Metros Aff 1 Transit 1AC, ob. 1 2
Download 1 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Public transit effects massive reductions in carbon emissions
- Public transit solves warming- higher occupancy vehicles
- Transit Reform Solves Future Climate Costs
- Robust transit reform solves cost of climate change policy, Lowers compliance costs
- Robust transit reform solves high cost of emission reduction—previous studies flawed
- Robust transit reform reduces costs of all other climate change policy
- US emissions policy modeled globally- our reductions must come first
- AT: CAP/TRADE or CAFÉ SOLVES
- AT: Transit Doesn’t Solve Emissions
- Plan = Prereq to Solve Climate
- ALl Current and future emissions and dependence reductions are being swamped by vehicle emissions—transit improvement are prerequisite to solving climate
- Climate Extinction: NAC
- AT: Warming Doesn’t War
***CLIMATE***Transit Reform Solves GHG Emissionsgiving states and localities incentives for robust transit reform solves climateWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. Giving states, MPOs and the local governments a set of tools and incentives to expand and improve low-carbon travel choices, enhance system efficiency, reduce congestion, and encourage compact growth patterns is an effective way to help achieve local, state and national GHG reduction goals. Directing 10 percent of cap-and-trade allocation values toward smart planning and low-carbon transportation investments would not only provide long-term economic benefits, but would strengthen our communities and help build the foundation for a healthy, vibrant and equitable future. Public transit effects massive reductions in carbon emissionsMillar ‘9, [Bob, President of APTA, http://www.publictransportation.org/facts/#hw07, online 2009, DB] Public transportation reduces the nation’s carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons annually – equivalent to the electricity used by 4.9 million households. To achieve similar reduction in carbon emissions, every household in New York City, Washington, DC, Atlanta, Denver and Los Angeles combined would have to completely stop using electricity. If an individual switches a 20-mile round-trip commute to public transportation his or her annual CO2 emissions will fall by 4,800 pounds per year, equal to a 10 percent reduction in a two-car household’s carbon footprint. Public transit solves warming- higher occupancy vehiclesDavis ‘7, (Todd- Energy Solutions Operation, September 2007 http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/climate_change.pdf) Traveling by public transportation is less carbon intensive than traveling in a single occupant vehicle. Partially or more fully loaded buses and rail coaches are more environmentally friendly than lower occupancy single vehicles. A single person automobile traveling one mile emits on average 1.0 pounds of CO2. Assuming in 2005, if all travel that occurred on public transportation were to be completed instead in private vehicles, this would have resulted in an additional 16.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Public transportation’s carbon emissions were 12.3 million metric tons, or 4.0 million metric tons less than would have been used by personal vehicles. In addition, the use of public transportation reduced congestion levels to the effect of saving an additional 340 million gallons of gasoline, which equated to another 3.0 million metric tons of CO2 reduction. This results in a net CO2 emission reduction of 6.9 million metric tons when the avoided congestion fuel consumption due is included. An additional 400,000 metric tons of additional GHGs were also saved, including sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. Transit Reform Solves Future Climate Costsrobust transit reform prevents massive future spending on climate change policyWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009.
Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. In this report, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) analyzes the benefits of reducing GHG emissions through smart growth, improved transportation choices, and transportation pricing. With input from Transportation for America, Smart Growth America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and HDR Inc., we estimate that comprehensive application of best practices could reduce VMT per capita by 10 percent and reduce annual GHG emissions 145 MMTCO2 in 2030 — equivalent to the annual emissions of some 30 million cars or 35 large coal plants.3 These GHG reductions total approximately 6 percent of the 2030 GHG reduction goal proposed in the American Clean Energy and Security Act.4 Our analysis indicates that these reductions can be achieved profitably, when factoring in avoided infrastructure costs, consumer savings and projected tax revenue growth. When viewed holistically, many transportation-related emissions reductions are not only cheaper than reductions in the utility and petroleum sectors, but also would help ease the cost of compliance on those sectors. Robust transit reform solves high cost of emission reduction—previous studies flawedWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. Moreover, typical GHG reduction analyses often miss the emissions reductions and economic benefits of improved transportation choices and assume a high cost per ton for these reductions. For example, EIA’s analysis, which assumes substantial growth in VMT from today’s levels, projected that only 3 percent of national emissions reductions would come from transportation, with 92 percent of reductions from the electricity sector. Robust transit reform reduces costs of all other climate change policyWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. Burchell and Mukherji updated this analysis and applied it nationally to estimate costs under smart growth scenarios compared to trend development over the period 2000–2025. They found that sprawl produces a 21 percent increase in amount of undeveloped land converted to developed land. This increases water and sewer costs by 6.6 percent and increases local road costs by 9.2 percent. Altogether, the costs of sprawl increase the cost of housing by 8 percent, or $13,000 per dwelling unit.27 Burchell and Mukherji did not estimate a VMT savings or concomitant CO2 reductions for the managed growth scenario. Many other studies of managed growth scenarios, including those cited elsewhere in this paper, find substantial VMT savings. The combination of reduced VMT and reduced public and private costs will create cost savings for each ton of CO2 reduced. robust transit reform shields economy from damage from climate policyWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009.
Modelling I/LUS emissions policy modeled globally- our reductions must come firstBrown 2, Donald, Phillip R. Allen Professor of Economics, American Heat, pg. 239 The past four chapters examined the ethical dimensions of four arguments frequently made in opposition to global warming programs in the United States. However, the most important ethical question entailed by global warming that the United States needs to face is most probably the issue of what is its fair share of total global emissions that will maintain atmosphere levels of greenhouse gases at safe levels. The reason why this question is so consequential is that this unresolved issue is the largest barrier currently blocking an international consenseus on how to approach global warming. This is so because the questions of what is a fair share of greenhouse gas emissions for each nation – although it has not been directly on the negotiation table – is at the very center of a number of recent impasses in climate negotiations. For instance, the developing nations have strongly resisted making commitments to reduce emissions pushed by the United States until the developed nations and the United States in particular, agree to reduce emissions to an equitable level. The poorer nations are afraid that if they agree to cut back on carbon emissions now, the developed nations will demand that the poorer nations cut back further in the future rather than agree to a fair allocation for all nations. Because those rich nations that are most responsible for the greenhouse emergency have shown little interest in acknowledging their proportional responsibility for the existing problem, the poorer nations are often refusing to compromise on other issues. AT: CAP/TRADE or CAFÉ SOLVESFailure to invest in mass transit leads to massive consumption increases that will swamp cap-and-Trade and café improvementsWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. Nearly one third of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. come from the transportation sector, making it the nation’s largest end-use source of emissions. Moreover, transportation is the fastest growing source of U.S. emissions, accounting for almost half of the net increase in total U.S. emissions between 1990 and 2007.1 Transportation GHG emissions are a result of three drivers — vehicle fuel efficiency, fuel emissions and how much people drive, as measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In 2007, Congress addressed the first two drivers by improving Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and mandating reduced GHG intensity of motor fuels. However, Congress has not put the same effort into improving travel choices to address how much people drive. Historically, U.S. transportation policy and infrastructure investments tend to encourage more driving. If we do not change how we invest in transportation, driving will continue to increase, effectively offsetting the emissions savings expected from the recently improved fuel efficiency and low carbon fuels requirements. cap-and-trade can’t solve transportation emissions, Plan solves, boosts economyWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009.
Previous low estimates for emission reductions flawedWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009. Such analysis typically overlooks, for example, the evidence that transit-oriented development fosters more walk trips and shorter vehicle trips, yielding up to four times the CO2 benefit resulting just from transit ridership, which is what the models typically include.13 They also miss broader benefits of smart growth, which we document in this paper, including lower infrastructure costs, consumer fuel cost savings and increased local tax revenues. While not all of these benefits can be quantified on a dollar-per-ton basis, many can. Similarly, many GHG studies have not considered how pricing strategies, like pay-as-you-drive insurance and congestion pricing, can cut GHGs while producing significant consumer cost and time savings. Plan = Prereq to Solve ClimateRobust transit reform and investment is a prerequisite to all Emission/consumption reduction policiesWinkelman et al ‘9 Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009.
Steve Winkelman is director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Allison Bishins is a policy associate for transportation and climate change at CCAP. Chuck Kooshian is a Planner with the El Paso Department of Planning and Development. “Cost-Effective GHG Reductions through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices: An economic case for investment of cap-and-trade revenues,” http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf?docid=306, June 2009.
Warming causes rapid climate switch and near term ice ageFagan 2k Brian Fagan is Brian Murray Fagan is being emeritus professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Little Ice Age, p. 213-4 Younger Dryas Europe was sparsely populated by hunter-gatherer groups that were mobile enough to adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions. What would happen today if northern downwelling were to slow down or cease and plunge Europe into near-glacial cold? Anthropogenic global warming could easily flip the switch. Models of ocean circulation patterns hint that even a modest increase in fresh meltwater inflow into arctic seas could choke off downwelling in the North Atlantic. The pulse of fresh water would float atop the dense, salty Gulf Stream, just as it did 11.000 years ago forming a temporary "lid" that would effectively prevent the Gulf Stream water from cooling and sinking. A sea ice cap could form in short order, preventing the Gulf Stream from starting up again, and trigger an intensely cold regimen in Europe within perhaps a few years. No one can predict how long such a cold snap would last. A few unusually warm summers might melt the ice and expose the Gulf Stream, allowing downwelling to resume and milder climate to return. Or evaporation of water vapor in the tropical Atlantic Far from the ice sheets could cause such a buildup of salt water that down- welling would begin at the edges of the ice zone, far from the traditional spots, and causing a rapid warmup of European climate. AT: Warming Doesn’t WarWarming makes multiple scenarios for war possible- prefer our internal link magnitudeSchwartz and Randall ‘3, [Peter and Douglas, Members of the National Science Foundation, Oct 2003, http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf, online 2009] The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as: 1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production 2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts 3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor. 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 1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|