Earlier this month the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) released its final report. This group of over 50 stakeholders was formed by Governor Tim Pawlenty to assist in developing a Minnesota Climate Mitigation Action Plan (that’s a lot of capital letters). It has some impressive names on it, including Will Steger, the polar explorer and climate change activist; Prof. David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, one of the most esteemed biologists in the world; and J. Drake Hamilton of Fresh Energy, whom I heard recently give an excellent speech on climate change and our response to it. The group also has many other prominent figures representing business, labor, churches, environmental organizations, and other groups.

I’ve read the executive summary and Chapter 5: Transportation and Land Use and was encouraged by what I found. The group has outlined policies for achieving a nearly 30 percent reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2025 (with 2005 being the base year), and most of the recommendations were approved unanimously.

The public can now enter comments about the report online (deadline is midnight on Sunday, April 27), and I encourage people to do so. At the very least, you can read the executive summary before doing so, though it is not all that short at 16 pages.

It wasn’t entirely clear to me whether the report claimed that enacting the policies would provide a net savings to the state and its people. It seems the policies would save the public money rather than cost them money, judging by the discussion on page 6 of the executive summary. The report does attempt to quantify the cost of various policies. The most cost-effective measure, for example, is improved statewide building codes; that’s the no-brainer.

Much of the report is too technical for this amateur to fully comprehend. It claims the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions are in agriculture, forestry, and waste management, which includes biofuel production.

I have a better understanding of the report’s recommendations on transportation and land use. There I’m particularly appreciative of their call for the following policy changes, most of them related to my interest in walking and biking as transportation modes. I include in parentheses the voting outcome from MCCAG members on each particular topic as well as some associated text:

• Improved Land-Use Planning and Development Strategies (Unanimous)
• This policy improves land-use planning and development practices to target growth in ways that reduce the number and length of vehicle trips, thus reducing GHG emissions.
• Expand Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Infrastructure (Unanimous)
• Climate-Friendly Transportation Pricing/Pay-as-You-Drive (Super-majority [3 objections])
• This policy recommends that the state of Minnesota institute requirements and policies ensuring that drivers more fully pay the costs of driving. By doing so, the policy would encourage drivers to choose transportation alternatives, purchase more efficient vehicles, drive less, and/or drive more efficiently (combining trips).
• “Fix-it-First” Transportation Investment Policy and Practice (Super-majority [2 objections])
• This policy option recommends that the state legislature require that state and federal transportation investments be prioritized in the following order: (1) maintain existing roads, and (2) design new and expanded roads to serve higher-density, more compact, pedestrian-friendly development in priority growth areas, such as downtowns, town centers, main streets, neighborhood hubs, regional centers, transit corridors, and transit station areas. It also recommends that the state significantly reduce investment in new roads and roadway expansion that accommodate and encourage both low-density development and more and longer vehicle trips. This strategy will reduce GHGs emissions by increasing bicycling and walking and reducing the number and length of vehicle trips.
• Workplace Tools to Encourage Carpooling, Bicycling, and Transit Ridership (Unanimous)
• This strategy reduces emissions by requiring certain employers and encouraging other employers to offer a Commuter Benefits program at the workplace to increase the use of transit, ridesharing, and non-motorized transportation. Commuter Benefits can include reducing the amount of free or subsidized parking, providing paid or pre-tax transit passes or mode-neutral transportation allowances, guaranteeing rides home for non-drive-alones, providing bicycle parking and employee lockers, providing telecommuting programs, and/or having employee ID cards serve as transit passes. The strategy also reduces emissions by requiring large employers (more than 200 employees) to develop and implement transit demand management plans that customize commuter benefits and transit-supportive building design to specific building locations.
• Adopt California Clean Car Standards (Majority [16 objections])
• This policy option reduces GHG emissions from new motor vehicles (cars and light-duty trucks) sold in Minnesota by adopting legislation equivalent to the California Clean Car standards (Assembly Bill 1493 [Pavley], named after the California lawmaker who sponsored the legislation). California adopted legislation in 2002 (and regulations in 2004) requiring a reduction in GHG emissions from new cars and light-duty trucks sold in that state beginning with model year 2009. California plans an 8-year phase-in. The California standards incorporate the main global warming gases—CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide—resulting directly from vehicle operation (tailpipe emissions), as well as hydrofluorocarbon emissions resulting from leakage from or operation of vehicle air conditioning systems. (pp. 5-5 to 5-7)

The latter has been in the news lately and, along with the recommendation to lower speed limits, was the most controversial recommendation in this group of policies.

Perhaps the most important recommendation is to create a Cap-and-Trade program that would establish a market for GHG emissions. This was passed by a majority of MCCAG members (9 objections). According to J. Drake Hamilton, this is the best way to get large reductions in GHG emissions.

It’s important that elected officials and other leaders in the state are aware of these policy recommendations. I hope that they will be turned into reality and that there will be guidance provided to local governments.

My favorable impression of the report is tempered by knowing that many of the proposed changes will be difficult to enact. Also, one knowledgeable individual I know has criticized it for taking no position on the topic of new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, particularly with two new plants being considered. According to the report, those two plants, Big Stone 2 and Mesaba, would emit about 5.1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year (Exec. Summary p. 5).

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am and is filed under Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Ecology, Minnesota, Politics, Science.