It Takes More than Awesome Bicycles to Make Biking a Viable Transportation Option

It’s going to take a lot more than cool new commuter bikes like the one pictured here to persuade more people to use bicycles for transportation, not just recreation, in the Richmond region. It would be helpful if Virginia jurisdictions designed balanced communities where a variety of destinations were located within easy biking distance. In the case of my home county of Henrico, it would be helpful to actually have bicycle paths.

But every innovation helps, even if it comes from the people who design bicycles rather than communities. According to the Cycling for Boomers blog, Wisconsin-based Trek, the largest U.S.-based bike manufacturer, this year is introducing two chainless models that replace the clunky, maintenance-intensive chain with a greaseless, rust-proof carbon fiber belt.

The lighter, longer-lasting carbon-fiber composite belts can’t be cut, won’t stretch or slip and won’t leave grease marks around your ankles, says Eric Bjorling, Trek’s lifestyle brand manager. There is one drawback: One of these bad boys retails for $990.

Price aside, I doubt we’ll see many of these in Richmond. The city has some super-cool mountain biking trails around the river, but only a handful of bicycle lanes that could be used for commuting. The western end of Henrico County, where I live, has no useful bicycle lanes at all — despite the existence of several potential routes. One bike path could run along the James River (either on the old canal tow-path or a railroad right of way; I’m embarrassed to say, I can’t recall which, but I have it on good authority). Another path conceivably could run underneath a Dominion electric transmission line — not bad, if you don’t mind a little static cling in your hair. A county bike path network also could tie into bike-friendly University of Richmond. And that’s just in my neck of the woods.

There are scads of lightly traveled subdivision roads that could provide bicycle access if only they connected with one another. Of course, pervasive “pod” subdivision development means that most subdivisions dump traffic onto traffic arterials where even Lance Armstrong would take his life in his hands.

From what I’ve been told, any effort to build a bicycle network in Henrico would meet resistance from home owners worried about “strange” people riding through their neighborhoods. Yeah, like a burglar will break into your house and make a getaway with your big screen TV loaded on the back of his bicycle! Maybe the brush with $150-per-barrel gasoline, which will surely return when the recession ends, will encourage people to adopt a broader attitude.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

35 responses to “It Takes More than Awesome Bicycles to Make Biking a Viable Transportation Option”

  1. “Another path conceivably could run underneath a Dominion electric transmission line — not bad, if you don’t mind a little static cling in your hair. A county bike path network also could tie into bike-friendly University of Richmond.”

    So I hope the recommendation is for the huge mass of potential bike riders to pool their own money to fund the construction and upkeep of these bike paths (and to slap down the NIMBYs worried about spandex-clad weirdos riding past).

    Perhaps a foreign company can build the paths by charging bikers a toll for the next 80 years. I’m sure that would make the path even more popular.

  2. Non motorized folks have more than paid for any sidewalk, bike lane, or path that will ever be built through the externalities produced by the automobile. It is more than fair to pay for transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure with the gas tax.

  3. I think what I would like to see is the locality keep more of the gas tax money and then for local voters to decide via referendum whether they want some of that money spend on bike and ped facilities.

    I don’t see the tax on gasoline as much different that property taxes and sales taxes in terms of what it is eventually spent for.

    For instance, we don’t require that only taxes on the sale of books can be used to build libraries.

    And we don’t require that only taxes on kids clothes be spent on schools.

    If people pay taxes – then they also should have some right to say what they want those taxes spent on.

    You could have a local referendum.. asking a two part question:

    1. – should we raise taxes and spend it on more bike and ped facilities?

    2. – what taxes should be raised? gas, property, sales, etc….

    Use the same approach for Mass Transit….

  4. yup – but the taxing authority of 3202 was overruled by the courts.

    What it boils down to – is what folks in the localities and regions want to pay for more/new infrastructure..be it roads, tunnels, bike trails or mass transit.

    They have the right to say “no” but when they do so… whining about Richmond not funding transportation is hypocritical IMHO.

    and not just in HR/TW – in NoVa.. and across the state.

    Let VDOT be responsible for roads that connect Virginia – the Interstates and the major primaries.

    Let the localities be responsible for their local roads.

    and let Regions – agree – as a region – what regional roads they want to pay for.

    We have a problem when people think that money comes from somewhere else other than their own pockets IMHO.

    When folks blame Richmond for not funding transportation – what they are really saying is that Richmond should raise taxes on everyone – statewide to allocate more transportaiton money – rather than their locality.

    And if you do favor that… why would anyone expect Richmond … to deliver back to any locality ..anything more than what the folks in that locality actually paid in higher taxes?

    That mindset engenders a balkanized attitude that your region deserves MORE of the transportation dollars than other regions….and worse… it instills a sense that you can have more roads ..by having other regions pay for them.

    If a locality wants/needs more roads … no more or less than they might want more libraries and schools… at the least – they should be willing to pay their fair share.

    So when you do a referendum… people can look at the projects and look at the money required – and decide.

    If they turn the deal down – then one can either try harder to prioritize less projects that are thought to be by the public as a better cost-effective proposal….

    … or the folks in that locality can say “HECK NO”… but then they have no one but themselves to blame for congestion and gridlock (sic).

    The CBBT is a good example of whether or not people want to pay for a needed road….

    No one in RoVa was taxed to pay for it.

    The folks that use it – decide – every time they use it – if it is a good value (or not).

    In other words, people take personal responsibility for their decisions about whether or not to pay for what they drive on.

    If they think the CBBT is a “scam” like Bob apparently thinks all toll roads are – then they can be reassured that no one is taking money out of their pockets to pay for someone else’s use of the bridge.

    right?

  5. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Here is what it boils down to in Tidewater. The powers that be developed a huge package of roads and tunnels costing billions. Then they have tried repeatedly to present these projects as ‘congestion relief’. That’s all well and good, except their own analysis has proven congestion will not decrease at all.

    When they tried the referendum method, they were soundly defeated. Simple matter really. The main project is really for the ports, which should be rightly funded by the state government which owns them. Instead of accepting defeat and drawing up a new plan or splitting the projects, they went to their crony lawyers in the legislature to force the citizenry to pay for all the projects. Had it not been for several grassroots oriented Republicans, there would have been no court case.

    The one thing in common with these people is they never take No for an answer. VAB rejects light rail, they simply come up with a new way to circumvent the will of the people without having a vote. They use the closed Jordan Bridge as a pawn to further their agenda, when it should have been in an improvement plan along with hundreds of other projects that really would provide congestion relief. The deceit is endless.

    Now we are sitting here with busted city budgets, increasingly underwater mortgages, a port that loses money in spite of state taxes propping it up, a canceled port expansion, and incomes that barely exceed RoVa. Yet the regional ogliarchs maintain their hallucinations of grandeur when the evidence is clear that the American economic paradym has changed.

  6. re: ..”The one thing in common with these people is they never take No for an answer.”

    and I agree… and that’s why they went to Richmond…and “end run” around citizens..

    and it’s also why.. several MPOs in Va had/have in their legislative agenda’s requests to the GA to grant them taxing authority (the economy has backed them off for now).

    The same thing happens at the Federal Level.

    MPOs have been given the power to decide how to spend the Federal Gas Tax money collected from the citizens in their region.

    and yes.. it IS a racket…

    There ARE rules.. pesky as they are… and it appears that the HR/TW MPO hadn’t even tried to pretend they were following said rules – and they got caught during an audit review.

    But my point is that – gas tax money is taken from the folks in HR/TW and …essentially given to the HR/TW MPO to decide how to spend it – even if citizens are opposed to the projects.

    I’m not so naive to think that taxing at the local level only will dispel all corrupt processes but I do know if you send the money out of your region to be reallocated back to your region or locality – that there is ample opportunity to take away from citizens the ability to participate and hold leaders accountable.

  7. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    "if depression is to be avoided it will be through oldfashioned
    Keynesian fiscal policy: the government’s taking a direct hand
    in boosting spending, and the government deciding what goods and
    services there will be demand for."

    http://files.posterous.com/braddelong/4zbhnRmYcr9nSP38PXl1engxoEzt4x4MbYhZ3CnyWpGAtt55BVIlk7KpfuKv/20081122_turn_to_depression.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1228077710&Signature=X2vqRuvbQ46bledD6GNkmPek34g%3D

    You see? This is the kind of totalitarian claptrap that America will soon be forced to endure. All because The People failed in their most important duty, keeping government at all levels in check. But once again, you ain't seen nothing yet. Boosting spending and providing governmental edicts in a centrally planned economy are impossible if those policies rely on massive debt that no one is willing to fund.

    http://www.euromoney.com/Article/2054070/The-US-treasury-market-reaches-breaking-point.html?LS=EMS224393

    All the economic theories in the world, whether it's Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, or Joe the Plumber, are totally useless in today's crisis. All pre-suppose that the issuer of these policies has a credit rating above zero. As Americans are slowly discovering, we are all sub-prime, and screwed.

  8. jeeze Darrell.. you’re starting to sound like EMR…

  9. Groveton Avatar

    “If a locality wants/needs more roads … no more or less than they might want more libraries and schools… at the least – they should be willing to pay their fair share.”.

    There is a God!

    LarryG arguing for regional fiscal accountability!

    What next – throwing darts at a picture of Judge Dillon?

    Meanwhile, Bacon wants more bike paths! This is a banner day. Of course there should be nore bike paths. Like along the buried natural gas lines that run all over North Eastern Fairfax County. The land is already cleared. It’s already an easement. But there are no paths. You know why? NIMBYS.

  10. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    “jeeze Darrell.. you’re starting to sound like EMR…”

    The difference is EMR advocates totalitarianism.

    I merely report on its progress.

  11. Groveton Avatar

    Darrell:

    Congratulations on the twin victories in the Virginia AAA football semi-finals. Phoebus beat Stone Bridge and Oscar Smith beat Oakton. So, Phoebus goes on to meet Dinwiddie and Oscar Smith will face Osbourn.

  12. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Yeah, we are becomming the SEC of Va High School sports. Honestly, football is big business down here. The only question is which school will have the top team from one year to the next. For a while there were only a couple of decent teams, along with several NCAA type recruiting violations. Once the school boards put their foot down, all the teams became more equal. I’ve been to OS as a volleyball groupie, but I don’t attend football games any more. My kids used to attend Salem in VAB, but after several games that required a 20 man police force and a helicopter to stop the home team gangs from bashing each other in the bleachers, I decided it just wasn’t worth it.

    So much for bike paths. On to EMR’s Sunday sermon.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “Non motorized folks have more than paid for any sidewalk, bike lane, or path that will ever be built through the externalities produced by the automobile.”

    Complete and utter nonsense, and totally false. This represents a thorough misunderstanding of the facts and meaning of externalities and finance.

    There are not enough non-motorized folk to pay for much of anything.

    As far as externalities go, everyone, motorized and non-motorized pay the same costs. Even if you buy this argument, it still means that the motorized people would have paid far more for bike trails than non-motorized people.

    Finally, a payment for extenalities is just that. The money is NOT AVAILABLE for building bike paths. If property rights were propery allocated and defended, the motoring public would have to pay for all the externalities. (And the non-motoring public would have to pay for all their currently unpaid for benefits.) After you got done with that swap, then the non-motoring public could use their share of the remaining funds to build whatever they like. But those funds would still come from the motoring public, without whom, and without the externalities from, the money would not exist.

    RH

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “If people pay taxes – then they also should have some right to say what they want those taxes spent on.”

    That is why I have advocated that we just put a simplified budget right on the back of you tax return, where you can indicate how you think YOUR money should be spent.

    Doesn’t even have to be binding, just have the results published and then let te politicians squirm and explain if they try to do something much different from what the people have said they want.

    RH

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “One thing all economists agree on: If there are public investment projects that pay a high rate of return, those are worth paying for, even if it means more borrowing. But that is always true. Even if we were at full employment and there were no possible employment effects of fiscal stimulus, we should undertake public investments that pass a cost-benefit test.”

    Greg Mankiw

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Fantasy vs Reality.

    I’ll say. What we have here is a collection of ten bike path photos, and they contain a grand total of two bicycles and part of one handlebar.

    RH

  17. re: “That is why I have advocated that we just put a simplified budget right on the back of you tax return, where you can indicate how you think YOUR money should be spent.”

    two questions:

    1. – what is a simplified budget compared to the full budget ?

    what part of this:

    http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/budget.cfm

    would you not put on the form

    2. – how would you deal with things like welfare, medicaid, mental health, prisons, DEQ, higher education, etc?

    Is the form you advocate purely advisory and if so…. isn’t that what elections are for?

  18. we had occasion on our visit to DC with relative to use the “on-demand” pedestrian signal activators with countdown and I have to say I like them a lot.

    If you put enough of these in and around an area like Tysons – it will have the effect of prioritizing pedestrian and bikes – if – that is a preferred mode.

    If not.. then no problem.. the signals won’t be used.

    but if you were merely across the street from your job and lunch.. I’m betting many more people would walk if they had the ability to get a green “walk” (with countdown).

    this would allow pedestrians to assert themselves and create a more level playing field IMHO.

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    "what is a simplified budget compared to the full budget ?"

    The full budget is a book, which you can't very well put on a form. I'm thinking 30 to 35 line items, like public safety, education, higher education, highways, public transit, forestry, agriculture, welfare & human services, business development.

    What I'm thinking of is something you can put on one page to give guidance to the legislators. It might be non binding, and yet if the results ae published,the legislators would be hard pressed to rationalize or explain expenditures that differ very much. Public safety, for example, might include civil defense, emergency preparednes, state police, and prisons. Legislators could shift funds among those items, but they would find it hard to reduce or expad te overall package.

    ————————-

    Is the form you advocate purely advisory and if so…. isn't that what elections are for?

    No, elections are to decide who decides how to spend your money, they offer almost no guidance on spending priorities. Once elected, the morons can do anything they please.

    This, it seeems to me is entirely different. Too often we hear statements made that "What the people really want is…." when nobeody has ever asked them, officially. What we get is private polls, frequently trageted to elicit certain answers.

    With this plan, you get elections to select yur legislators, and then you give them guidance on (more or less) specifically what you wnat them to do.

    I imagine it would have to be purely advisory, or you would never get the legislators to agree. But at least you would force them into an explanation when they blatantly ignore what people ask for.

    Then you have the "voters are clueless" argument, meaning anyone wo disagrees with MY spending priorities.

    This could actually be the case. Suppose you did this and discovered that the people want virtually all the budget to go to education and none to the state police. I'd bet that a year of severely curtailed state police would change the distribution next time.

    Same with asylums or homeless shelters, or garbage collection. I imagine it would take a while and a few false starts, but eventually people would realize what needs to be done.

    Even if you assume that every individual has a special interest (son in the state troopers) and wnat ALL of their money to go to the special interest, averged over seven million people or 2 million tax returns, you probably get a reasonable facsimile of what the people actually want.

    What would happen to the present special interests? Instead of lobbying directly to the legislators, they would now have to split their attention. They would have to advertise directly to the people and appeal to them to put 15% on line 20, or whatever. And they would need a good reason, that people can understznd and believe.

    At the very least, it would dilute their ability to affect the legislators, because a) the legislators would be unlikely to stray too far from the wish list, and b) they would have to split their resources, appealing directly to the people.

    It would cost virtually nothing to print the list on the back of the form and tally it. Just for the sake of information, it would be worthwhile.

    Then, when some fathead promoting his particular vison says, "What the people really want is…" someone will be able to ask, "Yes, but how do you reconcile that statement with what shows on the annual wish list?"

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    “it will have the effect of prioritizing pedestrian and bikes – if – that is a preferred mode.”

    It would also create more stop and go traffic, and otherwise screw up traffic signal timing, resulting in more pollution.

    First, you need to figure out what your global priorities are, and the hierarchy of priorities. If the preferred mode is really costly (to others), then you need a way to reflect those externalities, just as we do with auto travel.

    People who walk are also drivers, and we can expect there preferences to shift as suddenly as they get out of the car. Such fickle “preferences” need to be measured objectively and be managed for the lowest overall cost.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vBiennium=2008-2010&vTable=O

    shows a table that breaks the budget into perhaps 12 lines. I think that is too broad, but by drilling down we can see some subcategories tht might be useful.

    Transportation turns out to be highways or Motor vehicles related stuff, trais and public transit stuff, and aviation stuff. That should be enough.

    Judicial is budgets for the variou slevels of courts, the Virginia Bar, the Sentencing commission, and the indigent defense commission. Law and Order types might "give" more to the sentencing commission and less to indigent defense. Bleeding heart liberals just the opposite.

    Health and humans services boils down to help for the aging, youth, handicapped, health services, mental health, and rehab.

    It seems to me that such levels are sufficient to let people make their spending priorities known, and sometimes even make a political statement as well, without hamstringing the legislators, or getting into too much detail.

    Next, special interest groups will lobby to have their priorities added to the list as indivisual items, and the list will grow unwieldy.

    If that happens, it is proof the idea works.

    RH

  22. “it will have the effect of prioritizing pedestrian and bikes – if – that is a preferred mode.”

    Bicyclists should be able to enter a quarter into the mechanism before pushing the button to receive an immediate green signal. Those who choose not to pay would have to wait in a special penalty box before being allowed to cross the street.

    This innovative plan will reduce congestion at street corners, and it’s necessary because the current button system is not sustainable.

  23. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Excellent, Bob.

    You pointed out that it will always be the “preferred mode” when the perception is that there is no cost involved in your choice.

    In fact, there are always cost trades involved. By charging a quarter to cross the street at will, you would make that cost evident.

    Next you need to figure out whether a quarter is enough or too much. Presumably the price would change according to how much traffic delay and pollution you cause by pushing the button.

    Call it time variable tolling, or some such. And hey, itsa free market, if you don’t like the price, you don;t have to cross the street, right?

    RH

  24. great idea!

    Each car has an EZ-pass and at each intersection – they bid for the green light!

    so.. if you’re in a really big hurry.. you can get a faster green light.. unless of course the folks on other side of the light are willing to pay more for their green light.

    then we’d use the money to build bike and ped facilities.

  25. re: budget

    Ray… let’s take 20 or 30 categories.

    You pick them.

    then you tell me how much the current budget amount is for each.

    then you tell me how much you think each of them should get.

    I’d wager you that not 999 out of a 1000 people would have any clue as to how much currently or how much .. less or more.. would be ..reasonable or unreasonable.

    You’d have folks zero budgeting whole, entire categories.. knocking out even stuff they did not intend to…

    admit it Ray.. it is a … DUMB idea.

    a BETTER IDEA – would be – for each election.. propose to the voters to zero budget a few select State functions – say like the office that does Historic Signs.

    List what they do and list their budget.. then let voters decide.

    We could call this the “HIT LIST” and we’d limit it to 5 or 10 per election but there would always be at least 5.

    And then watch the fund in the GA as they come up with the 5 each year.

  26. Ray Hyde Avatar

    “If people pay taxes – then they also should have some right to say what they want those taxes spent on.”

    “it is a … DUMB idea.”

    Well, which is it, Larry. I think this is a reasonable way to get some information about what people want their taxes spent on.

    I like your idea, too. Combine the process with a mandatory rotating sunset clause for all programs and offices. Each program or office to be terminated unless the people elect to have it continued.

    So, I think to take 20 or 30 categories and you list them along with their current % of the state budget. That will give people some hint as to what the current status is. In another column they just indicate what their preference for their money would be as a percentage. (Must add up to 100%, or your “ballot” is discarded in the tally.)

    This is a common decision making method called Delphi. With two million tax returns, you will find that it doesn’t matter much if you have a few loonies that want all their money spent on mattress inspections or tea tasting. In th3e end you DO wind up with a fair representation of what people say they want their taxes spent on.

    If the legislators or special interests don’t like it, then they can use their influence and money to educate the people as to why certain priorities are a bad idea. the genius in this plan is precisely that special interests would have to divide their attention, money, and energy betweent he legislators and educating (brainwashing) the people.

    Legislators would have a built in buffer aganst untoward approaches because they can aalways say, “Look, my ands are partially tied, the budget referendum says….”

    I lke your idea, too, but it isn’t that much different in concept, or purpose. One is basically an auction of what people are willing to pay for public services, and the other is a negative auction.

    But, here is the problem to your constant anti-tax tirades, as listed above:

    “One thing all economists agree on: If there are public investment projects that pay a high rate of return, those are worth paying for, even if it means more borrowing. But that is always true. Even if we were at full employment and there were no possible employment effects of fiscal stimulus, we should undertake public investments that pass a cost-benefit test.”

    Greg Mankiw

    There are times when more taxes and more borrowing provide benefits that are high enough to justify the costs. In that case the government is NOT DOING ITS JOB if it refuses to act because of some dogma.

    RH

  27. You’d love living in Spotsylvania.

    We have folks who stand up in front of the BOS and ask that their taxes be raised to “fully fund” the schools.

  28. “ask that their taxes be raised to “fully fund” the schools.”

    Not their taxes, but everyone else’s. Nothing is stopping those goody-two-shoes from cutting a nice fat check to the school board from their own personal bank account. But that’s not the point.

    It’s really easy to be generous by spending money that belongs to other people.

    [ Digression: the other principle at work here is that more money doesn’t give you a better education. If that were true, DC public schools would be the best on the planet. ]

  29. Ray Hyde Avatar

    We have the same kind of idiots here.

    We call them citizens.

    They have the right to ask for whatever they want. We have the right to ask otherwise.

    They might be right, and they might be wrong. The BOS should undertake investments that pass a cost benefits test. If there is a positive cost/benefit ratio then there is no reason why the winners (those whose children get educated) should not be able to pay off the losers (those whose taxes get raised with no benefit to themselves), and still come out ahead.

    If they raised taxes, but had a rebate to those with no children in the schools, would you still have a problem? Of course, that would more or less mean that parents would have to pay to educate their own kids, and the pool of contributors would be smaller, and the rate would go up accordingly.

    They don’t need the government to do that for them.

    There is nothing to prevent those citizens from forming a corporation and building their own school, which they can fund any way they like. The PEC can buy as much land as they would like to preserve, etc. etc. etc.

    If the corporation can do a better job than the public schools and enough parents sign up, it would reduce the load on the schools and increase the number of rebates for non-attendance.

    The BOS should explain to them that they have no obligation to increase expenditures that do not show a positive cost benefit ratio, or which amount to a transfer of wealth. They should explain that to the petitioners in terms of their own property rights, and send them packing until they come up with a plan that meets those requirements.

    And they should give the same lecture to every applicant for more money, whatever the purpose. “Don’t expect to get something that you want someone else to help you pay for, unless they benefit from the program as much as you.”

    Naturally, how you do the accounting has a big impact, and we have no policy or procedure for how to agree on that.

    While government SHOULD increas borrowing and taxing to fund projects there is still a big problem in perception. It is caused by the following:

    -Do tax cuts pay for themselves? In part, but overall no.

    -Does government spending pays for itself? In part, maybe, sometimes, but overall no.

    And it is this second part tat should be par of the BOS lecture to our good citizen “friends”.

    All we need is a BOS with enoguh knowledge, intelligence, and cojones to give that speech to all comers.

    RH

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Mine, as usual, is the long version of what Bob said.

    What these citizens are trying to do is obviously wrong, whatever the motivation.

    But it is just as wrong to attempt to shove costs off on a few, when the benefits actually accrue to all, and this is the result of many of the “social engineering” type proposals.

    RH

  31. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    With all the reliance on contracting these days, I think the agencies themselves should have to go through a re-bid every five years with a full audit of the past five, in a fixed price agreement. That way they justify their jobs, prove they are providing a valuable service, and won’t be lobbying in front of the BOS, council, GA or governor every dang year.

  32. Anonymous Avatar

    “So the time has come for Congress to stop pretending that fuel-economy can be legislated and to put market forces to work. That means raising gasoline taxes — offset by cuts in income taxes and by gas vouchers for needy people. These measures would succeed at raising fuel economy and in reducing automotive emissions where the CAFE law has failed.”

    “One big issue starting to get a lot of attention in Poland: farm animals. Agricultural emissions are a bigger GHG contributor than transport, so climate negotiators are looking at ways to clean up emissions from pigs, cows, and sheep”

Leave a Reply