montaigne Interview, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fatih_birol_iea_economist_on__risk_of_climate_change/2537/,) //AWV The situation today is, I could say, worse than ever. And I have at least three reasons why I believe so. One is I see the political momentum is not there. And climate change is sliding down in the agenda of many governments, including the governments that have been the champions of fighting against climate change and trying to put policies in place. The second reason why I think the situation is not bright at all is that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing each year; in 2011 we saw a 1-gigaton increase, which brings us very close to a lock-in of our energy system situation, and it will be almost impossible to reverse the trends after 2017 because our energy system — power plants, the industry sector, the transportation sector — will be locked into the capital investments in a way that they will use fossil fuel energies. And the third one is that at the end of last year at the United Nations COP meeting in Durban all countries in the world for the first time signed a protocol that they are going to take steps to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. This has been celebrated as a major step. It definitely has political significance, but it was not followed by concrete policy steps. When I look at the investment data, no energy investor changed its behavior as a result of the agreement. So the investments — which would have implications for many years to come in terms of building power plants, industrial facilities, and others — will be with us for many years to come. As a result of these three major reasons, I do not feel very optimistic that we will be able to reach the 2-degree trajectory, but I will be extremely happy if I am wrong. Warming – Greenhouse LinksInvestment in mass transit substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissionsBailey and Mokhtarian 8 -Ph.D. (Linda and Patricia L., “The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction”, February 2008 Andrew Little ICF International http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/land_use.pdf) The estimated savings in petroleum use from public transportation can also be expressed in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted from motor vehicles. Each gallon of gasoline burned releases 8.9 kg of CO2. The total effects of public transit availability reduce CO2 emissions by 37 million metric tonnes annually. We can consider these savings in terms of equivalent acres of forest. Planting new forest is one way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Trees sequester carbon as they grow; other effects such as cooling from reduced reflectivity and carbon emissions upon decay are omitted for the purpose of this comparison. Figure 3 below shows how much new forest plantings would be required to absorb the same amount of CO2 that bus and rail transit currently keep out of the atmosphere annually. To match the total effect of public transportation, the U.S. would have to plant 23.2 million acres of new forest. In other words, if the United States had no public transportation systems, it would need a new forest the size of Indiana to absorb the additional CO2 emissions from the transportation system. Mass Transit reduces greenhouse gas emissionDannenberg et.al, 8 – Associate Director for Science in the Division of Emergency and Environmental Health, MD, MPH (Andrew L. Dannenberg, Margalit Younger, Heather R. Morrow-Almeida, Stephen M. Vindigni, Andrew L. Dannenberg, “The Built Environment, Climate Change, and Health”, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 11/??/08, http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2808%2900682-X/fulltext, volume 35 issue 5, pages 517-526)//MBW Transportation infrastructure affects physical activity as well. A study of five pedestrian and bicycling trails in Nebraska found the average cost per user in 2002 was $235, but resulted in medical cost savings of $622 per person from engaging in physical activity.30 Trails offer multiple co-benefits, by improving physical activity levels, providing alternative transportation routes, and preserving green space. Walking, bicycling, and using mass transit (which often includes walking) for commuting purposes can increase physical activity,31, 32 which in turn enhances psychological well-being and reduces risks of mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, colon cancer, diabetes mellitus, and depression.33 Less time in automobiles reduces exposure to busy traffic and “road rage”34, 35 and decreases the likelihood of obesity,36 while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions. Communities highly dependent on automobiles pose mobility barriers for children, the elderly, those without vehicles, and people with mobility impairments. Accessible, walkable, and safe neighborhoods with mixed-land use, good connectivity, public transit options, and recreational facilities encourage people with limited mobility or special needs to stay physically active, independent, and involved in community activities.37, 38 Among the elderly, exercise is associated with lower rates of functional decline39 and dementia,40 and may enable seniors to remain independent longer.38 Aspects of the built environment that facilitate physical activity for all populations offer the co-benefit of reducing motor vehicle associated pollution, thereby diminishing both health hazards and the GHG emissions contributing to climate change. Mass Transit produces less greenhouse gas than cars doMerchant, 9 – Writer (Brian, “City Dwellers Emit 70% Less Carbon From Transit Than Urbanites”,Tree Hugger, 6/26/09, http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/city-dwellers-emit-70-less-carbon-from-transit-than-suburbanites.html)//MBW This news might not comes as much of shock, but a new study reveals that people living in urban areas emit 70% less carbon emissions in transit than folks living in the suburbs do. Well obviously, you might think--better public transit, less distance to travel--of course you'll have fewer carbon emissions. But 70% less is a pretty staggering number. Here's why the study helps invigorate the case for more urbanized, sustainable living. First, the simple transit benefits of living in a city: (from the Environmental News Service) ""Cities are more location efficient - meaning key destinations are closer to where people live and work," said Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. The CNT is the Chicago based nonprofit responsible for the study, which it completed by looking at emissions data across the country compiled by the EPA. They make a pretty good--if not exactly trailblazing--case for urban living. "[Cities] require less time, money, fuel and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs. People can walk, bike, car-share, take public transit," he said. "So residents of cities and compact communities generate less CO2 per household than people who live in more dispersed communities, like many suburbs and outlying areas." What's more, people who live in cities typically spend around 14% of their income on transportation, while those who live in suburban areas spend up to 28% or more on transportation. That's a pretty hefty chunk of your paycheck to spend getting from point A to point B. So if you're looking into a move, consider moving to an urban area--you'll save $5,000 on gas annually, emit less carbon, and spend less time in transit. Cheaper, less environmentally taxing transportation is one of the primary reasons that urban areas are the more sustainable communities--and will be even more so in the future. Public Transportation makes nearby houses greenerKoch, 11 – Journalist for USA Today (Wendy, “Greenest Homes are Those Near Public Transit”, GreenHouse, 3/3/11, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/green-suburban-homes-transit-energy-use-/1#.T-YwIKnRe9I)//MBW Location, location, location -- it's a well-worn mantra in real estate. New research shows yet another reason why it's important: it decides how green a home really is. Housing near public transportation uses less energy than homes in the suburbs, even Energy Star-rated ones. That's the finding of a study released this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which supported the data analysis. The EPA says location is vital because buildings and transportation together account for about 70% of U.S. energy use and 62% of its greenhouse gas emissions. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.91 Mb. Share with your friends:
|