Yes on A Campaign Needs You!
The Yes on A / No on H campaign needs your help to promote Muni Reform to voters this fall. Sign up now on the Yes on A website!
This measure will increase funding to Muni and also improve accountability for Muni managers. For more on Prop A, see the summary on Prop A’s site, or review our Muni Reform category.
Update: The No on H campaign has also been launched. Both can be reached via the Transit not Traffic page.
I am inclined to vote against this measure because the cost of exceeding standards set by Kyoto may harm public transit’s ability to become more efficient. The logic of the proposal is also flawed. Carbon dioxide is not air pollution. It is a clean necessary trace element good for trees and harmless to humans. Asking a transit agency to work on a climate plan is a waste of their time and talent. They should stay focused on transit planning.
Clean air is a benefit of better mass transit, but we need better mass transit for its own sake as well. By moving more commuters more efficently and on zero emission vehicles, we can reduce pollution and carbon output, but we also save commuters hours of valuable time. For BOTH of these reasons A makes sense.
The charter amendment has some excellent proposals. But asking a transit agency for a climate plan is silly. The agency should focus on the important issue of improving public transit. The climate plan provision should be removed from Prop A as an unnecessary distraction. We already have legislation that regulates vehicle emissions.
A goal of the clean air act is to make vehicle emissions so clean that all that comes out of the tailpipe is carbon dioxide and water vapor (a greenhouse gas). Carbon dioxide is clean air. Reducing carbon emissions has no relationship to the City’s health and wellbeing as suggested by the proposition.
Prop A proposes zero greenhouse gas emissions for MUNI vehicles. Electricity production involves greenhouse gas. Lakes created by damns produce greenhouse gas. I suppose it is possible to have alternatives such solar powered or nuclear powered MUNI vehicles but at what cost? What is not considered by Prop A is the cost.