Sierra Club National

Here's a look at why extending the Production Tax Credit for the wind energy sector is so crucial. "Gas and oil had a production tax credit for 70 or 80 years. That's what launched them and get them into place.... Wind has had it for a few years now and it ends at the end of this year. If you're a manufacturer of wind turbine parts, you're done making parts now."

It's amazing how much can change in a year. At this time in 2011, we were testing our hair for mercury as a way to encourage the EPA to adopt strong mercury pollution protections – which the agency did. I was also celebrating generating my first clean kilowatt of energy from brand new solar panels on my home.

A mere one year later, some jaw-dropping numbers have just come in: In the first quarter of 2012, coal made up just 36 percent of U.S. electricity generation – down from nearly 45 percent from the same period in 2011. That's a 9 percent drop in U.S. coal use in just one year.

The report, released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), had even more bad news for big polluters. Electricity generation from coal may drop another 14 percent this year. The EIA also believes coal production will decline 10 percent in 2012.

Meanwhile, wind energy is thriving. In the first quarter of 2012, the U.S. installed 1,695 megawatts of wind, one of the industry's best quarters ever, up 53 percent from the same time last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Wind projects are creating jobs and economic opportunity across the country, with 32 new projects installed in 17 states in the first quarter alone.

Also this week, the coal industry released its own report, which clearly reflects the anxiety the industry is feeling. Entitled "Know Thy Enemy: An Update on the Sierra Club," the Kentucky Coal Association singles out the Sierra Club by summarizing our ongoing commitment to see the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act fully enforced to protect the health and livelihoods of Americans. Coal companies and their friends in Congress are spending millions on top of millions to weaken these pillars of environmental protection. Have a look for yourself (pdf). Unfortunately, big polluters would rather spend money on drafting reports like this than protecting our health or investing in clean energy.

"We're flattered that the coal industry would hire lawyers just to 'research' information available on our public website, but it seems like a waste of resources," said Tom Pearce, a Sierra Club Kentucky organizer. "What energy companies should be doing is focusing on how to transition away from dangerous fossil fuels and invest in clean energy and a just transition for workers."

One key measure that will help that transition is, unfortunately, in jeopardy. Congress has so far failed to renew a key wind energy provision that expires at the end of this year – the Production Tax Credit, which only Congress can renew. The wind industry is already announcing layoffs and canceled projects as a result of Congress' failure to act, and without congressional action this year, thousands more clean-energy jobs will disappear. That's why extending the tax credit for the wind sector has strong bipartisan support.

However, some in Congress aren't listening. Help us by telling them to extend tax credits for wind and support clean-energy jobs over big polluters.

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign

Last week, I had fun test-driving the Ford Focus Electric, which goes on sale this month in California, New York, and New Jersey -- and in other markets later this year.  Like the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the other full battery electric vehicles I’ve had the chance to ride, it had a smooth and quiet feel with powerful pick-up. One of the exciting benefits of the Focus plug-in is its shorter charging time.  It takes just over three hours to charge from empty using a level-two charger, and it travels up to 100 miles per charge.

Consumers will also benefit from the plug-in Focus' 10 year battery warranty, longer than the eight-year battery warranty offered by other manufacturers. The base price tag, at $39,200, is more expensive than the Leaf and the i-MiEV and similar to the Chevy Volt, but the $7,500 federal tax credit is available for all models.

What fascinated me most about the plug-in Focus was what was possible with the MyFord Mobile app. Not only does it allow you to heat or cool the vehicle before you get inside it  -- conserving your state of charge -- but it will also show you directions to your destination through your vehicle navigation program and let you know what charging stations are available along the way. Additionally, it will tell you how you can save emissions and/or money by charging your vehicle at off-peak times.

Mike Tinskey, Ford’s Associate Director of Vehicle Electrification & Infrastructure, spoke at last week’s Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in Detroit where I moderated a workshop panel on Building the Electric Vehicle Industry through Manufacturing, Infrastructure, and Incentive Policies. Tinskey said that 16 of the 19 launch markets for the plug-in Focus have available “time of use” electricity rates that allow for cheaper, more efficient off-peak charging. He also described the 2.5 kW solar EV charging system through a partnership with Sun Power available to Ford’s plug-in customers.

Tom Bowes, Assistant Director of the Detroit Electrical Industry Training Center, described on our panel how many electricians are now taking advantage of training programs where they are learning to install EV charging units –both at EV drivers’ homes and in public settings.

Our other panelist was the Ecology Center's Charles Griffith who touted the 38,067 workers in 97 Michigan auto-related facilities and the fact that many of the newest jobs focus on advanced vehicle technologies. He also spoke about Built by Michigan, a coalition advocating for federal and Michigan EV incentives and programs that will give a boost to EV purchasing, manufacturing, jobs, and charging.

While Michigan is the U.S. capital of vehicle manufacturing, there are at least 19 states where vehicle and parts manufacturing is taking place, thanks in part to stimulus funding. To achieve the jobs, emissions, and oil savings we need, EVs like the Focus Electric need to shift into the fast lane. 

-- Gina Colon-Newfield, Sierra Club's Senior Campaign Representative for Electric Vehicles/images by Ann Mesnikoff. Top: Gina Colon-Newfield and Ford's Brian Petersen; bottom: Tom Bowes, Gina, Charles Griffith, and Mike Tinskey.

Metro Atlanta (and Georgia) can do better -- that's why Sierra Club's Georgia Chapter opposes ballot measures that will fund transportation projects set to come before Georgia's voters in July. The Chapter noted that its decision to oppose the measures -- Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) -- in 11 of the state's regions was easy; the decision to oppose the T-SPLOST for the Atlanta region was more difficult and therefore the Sierra Club backed up its decision with a detailed Plan-B.

While the Sierra Club notes that no plan is perfect, the Chapter leaders concluded that the list of projects that the Atlanta transportation ballot measure would fund was flawed to the point of outweighing its benefits. Concerns range from a lack of a cohesive vision for the area's transportation system, a failure to have an equitable and representative regional transit governance in place, a failure to address the core need of the existing transit infrastructure, and that even transit projects that the Club supports in concept are vaguely defined and underfunded.

The Chapter is calling for voters to hold out for Plan B to stop Atlanta's transportation future from heading in the wrong direction, and questions tax booster's claim that this must be passed because it's the only option. The Sierra Club points out "that there is indeed great potential for an alternative plan that achieves meaningful progress on commute alternatives for Georgians without needlessly subsidizing another wave of sprawl." It is hard to make a tough decision on a ballot measure that includes transit funding. As my colleague, Colleen Kiernan, notes in her op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this is not a first for the Club:

A major American city faces a hotly debated referendum to expand its road and transit network. The local business community is solidly behind it, claiming that passage is vital to the region’s economic competitiveness. Meanwhile, a motley group of community organizations, including the state chapter of the Sierra Club, are opposing the measure.

The reaction to this opposition from proponents is fierce. "There is no Plan B!" they loudly proclaim. "This is the only chance we'll have for a generation!" others cry. "The political climate won't allow anything better!"

This may sound like Atlanta today, but the city in question is in fact Seattle, and the year is 2007. That city's "Roads and Transit" referendum, an awkward mixture of popular transit projects and sprawl-inducing road construction, would eventually go down to defeat at the polls.

Despite predictions that another chance was a generation away, a Plan B was put to voters the very next year, this time focused entirely on expanding and enhancing the region's SoundTransit rail and bus network — without the massive road expansion. The 2008 "SoundTransit 2" initiative passed handily, and Seattle is now actively building out an ambitious regional transit vision.

We can look further back to 1998, when the Club's San Francisco Bay Chapter opposed Measure B, a transportation ballot measure that was similar to those in Atlanta and Seattle. When the ballot measure failed, the then head of one of the involved transit agencies (AC Transit) said optimistically, "It just means we have to try and try and try again until we get it right. We'll fine-tune Measure B and put it back on the ballot."

And that's what happened. Two years later an improved Measure B passed Colleen's op-ed notes, "While the tax would fund initial segments of some popular transit projects like the Beltline, every new track-mile of light rail built would be matched by 16 lane-miles of road expansion — enough asphalt to cover Turner Field more than 200 times."

For the Sierra Club that was too much of a bad thing. Like San Francisco and Seattle, Atlanta can get this right. This position has disappointed some and created a vigorous debate. But we will continue to work to increase transportation choices that will help Americans literally move beyond oil -- in Atlanta and everywhere.

-- Ann Mesnikoff, Director of the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

Drums and prayer songs, dances and garden-grown gifts greet riders on the Freedom Train wherever they stop on their journey across Canada. The riders represent the Yinka Dene Alliance and other First Nations groups who want the crude oil transporter Enbridge to hear their message: Our people have declared your tar sands pipeline project illegal. We have banned you from our land. We have rejected your hollow promises of jobs and profits. Respect our existence or expect our resistance.

The alliance fears, though, that the Canadian government will ignore First Nations law and help Enbridge push the project through. The riders, indigenous women and men aged 15 to 72, set off from their traditional territories near the Pacific coast bound for Toronto's financial district, thousands of miles away. The journey is part of the years-long movement of resistance to Enbridge's proposed "Northern Gateway Pipeline" that would transport tar sands oil from Alberta to British Columbia's Pacific coast, where it would be loaded onto huge tankers that then must navigate precarious and stunningly pristine waterways on the way to market. 

In Toronto, the Freedom Train riders will lead a rally as Enbridge convenes its annual shareholders meeting. This will put Enbridge on notice that the First Nations have banned the Northern Gateway Pipeline from their land, in accordance with First Nations law, and that the company should not attempt legislative acrobatics to push the project forward.

The Freedom Train was inspired by two First Nations struggles that are now at key turning points: the effort to assert the right of self-government, and the effort to avoid environmental disasters on First Nations lands. The alliance is especially concerned about the Northern Gateway pipeline project because it would transport tar sands oil, which is especially corrosive and much more likely to cause a spill than conventional crude. It is also far more hazardous to human health, contains far higher levels of heavy metals, and is far more difficult to clean up when it does spill. These facts were undeniably confirmed after repeated spills in the United States, including the Kalamazoo disaster of 2010 and the Yellowstone River spill of 2011.

As one of the most destructive energy projects on earth, Alberta's sprawling tar sands developments are in themselves a major inspiration for the Freedom Train. Rare cancers are exploding in local First Nations populations, along with other illnesses. Meanwhile, tar sands mining is devastating huge swaths of the largest intact forest ecosystem on earth: the Canadian boreal forest. Strip mines have created over 65 square miles of tailings ponds alone. These lakes of toxic tar sands industrial waste drown thousands of birds every year when they land on the water -- only to become covered in sludge. 

The area has also seen a decline in endangered caribou herds due to tar sands mining expansion, but the solution offered by the Albertan government hasn't been to curtail the industry’s expansion.  Instead, the government has culled more than 500 wolves -- poisoning them, or shooting them from helicopters. Tar sands oil has frightening global consequences, too. It produces 20 percent more climate change pollution than conventional crude, and has become the fastest growing source of climate change pollution in North America.

Two out of three British Columbians support the Freedom Train, and yet the alliance has received no word from Enbridge that the project will be scuttled. That’s why the Freedom Train rolls on. “We can’t sit by and watch as our relatives in northern Alberta are harmed by even more unmanaged tar sands development which these pipelines will allow,” said Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik’uz First Nation. “This isn’t just about us. We are part of an unbroken wall of opposition from more than 130 First Nations from the Pacific Coast to the Arctic Ocean who are saying we will not allow these pipelines to be built.  We will use every lawful means at our disposal to guarantee it. There’s no way around us.”

This kind of opposition is precisely why the tar sands industry is working so hard to build pipelines through the United States. Canadian communities have rejected tar sands pipelines as too dangerous and too irresponsible. The industry is counting on Americans to put up less resistance, and to buy the notion that these pipelines – like Keystone in the Midwest and Trailbreaker in New England – are worth the risk.  Tar sands pipelines jeopardize local communities, the global climate, the boreal forest, and First Nations groups who are fighting for their land, their law, and their lives.  To stand in solidarity with the Freedom Train, visit http://freedomtrain2012.com/ .  Then help us resist the tar sands industry in the United States at www.sierraclub.org/tarsands.

Images courtesy Freedom Train.

-- Richard Brown, Sierra Club's Beyond Oil Campaign

This week, Aaron Mair represented the Sierra Club in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania where a local farmer, Dr. Stephen Cleghorn, held a special event to remember his late wife and deposit her ashes in defiance and opposition to the natural gas industry.

A Member of the Sierra Club Board of Directors, Aaron Mair is a twenty-six-year veteran urban environmental activist, regional and national Environmental Justice organizer and strategist from the State of New York, and Former Atlantic Chapter Chair of 41,000-member New York State Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter.

The Sierra Club stands with Dr. Cleghorn in opposition to the dangerous natural gas drilling known as "fracking," which is known to contaminate drinking water, pollute the air, and cause earthquakes.

The above photo: Dr. J. Stephen Cleghorn (left), owner of Paradise Gardens & Farm, greets Aaron Mair, a national board member of the Sierra Club, during an event Thursday at the farm. (Photo by Tom Chapin/The Punxsutawney Spirit)

As the director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, I have to do a lot of traveling, which means spending more time than I would like away from my two-year-old daughter, Hazel. Just this Wednesday, I got home from a trip to find Hazel and her dad pretty exhausted after three days without Mom. I hope that someday, she'll understand that I had to be away sometimes because I was working hard to protect her from the pollution that is a very real threat to her future.

For Hazel, I hope when she's my age that the air and water are clean and safe, the mountains of her home state of West Virginia are still standing, and the threat of climate disruption has passed. I think that future is within our grasp, thanks to the work we are doing to move America beyond coal.

In the past year, we celebrated a historic victory that brought us much closer to that cleaner, safer future, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the first-ever national mercury standards for coal fired power plants. Believe it or not, while coal plants are our nation's #1 source of mercury pollution, until this year there were no national mercury standards in place for coal plants. None at all! Coal plants could just spew 100% of their toxic mercury into the air, which then made its way into our waterways and the fish that we eat.

These protections are long overdue, and will safeguard our families. According to the EPA, every year over 300,000 babies are born exposed to high enough levels of mercury to put them at risk of developmental problems, like lowered IQ and delays in walking and talking - problems that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Babies come into contact with this toxic mercury if their mothers eat a lot of certain species of fish, even before they become pregnant.

I was one of hundreds of thousands of moms and dads who worked hard to secure these new mercury protections, which were finalized in January. Now these safeguards are under attack, and we have to defend them.

Unfortunately, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma is preparing to file a measure in Congress that would not only stop these mercury protections, but would also prevent the EPA from ever taking action on mercury again. Yes, you heard that right.

This Mother's Day, my wish is that you will join me in taking action to defend these crucial mercury protections. I know all you moms and dads out there are busy, so we've made it simple for you - just click here to send a note to your Senator. Our kids are counting on us, so it's time to speak up in defense of these long-overdue safeguards from toxic mercury pollution.

Thank you. And happy Mother's Day!

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign

Every year, massive oil companies like Exxon and Chevron make headlines for the billions in profits they rake in at the expense of our environment, our economy and the health of our families. And every year, those exact same companies reap the benefits of tax giveaways that are expected to total more than $110 billion over the next decade.

Today, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) offered a solution at a press conference today backed by a coalition of environmental and taxpayer groups. These two environmental champions introduced the "End Polluter Welfare Act" in the House and Senate, calling for a halt to this economic absurdity with the most comprehensive legislation to end tax subsidies for oil companies to date. 

Sierra Club proudly supports this common sense bill and - as Rep. Ellison noted today - so do a vast majority of Americans. 80 percent of Americans agree - it's time to put an end to tax giveaways for big polluters.

"The fossil fuel industry considers us their servants," said Sanders at a press conference held outside the U.S. Capitol Building today. "They don't deserve it."

While oil executives roll in record profits, they’re demanding tax handouts to support the very industry that puts the health of our kids at risk. There is no reason that American taxpayers should be forced to invest in the bloated dirty energy industry of the 19th century when the clean energy economy is already creating tens of thousands of new American jobs while protecting our families. Rather than supporting dirty, outdated fossil fuels, we should be investing in efficient technologies that will benefit every American - not just a handful of billionaire CEOs.

Still, Big Oil has fought tooth and nail to protect their subsidies before - and they're guaranteed to fight this legislation, too. That's why Rep. Ellison says the fight is just beginning.

"We have to work together to get the rest of the voices of the American people heard," he said. "Spread the word - the coalition is not yet big enough."

-Athan Manuel, Sierra Club Public Lands Director

"These are invisible communities. They aren't covered in the national media, and they aren't covered in the state media."
 
This is how Soumya Dutta described India's rural and tribal communities in the shadow of massive coal projects. After two days listening to stories from Appalachians fighting mountaintop removal coal mining, Soumya and Debi Goenka spoke at the quarterly Alliance for Appalachia meeting about what they are facing in India.
 
Soumya described the devastation that is already being caused by the proposed Tata Mundra 4,000 MW coal plant, which received IFC support from the World Bank in the name of development. The local people who will bear the brunt of the pollution from the plants may not have access to electricity now, but they also aren't connected to the grid, and even if they were they couldn't afford the power.
 
The proponents of the project say it will create 700 permanent jobs, but they ignore the fact that it is already putting the livelihoods of over 10,000 villagers who depend on the land and water at risk. Fishing communities are complaining that ash is contaminating their catch when they hang it to dry, as are villagers who rely on the sea to harvest salt. Livestock that used to roam free in the inter-tidal zones can no longer graze because the coal companies have erected fences blocking access to the commons. Meanwhile the same pollution that is killing the animals is infecting the local communities as they breathe the air and drink the water.

Local communities are rising up against the Tata plant, as well as three additional coal projects in the pipeline for this tiny, coastal area in Gujarat, as they are in impacted areas across India. Soumya told us how in Sompeta, the company and police were met by the women of the community with their broomsticks. The entire community rose up to fight new coal projects, and some of them died in the clashes, but they were successful and the courts were forced to intercede and stop the plants.
 
But it's not just the shared struggle against violence and intimidation that links the activists in India with those in Appalachia. The coastal coal projects, including Tata Mundra, will rely on imported coal from Indonesia, Australia, and maybe even the U.S.
 
Counter to industry claims that coal keeps the lights on in the U.S., coal consumption here is at its lowest level in nearly two decades. The U.S. is abandoning this dangerous and outdated fuel source, and companies are looking to Asia to export their dirty wears. Proposals to build massive export terminals dot the Pacific Northwest, and Indian-owned mines are cropping up in the U.S., including an Essar Group mine in Fayetteville, West Virginia.
 
But the truth is that coal is not cheap anywhere, and it's not a good investment in the U.S. or Asia. Despite industry's rosy predictions, the Tata Mundra plant and other Indian coastal plants that rely on imported coal are on the verge of bankruptcy. Tata went so far as to petition the government to allow them to raise rates, in what amounted to asking for a bailout from the Indian government. If local residents couldn't afford electricity before, they certainly will not be able to access it at a higher rate. And if Tata can't afford coal from nearby Indonesia, how much of a market is there for expensive U.S. coal that must travel by rail to the Pacific Northwest before being shipped across the Pacific?
 
This is not the message that industry wants to hear, and it's not the message that banks want to listen to. So how can an invisible community stand up to the wealth and power that is behind these projects, despite evidence they are economically unviable, that they harm local communities, and that they are literally killing people?
 
When Enron tried to move into India, Debi was one of the people who stood up against them, and won. He told the assembly that all successful movements to block dirty projects share a common thread, local grassroots activism. In India, he fights projects using policy and the legal system, but the courts will ignore petitions unless there is a grassroots movement that refuses to be invisible and demands that those in power acknowledge them. That is what the communities in Gujarat are doing, and it's what the activists in Appalachia are doing.

-- Nicole Ghio, Campaign Liaison

Twenty of the world’s leading off-grid clean energy entrepreneurs sent a letter (http://bit.ly/IzuDSU) today to World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick requesting $500 million in financial commitments to help them deliver on the world’s energy access goals. The group’s letter was backed by a letter of support (http://bit.ly/JRLBOT) from the CEOS of more than 25 leading civil society organizations from around the world, which calls for these commitments to take the form of a pledge at the upcoming Rio+20 earth summit.

The call comes six months into the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All (UN SEFA) campaign, which seeks to deliver universal energy access by 2030. In order to make good on that pledge the International Energy Agency (IEA) has found (http://bit.ly/zNduXr) that half of all energy services must be provided by off-grid clean energy.

Unfortunately, today’s investments in energy access are heavily skewed toward traditional grid extension, with billions going to large scale centralized power projects which are often heavily polluting coal plants.  Worse, according to the IEA, an over reliance on these investments at the expense of off grid clean energy investments will leave one billion of the world’s poor without energy access by 2030.

“There are literally one billion reasons to change our current approach to energy access,” says Justin Guay, Washington Representative with the Sierra Club’s International Climate Program. “The World Bank has a tremendous opportunity to do just that by committing to rapidly scale up investments in off grid clean energy at Rio.”

Entrepreneurs agree. The letter states in part, “We work in these markets and we know they suffer from, among other things, a distinct lack of access to finance.”  The entrepreneurs go on to argue that a significant investment in the sector from the World Bank Group can reduce perceived risk and unlock private sector investment – and along with it the vast potential of clean energy to serve the world’s poor.

The entrepreneurs expressed their support for existing World Bank programs such as Lighting Africa, Lighting India, and Green Power for Mobile and asked for increased funding for programs like these going forward.

The market potential in serving the world’s poor is enormous. Lighting, just one of many energy requirements, is a $36 billion a year industry. However, while the poorest fifth of the world currently pays one-fifth of the world’s total lighting bill, it receives only 0.1 percent of the lighting benefits. Worse it comes from heavily polluting and dangerous kerosene which can cost as much as 25 to 30 percent of a family’s income. Diverting this expenditure to clean energy can reduce pollution and expenses over time.

 “A continued reliance on huge coal, nuclear, and hydro plants has done little to alleviate energy poverty, forcing the poor around the world to rely on kerosene for their meager energy needs,” says Harish Hande, founder of SELCO-India (http://selco-india.com/), and recent recipient of the prestigious Magsaysay award. “The poor are best served by small scale, distributed clean energy which is faster, cheaper and more effective for addressing their needs and delivering on the world’s energy access goals.”

Entrepreneurs like Hande are doing so by providing, small scale solar home systems for communities and households that don’t have access to the grid. The combination of prohibitive costs of grid extension, highly innovative business and financial models, and plummeting cost of renewable energy have enabled them to demonstrate the financial viability of the sector.

Now a new generation of entrepreneurs are experimenting with ‘pay-as-you go’ systems, mobile banking payments, and community power that extends clean energy from off-grid cell phone towers to surrounding communities. In essence they are laying the foundation for the developing world to leap frog the expensive, polluting, and inefficient grid that dominates the developed world.

“The opportunity this presents is just tremendous,” says Simon Trace, CEO of Practical Action (http://practicalaction.org/). “These entrepreneurs are laying the foundation for a clean energy future by serving those who need it most. It’s high time they got the finance they need.”

“Rio +20 is an incredible opportunity for the World Bank Group,” added Jake Schmidt, International Policy Director for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (http://www.nrdc.org/). “This is a global platform and the time is right to make a statement on off grid clean energy.”

There’s not much that Republicans and Democrats can agree on in Washington these days. But surprisingly, there’s one issue that not only has bi-partisan support, but is also an important way to help keep strong American jobs during this tough economy: the Production Tax Credit for wind power.

The PTC is a federal policy that helps level the playing field among energy sources by providing tax incentives to wind energy companies. It has helped support clean energy entrepreneurs building innovative wind energy companies here in America and has built a manufacturing base that didn't exist 5 years ago. Their work is helping us transition off of dirty fossil fuels that harm our health and our air, while also bolstering an industry that has already created 75,000 good, American jobs.

And this week it’s become clearer than ever that the Production Tax Credit is working.

According to the American Wind Energy Association’s first quarter report, the U.S. wind industry installed 1,695 megawatts during the first quarter of 2012 (53% more than in the first quarter of 2011) bringing the total U.S. wind power capacity installations to 48,611 MW.

This growth in wind power installation is happening all across the country. Thirty-two projects were installed across 17 states during the first quarter of 2012, and there are utility-scale wind installations in more than 75% of U.S. States. Last quarter New Hampshire and Arizona -- two states not typically thought of as traditional wind states -- grew the fastest in terms of new wind capacity.

The outlook for projects still in the pipeline looks even better. Last quarter was the second most active quarter for wind construction ever (only Q2 2008 saw more MW under construction). There are currently nearly 9,000 MW under construction across 31 states and Puerto Rico, representing 57% more megawatts under construction than during the same time last year. Today, virtually every region in the U.S. has more wind power under construction and online in 2012 than they installed in all of 2011

AWEA’s report is great news, but it’s clear that without renewing the PTC this progress will stop in its tracks. If Congress drops the ball on the PTC, the wind industry predicts that half of all wind jobs will be lost. Already we’re seeing foreign wind power companies, once committed to developing in America, moving back overseas and domestic companies, uncertain about government action, are already discussing layoffs.

Plus - the PTC only costs about 1/8 of what the US gives in subsidies to the five richest oil companies.

In this economy we should continue supporting American made jobs and helping move our country towards cleaner energy solutions which will save us all money in the long run. Republicans and Democrats alike support the PTC, but the House Republican leadership has failed to bring the issue for a vote. Whether they are holding it hostage for the benefit of big polluter backers or just failing to make it a priority, the result is the same: American families will lose their livelihoods.

It’s time to stand up to those who are protecting dirty outdated dinosaurs and putting new innovative American jobs at risk. Tell Congress to renew the production tax credit now.

-- Dave Hamilton, Director of the Sierra Club Clean Energy Program

"I call it coalfield Stockholm Syndrome. We've been oppressed for so long that people think the thing oppressing them is actually helping them." This is how Dustin White, an eleventh generation West Virginian, explained the relationship between Appalachians and coal companies to visiting activists who fight destructive fossil fuel projects in India.

Even the schools here push out coal industry propaganda, telling students they don't need to get an education, they can become miners. Dustin's nephew was given an assignment to write a report on reclamation, and the school tried to fail him when he turned in a report saying you can never return a mountain to what it was before mountaintop removal coal mining.

But it wasn't always this way. West Virginia's first industry was water. Rich people used to travel here for the clean, pure water, long before mountaintop removal mining left it contaminated with mercury, selenium, and other heavy metals.

Dustin (pictured at the left) always felt that he owed something to the coal companies, but that all changed when he flew over the coalfields. He told us one of the hardest things he has ever faced was sitting next to his mother as they looked down on what is left of Cook Mountain, which his family has lived on or near since 1849. All that remained was the cemetery where generations of Cooks are buried, surrounded by the mine. The cemetery wouldn't even be there if Dustin's uncle hadn't stopped by to care for it as the coal company was preparing to destroy it. His family was never told, even though they had maintained the cemetery for over a century. (Read more about Dustin and how coal is threatening his family cemetery in this Sierra magazine article)

Coal may have helped put food on his table, but that mountain has given birth to generations of Cooks, right up to his mother. Now it is being destroyed, while Blair Mountain, sight of the famous labor battle that Dustin's father fought in, is also threatened. As Dustin sees it, he owes his life to two mountains.

Over in Beardsfork, another mountain community is fighting for its very existence. Regina Gilbert told us she had a similar experience to Dustin flying over the coalfields in a small plane. First she was devastated, and then she got angry. Her neighbor Catherine South was worried that that if mountaintop removal coal mining continued they might not have a community left; it would be filled with rocks. Outsiders and coal spokespeople say there isn't anything worth saving in Beardsfork, but for Gene Underwood this is his home, his community. He has lived here all his life.

But Debi Goenka brought a message of hope from India. In his forty years of working on environmental issues against seemingly insurmountable odds, he has become convinced that a couple of determined individuals who refuse to give in can win. The key is that they have to be willing to fight; no one will do it for you. That's what is happening in India when entire villages rise up to halt new coal development, and it is what is happening in West Virginia when residents and workers stand up to the coal companies behind mountaintop removal coal mining.

Dustin calls what is happening in Appalachia the eradication of a people. The history is being blown up with the mountains, and the future generations are being killed. West Virginia has some of the highest birth defect rates in the country. The clinic where his mother works used to be quiet. Now it is filled with people on oxygen carrying shopping bags full of medications.

Everything comes back to the mountains: the destruction of people's bodies, the destruction of people's communities, and even the destruction of people's souls. Cynthia Rawlands from Beardsfork explained it another way. "These mountains are our heart, and we need our hearts to love. Please don't take our hearts."

-- Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club Campaign Liaison. Photo of Dustin White by Shawn Poynter.

Keystone XL remains a dangerous and unnecessary project. Americans agree that this pipeline should not be built once they learn the details. Our challenge is confronting a multi-million dollar lobbying and a PR campaign by TransCanada to force through their pipeline. It's hard for anyone to hear the truth with all that money being spread around, but we're working with people whose land is being taken and whose health and livelihood are threatened. The Sierra Club is fighting for a thorough scientific review of the project, something that TransCanada and other pipeline proponents are avoiding at all costs.

On Friday, TransCanada applied to the State Department for a Presidential Permit for the northern segment of Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would cross the Canadian-U.S. border in Montana and run down to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect with the existing Keystone 1 tar sands pipeline.

The Keystone XL northern segment is part of a larger pipeline system designed to deliver tar sands from the mines in Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast refineries for export to the international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 bpd and would have the carbon footprint equivalent of building seven coal plants or putting five million new cars on our roads each year. TransCanada hopes to receive a Presidential Permit in early 2013, take 18 months or so to build the pipeline and commence operation by late 2014.

To receive the Presidential Permit, the Obama administration would need to find the pipeline in the "national interest," a term that is not formally defined, but -- according to the State Department -- includes "consideration of many factors, including energy security, health, environmental, cultural, economic, and foreign policy concerns."

As with its original application, TransCanada makes many misleading claims in the most recent application. The Sierra Club is working with its partners to analyze this permit application in detail. In the meantime, the facts about the Keystone XL remain the same:

• A Future of Dirty Energy: Keystone XL is a dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands across the United States for at least 50 years. A permit for Keystone XL would constitute a massive infrastructure commitment to some of the world's dirtiest oil.


• Unnecessary Risk: The United States does not need Keystone XL. We have reduced our oil consumption by nearly two million bpd over the last five years, and with new fuel efficiency standards and the growing number of electric and hybrid cars, our oil use will continue to decline. A national increase of just 2.5 mpg average fuel economy negates the need for Keystone XL entirely.


• Water Pollution: Keystone XL still passes through the Nebraska Sand Hills endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, drinking water for millions and the water source of one third of American agriculture. The Nebraska Farmers Union continues to oppose the dangerous project.


• Raising Gas Prices: According to TransCanada, Keystone XL will raise oil prices in 16 Midwest states. This increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to increase annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in the first year of operation of the pipeline of $2 billion to $3.9 billion.  "U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. Of course, American consumers will pay the price of this highway robbery. Food prices will rise because they reflect farm operating costs. In addition, millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our 'friendly' neighbors to the north."


• Respiratory Disease and Cancer: The pollutants released by refining tar sands cause acid rain, smog, and haze, and are associated with elevated levels of lung disease and cancer.


• Climate Disaster: The tar sands mean "game over" for the climate, according to NASA scientist James Hansen. 

In short, Keystone XL is not in our national interest. The Sierra Club is committed to halting the expansion of tar sands and will be working with our allies and activists to ensure that Keystone XL receives a rigorous and transparent environmental review process that includes:

1) a full environmental impact statement with public notice, comments, and hearings;

2) a third-party contractor with specific expertise in this project and without a prior conflict of interest;

3) a review of the climate impacts of bringing 830,000 bpd of tar sands into the United States.

The facts are clear: an honest review will demonstrate that it's time for the Obama administration to kill this zombie pipeline for good.

-- Kate Colarulli, Sierra Club's Beyond Oil Campaign.

“This is a human rights issue. Certain lives are valued differently, are considered expendable for resources.”

This was the powerful message that resonated across the first full day of our exchange between India civil society participants and Appalachian community members fighting mountaintop removal coal mining. But it didn't come from one of our Indian guests; it came from Chuck Nelson, a former coal miner who spent 30 years working underground in West Virginia's coal mines.

In the 1990s, just as mountaintop removal coal mining was coming to the area, local residents like Chuck started noticing that people were getting sick and dying. Chuck lost a close friend who was only 28 or 29-years-old to cancer. A grassroots movement went into tiny communities and asked folks to write down any illnesses they had, and came away with 14 pages of cancers and other diseases.

The one thing that connected everyone was that they used well water. Before mountaintop removal coal mining became prevalent, the hollers in the mountains had some of the best water, but since then Chuck has seen black water flowing from the taps in some people's homes, the result of leakage from earthen dams that hold back billions of gallons of toxic coal slurry from flooding the valleys bellow.

And it's not just one household or one community that is affected. Susan Lupis and Hap Endler from SouthWings took us on a flyover of just a few of the mountaintop removal coal mining sites in the Charleston area, but from the air we could see site after site going all the way to the horizon.

Chuck explained how the coal companies own West Virginia, from the politicians they have bought and paid for, to the very economy that creates a vicious cycle, driving out all other industry and keeping people reliant on coal as their only option for employment. "We don't need coal to keep the lights on," he told us, but the powerful coal lobby is actively working to block new technology like wind power, that could create more long term jobs in the state.

The fear over job losses is the big stick that coal companies use to threaten the people of West Virginia, even though the coal industry's very practices have slowly eroded employment. Perversely, more mountaintop removal coal mining only means fewer jobs for miners. As Chuck explained, 14 workers can run an mountaintop removal coal mining site, while hundreds were needed for an underground mine.

It's not just jobs that are at stake, but good jobs. Companies like Massey have gone on a union-busting spree across the state, buying up union mines, shutting them, and then reopening them as non-union mines. To ensure that the unions didn't return, Massey refused to hire back the local miners, breaking the social bonds that gave the unions power. For people like Chuck, being in a union gave them dignity, something that expendable non-union jobs couldn't do in the same way.

Without the unions to protect them, the workers were left at the mercy of the coal companies. Safety was overlooked in favor of profits, and anyone who dared to speak out was fired and blacklisted. This is how Chuck lost his job. After over two decades working as a union miner, Chuck was forced to spend eight years as a non-union employee. But he couldn't stay silent while workers were put at risk and local residents were dying. The reprisal was severe. He hasn’t been able to work since being fired in 2000.

Under these conditions, it was only a matter of time before something like the Massey Upper Big Bend disaster that killed 29 people occurred. Chuck lost two friends in that accident. Without the union inspecting the mines, workers were left at the mercy of company inspections, whose purpose was to keep the mines open, not to keep them safe. Chuck told us that whatever stories we've heard about Massey, the reality was even worse. But people couldn't speak out without losing their jobs like he did.

Now the coal companies are literally destroying what's left of the small, mountain communities. They've made it so no other industry can grow and they’ve poisoned the water. People who stand up to the industry can't get work. There is no choice but to leave the state. But no one will buy a house with toxic well water in the shadow of an mountaintop removal coal mining site or below a toxic coal slurry pond. Residents have no choice but to turn to the coal companies, which buy up and demolish entire communities -- tearing down and burning houses, churches, and everything else until nothing is left.

This is what 150 years of coal development looks like. There is no prosperity, except for a very few. All other livelihoods are destroyed, making people entirely dependent on the coal companies. But they can only make enough to scrape by, never break free, and eventually they can't even do that. Communities that have existed for two or three hundred years are finally razed to the ground.

This is the future that communities in India face if they continue down this path. Soumya Dutta came to the U.S. to challenge a project that received IFC funding from the World Bank, Tata Mundra. The backers promise it will create 700 permanent jobs, but it is already destroying the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people who depend on the polluted tidal zone for fishing, grazing, and salt production. If these are destroyed, the only option for local communities will be leaving or poor jobs with the coal companies, just like in Appalachia.

Chuck told us that "the companies will continue killing people until we run out or get off fossil fuels.” Places like West Virginia and India have huge potential for clean energy such as wind and solar power. But to realize this potential, the communities in Appalachia and India need our help. As Chuck explained, we are all complacent in what is happening in West Virginia every time we turn on the lights. The question is, will we stand with local communities and demand safe, clean energy? Or will we continue to let them be treated as expendable?

-- Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club Campaign Liaison

You want to go solar. But you're a renter. Or you can't afford it. Or there's a giant tree that shades your roof. Well, look no further than "community solar" to solve that problem. Solar Mosaic, a Berkeley company with a staff of 14, lets you put money into a solar project at a third-party location. After a while, you'll see a return on your investment. Lisa Curtis, Solar Mosaic's Community Builder, took a few minutes to answer our questions. Visit Solar Mosaic for more info.

(By the way, keep your eyes peeled for a Sierra Club-Solar Mosaic partnership later this summer.)

What separates Solar Mosaic from the rest of the solar energy sector?

Traditionally, renters, homeowners without the proper roofs, and those without a good credit score have been unable to go solar. Solar Mosaic removes these boundaries and lets everyone benefit from green energy. Warren Buffet just invested $2 billion into a solar farm in California. We make it possible for millions of others to do the same.

Let's say I throw in some money into a solar project through Mosaic. What happens? 

First, you find a project to invest in through us. Then you can invest anywhere between $25 to $25,000. Once enough people have invested in a particular project, it will be built. After it's fully installed and connected to the grid, you will begin receiving a monthly return on that investment. The return will likely be in the 5-10 percent range. 

It seems like Solar Mosaic has targeted community centers so far. Why’s that?

Helping community centers go solar was a compelling way to get people excited about the idea of investing in solar. There is also a strong mission fit with our company that is reflected in the projects we choose. We'll continue community-based projects, but we are excited to expand to include schools, commercial buildings, and residential. 

How cool is that? By doing projects with schools, I wonder if students could sell investments in panels for their school. When I was a kid, I used to sell magazine subscriptions to my neighbors to raise money for my school. 

That's certainly something that could happen down the line. We've done a couple of presentations to high school groups encouraging them to urge their parents to invest in solar projects on local non-profits, but we haven't formalized the relationship in a subscription fashion yet. We haven't done any schools yet, but are very excited to do so soon.

What projects are you working on now?

We just fully funded St. Vincent de Paul's solar project -- or "rooftop solar power plant" -- as our team has begun thinking of them. We're honored to have partnered with over 400 investors and a few incredible organizations to raise more than $350,000 to build on the roofs of The Asian Resource Center, People's Grocery, Shonto Begay's Home, and The Murdoch Community Center.

These beta projects will save these community organizations over $260,000 on their utility bills, create over 2,700 job-hours for local workers, and produce enough clean energy to fully power 12 homes. We've figured it's the carbon equivalent of planting 4,600 trees, assuming they grow for 10 years.

Is this a business model that will grow?  

Estimates say U.S. solar projects will be more than $50 billion over the next five years. But few banks have developed solar financing and many have too much overhead to effectively manage loans.

Online investment marketplaces effectively bring liquidity to financial markets that lack it and serve as an attractive investment opportunity for retail investors. The result has been the rapid growth of a number of online investment platforms. Lending Club and Prosper, for example, are expected to originate over $1 billion in loans this year -- and they are growing 100 percent annually.

Online marketplaces for solar loans have a distinct advantage over these platforms because solar loans are backed by a revenue producing asset -- and counter-parties are paying for a service -- electricity -- they already pay for. This reduces the risk to investors.

Abundance Energy, a company in the UK offers similar investments in wind and solar. Solar Share in Canada offers solar bonds that are somewhat similar, though they have a different business model -- a non-profit cooperative.

We've received a lot of interest from solar developers in the U.S. who want to finance their projects through our marketplace. And we also hope to bring this model to other sectors in the future, like energy efficiency and geothermal. 

Read more about clean-energy solutions.

-- Brian Foley

This is a guest post from Debi Goenka, Executive Director of India's Conservation Action Trust, about this week's trip from India to Appalachia to see the parallels of how the coal industry has decimated both places. (See the first post here).

Thanks to the Sierra Club and SouthWings, I was able to do a flyover of the Appalachian Mountains yesterday. During our last visit in September 2011, bad weather prevented this from happening. In fact, even our site visit to the Kayford Mountain mining site was a wash out – the blanket of fog ensured that visibility was about 10 metres, and we could not see the mining site at all.

However, yesterday was a revelation. Flying over the mountains at a height of 4,500 feet, the whole vista of destruction unfolded before our eyes. What we had seen as lush green mountains from the ground turned to be a cancerous spread of brown eating into the green verdant landscape.

The flight with SouthWings was awesome – what we saw was awful.

As far as we could see, there were patches of brown and black for hundreds of square miles. We could see patches where trees were being cleared in anticipation of new mining. We could see operational mines where I felt that the earth itself had been violated by a handful of companies in their quest for the black gold.

We could see the coffer dams put up near the mines where millions of gallons of toxic slurry – which is known as witches brew – were stored in unlined reservoirs. We could see the miles of pipes that cut through the forests – pipes that were used to transport the coal to the coal yards. And we could see the coal yards next to the river banks where coal was shipped in open barges.

Thanks to the decrease of coal usage in the US, and because of the increased demand for coal in China and India, I was told that about 50% of this coal was being exported from these mines, to be burnt for “development” abroad.

The rehabilitated mine sites seemed to be superficially green –there were no forests, and obviously, there never would be forests on these areas that had been ravaged.

Our day ended with a visit to the Blair Mountain, West Virginia, where we once again touched base with the local activists who are fighting very similar battles to protect their natural and national heritage from the powerful mining lobby.

At the end of the day, just like in India, where we often ask, “What is the Ministry of Environment & Forests doing?” – I was left with the question, “Where is the Environmental Protection Agency?”

First two photos by Justin Guay. Other photos by Nicole Ghio.

The forest-shaded hills of the Appalachian Mountains near Charleston, WV, may seem an unlikely place for Indian activists to campaign against a destructive coal plant being built 8,000 miles away in Gujarat state in India.  But that is where Soumya Dutta of the People’s Science Forum and Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust are headed this week, to meet with local communities engaged in similar struggles against coal corporations and to build a global coalition to fight back against dirty coal. 

Last month Dutta led a team of retired Indian justices and high-level officials on a fact-finding mission to the site of a massive new 4,000 MW coal-fired power station along the shoreline of the Arabian Sea near Mundra, India.  The team documented the glaring social and environmental violations being committed by the Tata Power Company which is building the plant.  Dutta heard first-hand from local fishing villagers and salt-pan workers how the Mundra plant has contaminated their land and waters and threatened their livelihoods, even forcing some to abandon their ancestral homes. 

What’s worse, the local communities have been systematically excluded from the process and discussions leading to the approval of the Mundra plant.  Tens of thousands of local villagers face severe health impacts, economic hardship, and even displacement when the behemoth coal plant comes fully online.  And yet Tata Power has failed to account for or even acknowledge these social and ecological impacts in its bid for the project. 

Funded in part by the International Finance Corporation, the private lending arm of the World Bank Group, the Mundra plant is just one of hundreds of new coal projects green-lighted in India in the last five years.  Suckered in by the artificially depressed price of Indonesian coal exports in the last decade, the Indian government approved nearly 100 GW of new coal-fueled electrical capacity, creating a “coal rush” of private energy companies trying to get in on the action.  The result has been a Wild West mentality in the industry with little oversight or safeguards for impacted communities. 

Now, as the price of coal on the international market skyrockets, many of these projects are languishing, either stalled in construction or canceled altogether.  But instead of turning away form increasingly-uneconomical coal projects in favor of more efficient, sustainable alternatives, major Indian energy companies are scrambling to secure alternate sources of coal, from acquiring troubled mines in South Africa to locking into long-term import agreements with Australia.  The Indian coal rush has even reached into the heart of U.S. coal country, with conglomerates like the Essar Group staking claims in the Appalachian range. 

And so, as the powerful coal industry is extending its reach, so are coal activists like Dutta and Goenka.  Working with the Sierra Club and Bank Information Center, Dutta traveled to Washington D.C. last week to present his findings in Mundra to the IFC’s Office of the Compliance Adviser/Ombudsman (CAO), which is entertaining a complaint against the project from the affected communities. 

Now, Dutta and Goenka find themselves touring the devastating mountaintop-removal mining site on Kayford Mountain in West Virginia, on a fly-over piloted by SouthWings, Inc.  The Indian visitors will meet with the Alliance for Appalachia, a group of local organizers and communities that have been struggling against the mining companies there, exchanging ideas and sharing strategies of how to effectively oppose these projects.  Threatened with massive environmental destruction, suffocating dust and pollution, and the relocation of entire towns—some even at the hands of Indian corporations—the people of West Virginia may find that they have more in common with fishermen in Mundra than they think. 

Standing on a narrow strip of sand with the Tata Power Company and its massive Mundra complex on one side and the sea on the other, their homes and livelihoods dwarfed by the pollution-spewing spires of the coal plant, it would have been easy for Dutta and the local villagers to feel trapped and isolated.  Instead, they reached out to sympathetic activists and civil society organizations and communities facing similar struggles, and found support from around the globe. 

This international solidarity is increasingly forging a coalition of groups to forcefully demand that coal has no place in a future that safeguards the health and livelihoods of local communities. Ultimately they hope to speak in one unified global voice against Tata Power, against the Essar Group, and against the devastation this industry is wreaking around the world.

-- Gordon Scott, Sierra Club International Program intern

New fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards are ensuring consumers have better choices at dealerships that will help them save money.  According to NRDC, proposed standards for 2017-2025 vehicles could save Americans $68 billion per year by 2030 because we will be using much less gasoline. 

Using less gasoline also means fewer gas taxes get collected, so it is logical that the Congressional Budget Office would assess what impact fuel efficiency standards would have on gas taxes, and therefore how much money goes into the Highway Trust Fund (that’s how it’s funded).

This week the Congressional Budget Office came out with a hypothetical look at how the proposed 2017-2025 standards will affect the Highway Trust Fund (PDF). To do this, CBO comes up with a hypothetical look at what would happen over the next 11 years to the Highway Trust Fund if gasoline tax revenues declined by 21%.

I suppose that’s an interesting question, hypothetically.  And the answer to this hypothetical, according to CBO, is $57 billion drop in revenue to the Highway Trust Fund between 2012 and 2022. That’s nothing to sneeze at when our nation’s transportation system, highways and transit (as well as investments in safe biking and walking) are almost entirely driven by how much revenue gas taxes generate each year.

CBO explains that they looked at the fact that new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards will gradually result in a fleet of vehicles that use less gasoline (that’s a good thing), which means that we are buying less gasoline (also a good thing) and therefore paying less federal gas taxes.  The CBO notes that improved fuel efficiency would eventually cause annual gas tax revenues to fall by 21% -- in 2040.  For some reason, however, CBO chose to apply that out-year reduction in 2040 to the years 2012-2022. 

That’s an interesting hypothetical but really not the real world impact of improving vehicle fuel efficiency.  It is fair to say that CBO tries to caveat their $57 billion hit to the Highway Trust Fund by noting that the full 21% reduction doesn’t actually happen for 30 years and their case is illustrative.  Hmm.  So why did CBO come out a $57 billion reduction in revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, make recommendations about how to solve this hypothetical problem from spending less on transportation to putting in more general revenues into the pot and finally raising the gas tax?  That’s a tough question to answer.

The facts are facts.  The nation’s roads, bridges, transit systems  and more are largely funded out of the Highway Trust Fund which in turn is funded from the 18.4 cents collected for every gallon of gasoline (there’s a tax on diesel too) we buy.  Even though we buy a lot of gasoline – some 121 billion gallons in 2011 – we have a bit of a problem.  Gas taxes are just not generating enough revenue to pay for what we need.  CBO provides this handy chart that shows that over time the amount of revenue going in – fuel taxes – is less than what is being spent.  That is a problem. 

(click image to enlarge)

It is also true that shifting our vehicle fleet from gas guzzlers to gas sippers (or vehicles that ditch the pump all together) will mean less revenue coming into the Highway Trust Fund.  On the other hand, thanks to the Administration’s standards for new vehicles, which kick in this year and will demand continuous improvement of vehicles through 2025, we will be saving more than $125 billion a year at the pump by 2030, reducing our addiction to oil and spewing out a lot less pollution.

We went back and took a look at what EPA and DOT estimated for how much less fuel we will be using each year thanks to cleaner cars.  We confirmed that CBO is pretty close to what EPA and DOT estimate for reduced fuel consumption in 2040.  In 2040 a 21% reduction would mean that we’d generate roughly $6.1 billion less in revenue than without the standards (assuming the 18.4 cent gas tax stays flat).  But, EPA and DOT show that it takes a long time before you hit that 21% reduction.  CBO acknowledges that but goes ahead and applies that reduction to every year starting in 2012.  That’s funny math but we admit easier than making a calculation based on estimated fuel savings in each year and adding them up. 

***

UPDATE: If you check out the right table (III-68 in the Preamble) that EPA and DOT provide in the proposed rule the impact of the proposed standards on HTF revenues for 2012-2022 is more like $2.5 billion.  That's a far cry from the hypothetical $57 billion.

***

The fact is that we need to take a close look at what kind of transportation system we want in America.  Everyone who moves in this country, whether by car, transit, biking and walking, knows that our existing systems are in desperate need of repair.  As a bike commuter, I am tempted to start a “Bikers for smooth Roads” coalition.

More Americans are demanding access to transportation choices that will help them move without getting in their car.  We can’t get this kind of transportation system without paying for it.  The 18.4 cents of gas tax on each gallon of gas purchased is not enough, with our without improvements to fuel efficiency.  CBO is right that we need to address this problem – spending less on a system that is already verging on collapse is really not an option if we want our economy to grow and safely get to all of the places we want to go.  We can increase gas taxes, make it a sales tax, put a fee on each barrel of oil, or we can start paying per mile we drive.  There are other ways to generate revenue.  But first, CBO should give us some good math, not a hypothetical.

Maybe CBO should have titled their report “Hypothetically, How Would Proposed Fuel Economy Standards Affect the Highway Trust Fund?

-- Ann Mesnikoff, Director of the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

We've seen some good news for clean fuel standards lately – rules that require industry to reduce carbon pollution by limiting reliance on high-carbon fuels, such as tar sands, oil shale, corn ethanol and other high-carbon biofuels.

First, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had put a halt on California’s implementation of its Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The California Air Resources Board can now move forward with implementing this important standard, beginning the trend of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Also this week, a coalition of environmental groups delivered a letter to 11 Northeastern Attorneys General demonstrating that a Northeast Clean Fuels Standard is legal and should move forward.

This news isn’t just important because of its impact on reducing carbon pollution. This legal certainty will send a positive signal to investors – and that will stimulate economic activity and innovation, not only reducing pollution but creating desperately-needed jobs.

California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): California’s LCFS will allow us to transition to cleaner, alternative fuels that lower our dependence on oil and reduce our carbon pollution. The LCFS is the nation’s only standard that requires the oil and corn ethanol industries to innovate to produce much cleaner transportation fuels and improve their production practices.

The standard aims to reduce climate disrupting-pollution by reducing the fuel-cycle, carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California. The LCFS reduces pollution not only by encouraging the use of alternatives to petroleum-based transportation fuels, but also by estimating - and reducing - all climate disrupting-pollution caused by the use of ethanol, including from the extraction, refining, and transportation of the fuel.

On Monday, 4/23, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals stayed a lower court decision and allowed California to proceed with implementation and enforcement of the state’s new fuel standard. That decision allows companies that have already entered into contracts to buy and sell carbon credits under the new rules to proceed with the program, resulting in an immediate and meaningful cut in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Northeast Clean Fuels Standard Program: Also last week, legal experts from a coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club delivered a letter to the 11 NE Attorneys General involved in the NE Clean Fuel Standard. The letter comes in response to a push from an oil industry front group, the Consumer Energy Alliance, claiming that the standard wouldn't pass legal muster.

According to legal experts, the standard is legally defensible and should move forward—despite Big Oil’s efforts to derail the standards and bring tar sands to the Northeast. 

Once again, big polluting industries flexing their muscles to keep us addicted to their product and stall our transition to sustainable, clean transportation fuels. These cases show that for every two steps forward, polluting industries will stop at nothing to take us one step back.

-- Lena Moffit, Washington Representative for the Sierra Club

Americans want to pedal. But Congress is threatening to slam the brakes. 

This May, millions of Americans will participate in National Bike Month, showcasing the widespread desire to use bicycles as a healthy, affordable, and efficient form of transportation. Sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists, and supported by the Sierra Club, the month will feature more than 450 events across the nation that will highlight bicycling's growing popularity and the need for transportation policies to reflect that. 

Guess who's not getting a fair shake from Congress? Biking and walking account for 12 percent of all trips in the U.S. but receive just 1.6 percent of federal transportation spending. And some members of Congress want to eliminate those crucial dollars in the next federal transportation bill. 

Even the current miniscule federal investment has produced massive results. Less than 2 cents of every federal transportation dollar go to biking and walking, but the number of bicycle commuters grew 40 percent between 2000 and 2010. That growth was even more dramatic in bicycle friendly communities that leveraged federal dollars to improve conditions for bicyclists, skyrocketing by 77 percent between 2000 and 2010. 

By continuing to shortchange people who ride bikes, Congress is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population.

• Americans are driving less: The average resident drove 6 percent less in 2011 than 2004.
• The next generation wants to bike more: The number of bike trips for 16- to 34-year-olds grew 24 percent between 2001 and 2009.
• New polling data from America Bikes, to be released next week, shows that the vast majority of Americans support maintaining or increasing federal funding for sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.

National Bike Month events will showcase how Americans continue to embrace cycling and why Congress needs to invest in smart, healthy, safe transportation choices -- like bicycling. Find data, events and information about National Bike Month right here.

Thinking of dusting off your old bike and taking it to work? Check out the Sierra Club's Bike Commuting Resources page.