APTA: Mass Transit Reduces Greenhouse Gases
More evidence that Proposition A makes sense to clean the air: a study by SAIC for the American Public Transit Association has found that taking mass transit can be ten times more effective than other common activities (e.g. installing compact fluorescent bulbs) to reduce an individual’s carbon footprint.
Better Muni service is key to making this happen in SF. Get involved now with Yes on A and No on H!
Update: Supervisors Peskin and Elsbernd urge a yes on A vote in today’s Chronicle.
Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level…
http://www.eredux.com/states/
This is a silly issue for Rescue Muni. I want Muni to get to work and back home in reasonable time, comfort, and safety. Issues such as global warming are a distraction from the goal of improving public transit.
This study is relevant only if you believe greenhouse gas is harmful and that taking public transportation will have any impact on climate change. I don’t believe any of it. Prove it.
Thank you for the Peskin-Elsbernd update. They are correct that San Franciscans don’t need to be told by Al Gore what is real.
A British Judge ruled that Gore’s movie can only be shown to school children with a warning label because of scientific deficiencies. For example the movie had a line graph showing the relationship between CO2 and climate change. On that basis, Gore claimed that CO2 caused climate change. However, an expert government witness defending Gore’s movie admitted that the graph showed that climate change precedes CO2 change. In other words, based on the graphic in the movie, climate change causes CO2 not the other way around.
Al Gore should be forgiven. His early science education was obviously inadequate. According Gore’s movie his 6th grade science teacher never heard about continental drift. That 16th Century theory had widespread acceptance by 1960 when Gore would have been in the 6th grade. I heard about tectonic theory from a science teacher in SF public schools in 1957 after the big earthquake. Maybe Al’s early education explains why he got D’s and C’s in Natural Sciences in college and scored very low in physics and chemistry on his college boards.
I have a suggestion for Peskin-Elsbernd. As part of the Prop A Climate plan, transit planners should do something about global cooling. According to the satellite troposphere measurements, global warming stopped eight years ago. It seems to me that the last three summers in SF have been rather cool. Maybe the supervisors can pass a law that will prevent fog from penetrating my West Portal neighborhood!
As a Republican and a Christian with MORALS I support what Don is saying. THANK YOU DON! I will make sure to shop at Banana Republic and the Gap and Old Navy as much as I can!!! THANK YOU!! As a business owner in San Francisco myself, I think we should have public transit for the poor and for our support staff and cleaning people. But we should NOT waste money on it to make it any better than bare bones service because people should aspire to grow up and move up and upgrade and purchase something better – like a car or SUV. Funding MUNI to keep it from collapsing should be the extent of it. Funding it to make it some people republic limousine should be prevented. And global warming has yet to be proven. My car dealer friends are hurting because nobody in San Francisco wants to buy cars like the old days. And then there are the MUNI people who say “MUNI doesnt use any gasoline – its all water powered electricity from Hetch Hetchy”. If that isnt a slap in the face to the troops serving in iraq so we wont need cowardly hybrids, I don’t know what is. Why can’t we as a city choose fiscally responsible MUNI investments and let the private sector cater the rest of our needs? Can’t those of us who pay a LOT of tax dollars have a say?