As Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District representative, Rep. Earl Blumenauer has long been a supporter of sustainable public policies. Yet while Blumenauer's home city of Portland frequently tops the lists of the greenest cities in the country and the world, the federal government has played the role of caboose to the world’s green movement. VerdeXchange News was pleased to speak with Congressman Blumenauer, a Budget Committee member, about Congress’ recent proactive efforts regarding sustainabilty and climate change.
You recently authored and inserted three environmental initiatives into the House Ways and Means Committee’s Energy Bill. How will these congressional initiatives drive change in alternative energy?
With the legislation that has passed out of the Ways and Means Committee, there is an opportunity to send a very clear signal about the country’s approach to issues of energy, conservation, and climate change. The overall structure of the bill is critical for providing incentives for alternative energy and resources for local and state governments to jump-start some of their innovations.
I was concerned with some particular items that I think send important signals. One dealt with closing the “Hummer loophole.” Congress, some years ago, made clear that it wasn’t the intention of the tax code that a tax benefit for purchase of vehicles for small business, such as farms, be used for luxury cars. This was defined according to weight, and unfortunately, the auto industry in the last 20 years has been working aggressively in building some of the biggest, heaviest gas guzzlers imaginable, providing the perverse effect that there was actually a tax break for people who would buy a Hummer. We closed that loophole, saving three quarters of a billion dollars that can be spent on energy-related initiatives, while maintaining opportunities for the farm vehicle, the plumber’s truck, the delivery van, etc.
The second initiative was to extend commuter benefits to people who burn calories instead of gasoline. For years, there have been opportunities for employers to give over $200 dollars a month in tax-free parking benefits for their commuting employees. After a struggle, we were able to get a transit benefit, which is about half that amount, and now a provision that I had as separate legislation has been incorporated into a commuter “bike benefit,” which will send a signal that we value people using the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed.
The third element that was very important to me was to understand how our tax code contributes to global warming. We included a provision for a carbon audit of the tax code—for us to sort through the various provisions in the United States tax policy and explore how those provisions impact our carbon footprint. This study is going to provide an important guide as we re-tool a whole host of federal policies to make them more sustainable.
The 1970s saw a bipartisan coalition pass the nation’s Clean Air and Water bills—a Republican White House and a Democratic Congress adopted landmark legislation. Now it appears that there is less bipartisanship. Is there solidarity to be found in this new Congress around climate change and environment?
It’s slow coming. Some of my Republican colleagues share our concern about global warming and dependence on energy from unstable parts of the world. I can think of a half dozen that have been quite helpful and outspoken. Unfortunately, they have been minority voices, and they have been deliberately marginalized. For instance, Speaker Pelosi, in one of her first official acts, created a special committee on global warming and energy independence. The invitation was given to the Republicans to name their members, and they excluded the people who had been most concerned and involved with the climate change issues. As their ranking member, the Republicans chose Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, who has been one of the most outspoken skeptics in Congress on these issues of global warming. There are still problems with the administration and most Republicans in Congress, but that’s starting to change.
The public has raced ahead of the federal government in this regard, which is fueling the most noticeable changes. As of July 13th, there are 612 cities in 50 states [See http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/ClimateChange.asp] that have decided that they are not going to wait for the federal government, and they’ve moved ahead on Kyoto compliance. I’m proud that I’m from one of those cities, Portland, Oregon, which also may be the first city in the United States to actually reduce its greenhouse gases on a per capita basis and an absolute basis. At a time when our population grew 17 percent, we slightly reduced our overall greenhouse gases and significantly reduced our per capita output. When you have major environmental groups locking arms with business organizations and major corporations, coupled with grassroots pressure at the municipal level, you start to see a political sea change that will be reflected ultimately in Congress and the next administration.
In the May issue of VerdeXChange News, the headline of an interview with Governor Schwarzenegger’s former EPA Secretary, Terry Tamminen, read: “California to Feds: Let States Lead On Climate Change.” Are states and cities pushing the envelope for U.S. climate change policy?
California is to be commended. The response you had to the energy crisis and the Enron debacle was part of a continuing set of policy initiatives where California is the acknowledged state leader. We’ve got ten states in the Northeast that now have their own carbon emissions trading scheme. The West Coast governors have united to follow California’s lead in terms of tailpipe emissions standards. States are not quite in lockstep with California, but a number of them have stepped up with their own initiatives.
Major cities—I would place in that Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and more recently Mayor Bloomberg’s 127-point plan for New York City—are showing that this can be done. And I would like to also mention that back in 1979, Portland, my home, was the first American city with a comprehensive energy policy.
I am extraordinarily optimistic with the government response by states and localities to this grassroots initiative.
Let’s discuss your leadership and campaign for a Food and Farm “Bill of Rights.” Agriculture is a large piece of Oregon’s economy; it also contributes significantly to California’s economy. What are your goals and objectives for including a Food and Farm Bill of Rights in a reauthorization of the Federal Farm Bill?
I was stunned in 2002 to watch the development of a Farm Bill that was so much at variance with the interests of the typical farmer and rancher around the country. Oregon and California are being dramatically shortchanged. There are a few people who took advantage of massive commodity payments for large-scale agricultural operations, but both California and Oregon are characterized by people who grow food, not just commodities like soybeans, corn, rice, and cotton. They got almost nothing out of the 2002 Farm Bill. The environmental titles were dramatically under-funded, so that three quarters of the applications for conservation funding are rejected for lack of money.
We’ve been working to change that dynamic. We need to make people aware that everybody has a stake in this funding: everybody who eats, who cares about nutrition for our children, who cares about obesity and hunger in America—these are all inter-related. The Farm Bill, with tens of billions of dollars, has the potential to improve or worsen each of these situations. Also, this legislation is also going to be the most important environmental bill of the year; it can help us deal with land conservation, water use, prevention of sprawl, and protection of the integrity of farmlands. Our Food and Farm Bill of Rights is an attempt to show the big picture, to encourage people to get involved with this Farm Bill discussion, and to be able to share their insights with others. I’ve been very excited with the response we’ve received to our website, foodandfarmbillofrights.com.
Portland has long been a leader in urban land use planning, and planning is increasingly becoming one of the strategies of urban mayors to green their cities and reduce green house gas emissions. What is the relationship, if any, of present federal facilities and infrastructure funding and the carbon emission target reductions being adopted across America.
The current structure that we have for urban America—which includes sprawl, heavy reliance on single occupancy vehicles, and far too much hard concrete and asphalt—is the result of specific government policies. There has been a deliberate pattern of support by government policies on everything from free parking, to low cost money available for freeway expansion, to refusing to extend the federal government housing subsidies to attached housing (i.e., the mixed-use that is fueling a revitalization of cities around the country). It was not done with a conscious effort to create sprawl, congestion, energy dependence, and environmental problems including air and water pollution, but that is certainly the consequence.
The work that is now before all our metropolitan leaders is to figure out how to reassemble incentives to provide support for the future; giving people more choices for cycling, walking, and transit helps reduce auto dependence. Design characteristics—everything from green roofs, open space, to protecting water features, and planting street trees—make a difference in terms of the carbon footprint, reducing the heat island effect, saving energy, and giving people a higher quality of life. Cities are now looking at ways to convert to 24-hour activity centers, so there is a nightlife not just in the revitalized downtown core, but in activity centers throughout the region, revitalized neighborhood business activities, and mixed-use development along transportation corridors. All these elements respond directly to government planning and municipal subsidy.
The fastest growing areas in the United States, demographically, are in the Southwest, especially in Nevada and Arizona. Housing tracts are being built in what was once open desert. What explains the failure of a smart growth agenda to limit sprawl, given the obvious need to link water, transportation, and land use policies and resources?
When you disconnect water and transportation policy from sound land use, you end up creating dynamics that are not sustainable over the long haul. It’s time for us to try to get our policies right at the federal level with water, with transportation, and with where the federal government locates its own facilities.
But I will tell you that, having worked for years with many of these fast-growing communities, that there has been an adjustment to the mindset. In Phoenix—that quintessential car city with the highest per capita gas consumption and the last major American city without regularly scheduled bus service—they are now working on light rail lines and downtown development. In Houston, over the objection of Tom DeLay, the voters have approved light rail. Denver and Salt Lake City—places that you don’t normally associate with new urbanism and balanced multi-nodal transportation—are working toward these principles. I think you’re seeing a revolution at the municipal level, a little slower, perhaps, than we would like, but it’s occurring nonetheless. If we can support it with sound federal policies, there’s an opportunity for rapid progress in the immediate future.
You’ve been invited to participate in the GreenXchange Conference in Los Angeles in December and “One Earth. One Event” Expo in October of 2008. What opportunity does GreenXchange offer for bringing together green tech environmental, business, and government global leaders?
We are now witnessing a green business revolution. Whether it’s companies like General Electric, which has a couple of dozen product lines and subsidiary businesses that are involved with conservation, green technologies, and business applications, to little companies that are just sprouting up with people who have an idea, the marketplace is driving innovation. Having an opportunity to meet in a systematic fashion in a location with a vibrant economy like that of Los Angeles, would, I think, have a catalytic effect.
Portland is recognized as a leader in sustainable activities and green enterprise. I routinely meet with business leaders, and every time I have a meeting, I am introduced to new people, new products, and new initiatives. Establishing such a global idea and tech exchange in Southern California would be extraordinarily powerful; it would have a national impact, at minimum.
There is so much that is going on in California that the synergies that could be developed are, I think, extraordinary. Southern California, most especially, is going to hold the key. We have to be able to bring these initiatives to scale, whether it’s municipal planning or transportation or it’s the commercial application of technologies and products. There’s no better laboratory—or host—than Southern California.