A new transportation bill in Minnesota would require that state and municipal transportation planning agencies take the state's climate and VMT goals into consideration when assessing new projects. It sounds simple, but it's a first & could be transformative. I talk with state rep & bill author Larry Kraft.
I recommend the "City Climate Corner" podcast. I listen to it regularly. This podcast "Explores how small and mid-sized cities are tackling climate change and moving toward an equitable and sustainable future." The podcasts are always interesting, and cover a range of topics: Boise's geothermal energy district; Santa Monica's 3D printed bike lanes.... Check it out: https://www.cityclimatecorner.com/
Great stuff, thank you David. Can I ask you to please try to remember Coltura's work on gasoline superusers so you can ask your guests whether they have considered applying Coltura's approach to their EV incentives? I don't want that to sound like a grizzle, as this episode had several policy ideas of interest to me here in far-flung Tasmania.
What was behind the question about “Is MN going to follow CA/OR/WA in the low-carbon fuel standard area?” You know as well as anyone that the internal combustion engine has got to go away, if we are to have any hope of cutting transport-caused emissions. Diddling about with LCFS is like telling a cancer patient “Yeah, we know you need chemo and radiation to have a prayer, but we’re going to send you to a homeopathy clinic because we’ve invested so much into it.”
Great pod, thanks SO MUCH for covering this important policy!
I’m curious why Colorado's rule is mentioned but you suggested here (and on Twitter/ X) that MN is the first to do this?
Colorado's GHG planning standard is being implemented now. It also requires planning by MPOs and DOT to reduce emissions. EVs are counted separately.
I like to see those first movers on these politically very difficult policies to get the credit they are due. Leadership by Director Shoshana Lew has been exemplary and the CO DOT is great about sharing insights with other states (as noted by Larry Craft, on the pod).
Speaking of transportation, WA state just electrified its first ferry boat with 2 huge batteries on the fore and aft ends. Also, concerning transport, is the fact that the only reason that we need additional electric lines is because of all of the new EV's. All of the coal (17% nationally) and natural gas burning (43.9%) does produce electricity. Every bit of new wind and solar production offsets the current dirty electrical energy usage (phasing it out), and thus no new lines needed. Any replies?
We cannot meet our climate goals without evaluating transportation and development decisions for their impact on emissions. It's not easy. But it's important.
I recommend the "City Climate Corner" podcast. I listen to it regularly. This podcast "Explores how small and mid-sized cities are tackling climate change and moving toward an equitable and sustainable future." The podcasts are always interesting, and cover a range of topics: Boise's geothermal energy district; Santa Monica's 3D printed bike lanes.... Check it out: https://www.cityclimatecorner.com/
Great stuff, thank you David. Can I ask you to please try to remember Coltura's work on gasoline superusers so you can ask your guests whether they have considered applying Coltura's approach to their EV incentives? I don't want that to sound like a grizzle, as this episode had several policy ideas of interest to me here in far-flung Tasmania.
What was behind the question about “Is MN going to follow CA/OR/WA in the low-carbon fuel standard area?” You know as well as anyone that the internal combustion engine has got to go away, if we are to have any hope of cutting transport-caused emissions. Diddling about with LCFS is like telling a cancer patient “Yeah, we know you need chemo and radiation to have a prayer, but we’re going to send you to a homeopathy clinic because we’ve invested so much into it.”
Great pod, thanks SO MUCH for covering this important policy!
I’m curious why Colorado's rule is mentioned but you suggested here (and on Twitter/ X) that MN is the first to do this?
Colorado's GHG planning standard is being implemented now. It also requires planning by MPOs and DOT to reduce emissions. EVs are counted separately.
I like to see those first movers on these politically very difficult policies to get the credit they are due. Leadership by Director Shoshana Lew has been exemplary and the CO DOT is great about sharing insights with other states (as noted by Larry Craft, on the pod).
https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas
Dude, ‘elderly in matching tshirts’? Please share your data showing that active resistance to climate solutions is predominantly from the elderly?
Sincerely screw that truthiness.
Speaking of transportation, WA state just electrified its first ferry boat with 2 huge batteries on the fore and aft ends. Also, concerning transport, is the fact that the only reason that we need additional electric lines is because of all of the new EV's. All of the coal (17% nationally) and natural gas burning (43.9%) does produce electricity. Every bit of new wind and solar production offsets the current dirty electrical energy usage (phasing it out), and thus no new lines needed. Any replies?
We cannot meet our climate goals without evaluating transportation and development decisions for their impact on emissions. It's not easy. But it's important.