Zap!

I owe a longer post, but in the meantime please enjoy nature's continual ability to be just smashing.

Make Your Own Bike Lane?

I often find myself lamenting the fact that there are not more dedicated bike lanes in U.S. However, instead of waiting around for our lobbying efforts to succeed in getting cities to create more bike lanes, we may soon be able to take our own bike lanes with us wherever we go - at least at night. A couple innovators at Altitute, Inc. have come up with a laser projection system that projects a virtual bike lane onto the pavement behind you. I don't think it's on the market yet, but I'd love to see these in action.
Check it out here.

Rub-a-dub-pthalate

NRDC’s blog sparked some controversy yesterday over a recent New York decision interpreting the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) as banning all products with certain types of phthalates (a toxic plasticizer chemical), not just those manufactured after the law is set to take effect. NRDC had co-filed the complaint against the Consumer Product Safety Commission so naturally they were thrilled – the small business readers, not so much. They complained (reasonably) that these laws unfairly burdened smaller manufacturers and craftsmen, imposing a huge, possibly ruinous, costs for certification and testing. NRDC’s blogger responded by drawing a distinction and saying that the CPSC should be allowing exemptions for small business owners instead of dragging its feet in implementing the law.

Speaking of dragging their feet, the CPSC recently announced a delay in the part of the law that requires the testing and certification. Wait, what? So, what this means is that starting February 10, it’s illegal to sell goods that don’t comply with CPSIA standards for lead and pthalates? But there’s no way to enforce it? In short, yes. NRDC's blogger says so herself, but quietly, in the middle of the first post:

“That means that while it will be illegal to sell toys with these six phthalates, there is no verification that the toys on shelves will comply with law.”

So, the small business is touting this as a grassroots win (looks like the CPSC responded to something of an online media blitz) and NRDC is pleased with the at least symbolic victory that the law will be enforced.

Regulation is needed – the whole reason this law passed in 2008 (most sweeping product safety legislation in almost 20 years!) was because of the public outcry against all the toxic toys being recalled. But we should find a way to force large companies like Mattel to internalize the cost of outsourcing from countries like China with lax regulations. Actually, this wasn’t my idea: Boalt’s own Guzman and Bamberger wrote a CLR article on the topic.

Who Runs Gov

Check out this new website: Who Runs Gov. It gives pretty detailed profiles for a ton of government officials and officials-in-waiting. Good place to go to get an overview of the new key players and issues surrounding them.

Proposed CEQA Exemption for green house gases

Wait, isn’t California supposed to be setting the standard in climate change policy?

My sources indicate that the California AG's office is "very concerned" that the CEQA exemption listed below may pass as part of the current state budget negotiations. If it does so, green house gas emissions will not trigger the environmental impact report or mitigation requirements under CEQA and government projects will be able to contribute to climate change with impunity.

Get in touch with your state legislators and let them know they better not let this go through.

CEQA Greenhouse Gas Litigation Relief

Section 21097.5 of the Public Resources Code is added to read:
21097.5. (a) The failure to analyze adequately or to mitigate the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions in an environmental impact report, negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration or other document required pursuant to this division
for any proposed project does not create a cause of action for violation of this
division.
(b) This section shall apply retroactively to an environmental impact report,
negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or other document required pursuant to this division
that has not
become final.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until the final regulations specifying
greenhouse gas reduction measures adopted by the Air resources Board pursuant to
section 38562 of the Health and Safety Code become operative and as of that date is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends that date.

Obama on FOIA and open government

What? Really? A President who thinks transparency and public accountability have a place in our democracy?

Assuming Obama follows through with promoting this policy and agencies respond in kind, this is a prime example of how drastically different the relationship between the executive branch and the public will be under the new administration.


"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In
the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information
confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract
fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal
interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to
serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should
act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are
servants of the public. All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of
disclosure. . ."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/


"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of open-
ness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and
establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.
Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effec-
tiveness in Government."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

BART and Bicycles

By taking BART instead of driving, travelers generally reduce the amount of air pollution their trips produce. However, this reduction in air pollution is greatly diminished when riders drive to the BART station. This is due to cold starting. For shorter trips (generally, less than 5-10 miles), cold starting can produce the majority of total trip hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions (which contribute to photochemical smog and numerous respiratory and circulatory problems). Thus, to make BART and other rail transit systems most effective for reducing air pollution, we need to maximize the percentage of riders accessing the systems by modes other than single-occupancy vehicle, e.g. bicycling.

In December, the Berkeley City Council took a step in the right direction by (finally) allocating funds for a new bicycle garage for BART riders. The garage will be located in a Shattuck Ave. storefront and will replace the current, and much smaller (~90 bike capacity), facility inside the Downtown Berkeley station. It will have a 250 bike capacity and come replete with a guard, mechanic services and potentially even a coffee shop - and the parking will remain free. If all goes well, the new facility could be opened as soon as next spring. Still, despite this localized progress, bicycle-BART integration is still not where it should be in order to maximize BART's potential to reduce air pollution.

We need to make it easier for bicyclists to use BART, particularly during those commute hours when bicycles are prohibited on most or all BART cars. The creation of a new, expanded capacity bike garage at the Downtown Berkeley station is a great step, but it will not make a huge impact on its own. Free parking garages (with ample capacity, unlike the current Berkeley facility) should be provided in or near all BART stations - and widely publicized. Currently, such facilities exist only at the Downtown Berkeley, Embarcadero and Fruitvale stations. BART and the cities housing BART stations should also secure funds to staff the garages for longer, and more continuous, hours. In addition, BART and the host cities should work together to provide networks of safe and accessible bike routes, boulevards, paths, etc. that lead to the stations. Planning for these improvements should start now.

You might say argue that these investments are too costly, especially in our current economic climate. However, these investments would create jobs (or at least create work for existing workers) and could be designed to become self-sufficient. For instance, the new Downtown Berkeley bike station might include a coffee shop whose revenues would be used to offset the garage's operating costs. Fees for bicycle maintenance provided at the bike stations could be similarly used. Another option would be to raise the car parking rates at BART stations, which would have the concomitant benefit of forcing drivers to internalize some of the negative externalities of driving.

In any case, regardless of cost, it is clear that for BART to reach its full potential (to reduce air pollution) we need to significantly reduce the number of riders who access BART stations via single-occupancy vehicles. Increasing access for bicyclists is one essential component of any such effort, alongside improvements in service, frequency and geographical reach of transit feeder systems, land use changes near stations, and numerous other things.

Van Jones...Again

On the topic of Van Jones, Treeblogger is not the only outfit writing about him. There is a seven page article about him and the green jobs movement in the Jan. 12, 2009 New Yorker, and it's certainly worth a look. It provides interesting insights into both the power and limitations of a single person with a dream. Additionally, it depicts how quickly an untested and somewhat vague idea can gain steam and turn into a full-fledged public policy movement - a testament to the power of image and the prospect, whether realistic or not, of killing two birds with one stone. It remains to be seen whether a green economy is truly a holy grail for the chronically un- and underemployed or just another mirage. However, with Obama seemingly on the green economy bandwagon and willing to push supportive federal policies and programs, we should see some more definitive results in the years to come.

VJ for EJ!

***UPDATE: Van Jones' talk postponed till early next semester; will post with details as they're announced.***

Ok, so I’ll be honest. I haven’t read Van Jones’ new book yet – it dropped October 7 – but it’s on my shelf, ready to crack open as soon as finals are over. If you want some reviews, you can find a few here and here (and here if you’re kind of obsessed with how new media/network culture is the future). Despite my not having read the book, I wanted to write a quick, somewhat timely, post to say two things, that are pretty much just one thing.

One, Van Jones is tight. He was pioneering the green jobs movement for a decade and a half -- way before the economy careened off a cliff and Al Gore somehow convinced the mainstream that melting ice caps are bad news (polar) bears. Now everyone is jumping on board because, really, what could be sexier than environmentalism + economic stimulus + a deliberate and strategic effort to un-whitewash the green movement? Yeah, exactly.*

And, he’s homegrown. Right in our own backyard of Oakland, he founded Green For All to build the movement for a green economy and, previously, co-founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights helping to lift disadvantaged communities up by building community and integrating them into the growing green infrastructure. He is also a founding board member of the Apollo Alliance, which is doing awesome work bringing together everyone from unions to conservationists to shape progressive policy from the ground up. (I heard Co-Director and Boalt alum Kate Gordon speak a couple months ago at a CCELP talk and was very impressed.)

Two, go to his talk on Tuesday, December 2 sponsored by the Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative! It’s our last day of classes – there is no better way to celebrate than to listen to a brilliant, inspiringly entrepreneurial guy talk about issues way more interesting and relevant than claim preclusion. I bet my little green fake-sigg water bottle on it. And if you missed Majora Carter’s inspiring talk on her environmental justice work a couple weeks ago, you definitely owe it to yourself to get your EJ fix. (In the meantime, you should also check out her TED talk if you haven’t already.)

*Well, actually, for an interesting alternate view, check out this article from the Economist. If you don’t have free market tendencies, you’ll disagree immediately. Even if you do, it’s easily rebuttable on a number of counts that I’ll go into at a later date…

SF to Implement New Parking Pricing Scheme

The board of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency decided last week to implement a trial sliding-scale pricing scheme for 6,000 of the city’s parking spaces. The program will be in effect for 18 months, starting next spring. Parking space occupancy will be monitored in six areas of the city and parking prices will be adjusted up or down every month or so based on observed congestion. Parking prices will generally range from 25¢ to $6 per hour, though could increase to as much as $18 in some areas during big events. Prices will also likely vary by time of day and not just place.

Can I say finally?

Publicly provided parking has long been underpriced, and often free – and this is to say nothing of the disastrous impacts of large off-street parking requirements for private projects. Underpriced on-street parking in urban areas, particularly central business districts, leads to numerous negative externalities that drivers should rightfully internalize through higher costs. As drivers circle around looking for an ideal spot, they create air pollution (with health, global warming and other impacts), noise, congestion and resultant stress, loss of time and productivity, and increased risks of accidents (especially with pedestrians and bicyclists).

The negative externalities produced by auto use have long been recognized and have led to the imposition of gas taxes and various other fees and taxes on auto-related activities and goods. Nonetheless, publicly provided parking has generally remained very cheap, preventing full internalization of the external costs of driving. There is no reason that those who don’t drive should have to incur any part of these costs.

Free (or cheap) parking is not a fundamental right. Sure, many people have come to expect and rely on cheap parking over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, but that doesn’t mean they automatically accede to a right to impose significant negative externalities on the general population, future generations and environment. “Well,” you might say, “we’re improving automotive technologies and reducing air pollution externalities.” Yes, that is true, but even hybrid, electric and biodiesel autos produce significant air pollution and have other, sometimes unique, environmental impacts – e.g. electric battery production and disposal. And all auto use, regardless of the type of vehicle driven, still causes other problems like congestion and increased risk of accidents. Thus, absent complete elimination of negative externalities, these central questions remain: Why should drivers be favored over non-drivers? Why should automobiles be our primary mode of transportation? If you have the answers, let me know.

By increasing the cost of parking, congestion would be reduced and local governments would increase their revenues – which additional money they should use to pay for increased transit provision, air quality improvement, and other measures to reduce the externalities of driving and provide alternate mobility options. San Francisco has taken an important first step towards realizing these benefits, and I hope they prove fruitful. It is too early to tell whether a sea change is occurring in parking policy, but with already encouraging results from London’s congestion pricing program, successes in San Francisco could induce other localities in the United States to implement similar schemes.