Biking: Not Just for White Guys With Tattoos

Cycling is starting to happen. Bike commuting is up 47% nationwide between 2000 and 2011--and the largest increases are being seen among women, youth, and people of color. "The New Majority, Pedaling Towards Equity," a new report by the League of American Bicyclists and the Sierra Club, lays out how the fastest growth in percent of all trips by bike is among African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Hispanics--and how cycling numbers could be even higher with better cycling infrastructure, safe places to store bicycles, and riding clubs like Red, Bike, and Green or Black Women Bike. Allyson Criner Brown is on the leadership team of the latter; Sierra interviewed her for our upcoming issue. --Paul Rauber

"People just lose their minds when they see a black woman on a bicycle. You should see the looks of shock. The message that's out there is that it's unusual to be a black woman biking in D.C., that biking's not for us. That's not true.

"Our mission is to get black women on bicycles. We aren't going to get you to the point of high skill, but we want to get you on a bike. Last year we had a woman who was in her 60s who lived in one of D.C.'s underserved neighborhoods where you don't see much bike infrastructure. She hadn't been on a bike in 40 years. She rented one from Capital Bikeshare, and her face was glowing afterward. We always have women who come out and say, 'I'm so glad that I found you. I'm so glad that you exist.'

"I came back to biking as an adult. I didn't know what kind of bike I should get, how to lock it up, how to be safe. Who do you ask? A bike shop can be intimidating. Look at who works there -- people wearing bike-chain bracelets and with bike tattoos. Is that the person you want to be asking for advice if you're a beginner?

"And there's another type of interaction: I can walk into a bike shop and nobody will say anything to me until I'm about to walk out the door, even if I'm looking at high-level gear. At Black Women Bike, people can feel comfortable asking questions. One of the things we talk about is what shops will give you good service.

"I ride on a nice piece of '70s red steel named Starburst. I've done three triathlons, but I started as a commuter, and I mostly use it to commute, which takes about 14 minutes. I work in education, and when I tell the teachers I work with that I rode my bike to school, they say, 'What?' I tell them there are hundreds of us, and we all ride our bicycles."
--interview by Jake Abrahamson

Photo: Benjamin Tankersley

Best…Car…Ever?

On Thursday, product-review powerhouse Consumer Reports announced that the all-electric Tesla S sedan “outscores every other car in our test Ratings. It does so even though it's an electric car. In fact, it does so because it is electric.”

The Tesla impresses. It goes zero-to-sixty in 4.2 seconds, travels up to 265 miles between charges, and uses about half the energy of a Toyota Prius every mile. (Its price impresses, too: Consumer Reports paid more than $89,000 for its test vehicle with the biggest available battery. “Cheaper” versions with more limited range start at $62,400 after accounting for a $7,500 federal tax credit.) This writer recently enjoyed 20 minutes of ear-to-ear-grin driving in a Tesla S. My only trepidation involved was provided by the many squirrels that populated the roads near Tesla’s Palo Alto, California, headquarters, and the fear of local headlines that would follow if a Sierra Club employee crashed the pricey ride trying to avoid hitting one.

The S sedan is a no-compromises electric vehicle. Writes Consumer Reports: “Built from the ground up as an EV, this car's overall balance benefits from mounting the battery under the floor and in the lowest part of the body. That gives the car a rock-bottom center of gravity that enables excellent handling, a comfortable ride, and lots of room inside.” Several other manufacturers modify existing gasoline-powered cars for EV use, along the way cutting into cargo and interior space because of the bulk of electric-vehicle batteries.

“So is the Tesla Model S the best car ever?”, asks Consumer Reports. “We wrestled with that question long and hard. It comes close. And if your needs are confined to the Tesla's driving range, it just may be. But for many people, the very thing that makes cars great is the ability to jump in and drive wherever you want on the map at a moment's notice. And on that measure the Tesla has its limitations. So the Model S may not satisfy every conceivable need, but as we've learned through our testing and living with it, the Model S is truly a remarkable car.”

Check out Sierra’s comparison of electric cars, and the organization’s Go Electric campaign.

Image by Tesla Motors.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

Gritty Journalism

This week the scrappy blog InsideClimate News won the 2012-2013 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting for its coverage of the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill, “the biggest oil spill you’ve never heard of.” Its investigation into the 100 million gallon spill of dirty, sticky Canadian tar sands oil broadened into “an examination of national pipeline safety issues, and how unprepared the nation is for impending floods of imports of a more corrosive and dangerous form of oil.” 

The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin offers up an online chat with publisher David Sassoon, editor Susan White and reporter Lisa Song.

InsideClimate News is only the third online news organization to win a Pulitzer (the others being ProPublica -- which has won two -- and the Huffington Post). The non-profit, non-partisan ICN paints its mission thusly: “Climate and energy are defining issues of our time, yet most media outlets are now hard-pressed to devote sufficient resources to environmental and investigative reporting,” and it would be more than happy to accept your donation to keep the fires of environmental journalism burning.

Image of oil-rich Canadian sand by iStock/AdShooter.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

The New Arctic

We've all read about the shrinking sea ice, melting ice caps, and drowning polar bears. But this simple short film by Kenneth Dutton, Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin (h/t Joe Romm--video below) made it real to me in a way that computer graphics never can. It made me think back to the amazing Inuit hunters I was lucky enough to hang out with years ago on a Canadian River Expeditions trip to the northernmost tip of Baffin Island, only a couple hundred miles from the North Pole. Even then they were complaining of newly treacherous ice conditions:   

Our last full day was the third in a row with unusually bright, warm weather. The sea ice was covered with puddles and melting rapidly, necessitating long detours. Simon [Qamanariq] took one sledful due east to see the cliffs of the Borden Peninsula, where hundreds of thousands of fulmars nested, while others elected to stay in camp. . . . On the way back, Simon was about to drive over a puddle on the ice when he realized at the very last moment that it was actually open water. He swung his snow machine violently, and his fully loaded qamatiik missed falling through the ice by inches. The most frightening thing, his passengers said, was the look on Simon's normally stoic face; when he came into the mess tent, hours after the incident, he was still visibly shaken.

Dutton's tale of the Inupiat family's fishing tragedy reminded me of the amazingly resourceful people I met on Baffin. It's inexpressibly sad to lose, in the space of a generation, a way of life finely honed over thousands of years. But what I learned from even a short time among them was that whatever our angry, changing world throws at them, they will find a way to survive in it. Unlike so many others in the sordid tale of climate change, they make you proud of being human.

 

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

MPG Inches Forward

So 24.6 miles per gallon may not seem a lot to anyone driving a 50 mpg Prius or a gasoline-free electric car, but it’s the highest national average we’ve ever seen. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute has calculated the “average sales-weighted fuel economy” of monthly car sales since 2007, which gives more weight to vehicles that sold in higher volumes. So, for cars, SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks sold in March, the average combined EPA fuel economy was 24.6 compared to just under 21 some five and a half years ago. Not bad, and bound to improve as new fuel economy standards, finalized in 2012, go into effect. Those standards will increase every automaker’s average fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025. (That’ll be the automaker’s fleetwide average, not the average of every individual vehicle sold.)

And for more transportation inspiration, watch the short video “Americans Are Driving Less” by Streetfilms (“documenting livable streets worldwide”), which celebrates the news that Americans have been driving fewer and fewer miles per capita since 2005 -- an eight-year trend that began before the economy tanked.

Image by iStock/PhotoTalk.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

Shipping Oil by Rail--What Could Go Wrong?

Today's Wall Street Journal features a story called "Boom Time on the Tracks: Rail Capacity, Spending Soar." The efficiencies inherent in rail transport--in which a gallon of fuel can move one ton of freight 500 miles--are apparently leading to lots of new spending and traffic for the nation's railroads:

On a recent subzero day at a rail station here on the plains, a giant tank train stretches like a black belt across the horizon—as far as the eye can see. Soon it will be filled to the brim with light, sweet crude oil and headed to a refinery on Puget Sound. Another mile-long train will pull in right behind it, and another after that. . . Welcome to the revival of the Railroad Age.

As the lead implies, oil is a major factor in this rail renaissance:

In the U.S. oil boom, rail's new attitude has made it both a preferred mode of transport—and also an instrument of arbitrage. When oil began flowing in North Dakota, BNSF was perfectly situated. Its Burlington Northern Line from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Puget Sound cuts diagonally northwest through 16 of the 19 top oil-producing counties in North Dakota, then parallels the Canadian border through five of the six top-producing oil counties in Montana. Until several years ago, though, it was mostly a high-speed route for loads like lumber from the Northwest and grain from the Great Plains.

If you're guessing where this is headed, you're probably guessing right. This morning, 14 cars of a Canadian Pacific train hauling crude oil derailed in Minnesota, spilling 30,000 gallons of oil.  

Moving oil by rail in Canada and the United States has increased rapidly in the last two years as domestic crude production has grown faster than pipeline capacity.

Environmental concerns have delayed the production of pipelines like TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL, but some experts have argued moving crude by rail poses a larger risk of accidents and spills.

Here's a foolproof safety tip from Sierra Daily: Just leave it in the ground.

Photo by Gudella/iStock

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

Maybe We're Not Doomed After All!

Springtime is busting out all over--well, except where dramatic Arctic sea-ice loss is leading to frigid temperatures. But all of a sudden normally gloomy enviros are feeling unfamiliar sensations of hope for the future. Yours truly admits to same after watching last Friday's announcement by Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that his city would be entirely coal free by 2025. (Video of the event below.) Former vice president Al Gore concluded his barnburner of a speech this way:

If somebody had told you three years ago that on this beautiful March day, 58-60% of the American people would say, “We are in favor of gay marriage,” you would say, “No, we can’t change that much, that fast.” But we can, and we did, and we will win the carbon conversation, because we have been inspried by the city of angels.

Over at the often-dour Grist,Ted Glick asks "Are We Winning the Clean vs. Dirty Energy Battle?" and concludes in the affirmative. "[O]ver the last month or two . . . I’m beginning to believe that the human race has a fighting chance of preventing runaway, catastrophic climate change and, in so doing, open the way for a much more just, peaceful and democratic world." Among the reasons he lists are President Barack Obama's focus on the climate crisis in his State of the Union speech; the ongoing battle against the Keystone XL pipeline; and the explosive growth of renewable energy.

In the New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal considers whether there is "Life After Oil and Gas," and concludes that yes, it seems quite possible:

“It’s absolutely not true that we need natural gas, coal or oil — we think it’s a myth,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the main author of the study, published in the journal Energy Policy. “You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political — what you need is the will to do it.”

Most optimistic of all is Paul Gilding of the Post Carbon Institute with a powerful blog post, "Victory At Hand for the Climate Movement?" And once again, he finds that the answer is yes. 

There are signs the climate movement could be on the verge of a remarkable and surprising victory. . . . the fastest and most dramatic economic transformation in history. This would include the removal of the oil, coal and gas industries from the economy in just a few decades and their replacement with new industries and, for the most part, entirely new companies. It would be the greatest transfer of wealth and power between industries and countries the world has ever seen.

His short argument for why this miraculous transformation may come about is that "what was predominantly an ecological question in now primarily an economic one. . . . When non-fossil fuel companies understand the broad economic risk posed by the lack of climate action, they will become genuine and strong advocates demanding climate action – in their own self-interest."

We are now in a period of extremely rapid social transformation. Attitudes on marriage equality and immigration are shifting faster than anyone ever imagined. Let's hope our optimists are right that attitudes on climate change will follow.

 

Photo by LA Beyond Coal/Gloria Mena

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out With the Old...Without Guilt?

Electronics “take-back” programs are such a godsend. You clean out your shelves, closet, or garage of unwanted devices with dangling cords, and as an extra reward you get to replace your old stereo or television with the latest electronic technology, guiltlessly. Well, not so fast. 

A recent New York Times article points out that “as recently as a few years ago, broken monitors and televisions…were being recycled profitably. The big, glassy funnels inside the machine -- known as cathode ray tubes, or CRTs -- were melted down and turned into new ones. But flat-screen technology has made those monitors and televisions obsolete, decimating the demand for the recycled tube glass used in them and creating what industry experts call a ‘glass tsunami’ as stockpiles of the useless material accumulate across the country.” The economics have been turned upside-down: Recyclers were once paid $200 a ton to provide glass for use in new products; today, those recyclers must pay more than $200 a ton to get rid of the stuff.

The good news is that it’s still profitable for recyclers to process computers, cellphones, and printers because they contain precious metals. As for your old tube TV or computer monitor gathering dust in the basement? Don’t resort to tossing it in the trash, ever. Virtually anything is better than adding toxic waste to a landfill. Hey, plug it in and maybe you can still use it after all. But if you do recycle it through a local “take back” program, contact them to confirm that the devices are responsibly recycled. (This holds true for “take back” programs offered by specific electronics manufacturers too.) Good resources for finding recyclers include e-Stewards.org and the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

Image byiStock/PashaIgnatov.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

Might, Right, and the Fight for Safe Cities

Sierra is already working on its second annual installment on electric cars. (Look for it in our July/August issue.) The category grows as more automakers offer more models -- from gasoline-free electrics like the Nissan Leaf to gasoline-sipping plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt -- and more public charging stations are installed, primarily in our urban areas. The Charge Point network, for example, lists more than 800 charging stations in or near the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Urban areas are already the best served by public transit -- and often laced with bike lanes -- so it justifiably leads some to ask: Are cars necessary at all? Treehugger points us to a fine essay on the impact of autos in London. Bruce McVean, founder of the Movement for Liveable London, notes that "the big villain isn't the internal combustion engine, it's the car." McVean writes: "Even when driven carefully and slowly, cars dominate our streets and impose themselves on other users. They're bulky and everyone knows their potential to harm. Add speed to the equation and they own the street completely. As Ian Roberts and Phil Edwards argue in The Energy Glut (another must read), "Possession combined with brute force make up ten-tenths of the law."

McVean points to research that shows that cars are needed for about one-third of the trips that are taken now. As anyone tempted to move beyond car ownership (and climate-disrupting fossil-fuel use) knows, there are plenty of opportunities: a sturdy pair of walking shoes, a sleek commuting bicycle, a car-sharing program among them.

Image by iStock/maogg.

Reed McManus is a senior editor at Sierra. He has worked on the magazine since Ronald Reagan’s second term. For inspiration, he turns to cartoonist R. Crumb’s Mr. Natural, who famously noted: “Twas ever thus.”

 

How Disappointed Will You Be If Obama Okays Keystone?

Pretty darn disappointed, according to a new poll for the Center for Biological Diversity by Public Policy Polling. Among those who voted for President Obama in the last election, 61 percent said they'd feel "disappointed" or "betrayed" if he greenlights the 1,700 mile pipeline from the tar sands pits of Alberta to refineries in Texas. 57 percent said that such a move would break the president's pledge in his State of the Union address to combat climate change. And 69 percent said the president's legacy should be about clean energy rather than expanding the production of fossil fuels.

Things didn't look so good for Keystone among voters in general either. 74 percent said it was not in the United States' "best interest." 76 percent were concerned about its environmental effects. (This number does not include the authors of the State Department's recent draft Environmental Impact Statement, which found the project to be environmentally sound. It was later revealed that the study had been contracted out to firms with direct connections to TransCanada and the oil industry.)

Of course President Obama doesn't have to run for anything again, so he's less constrained by public opinion than he otherwise might be. On the other hand, he does have ambitious goals for his second term and is encouraging his supporters to actively work to advance them. All of which is prelude to pointing out that rather than resigning yourself to feelings of disappointment or betrayal, you can do something about it right now by calling on the president to reject Keystone XL.

Photo by drbimages/iStock 

PAUL RAUBER is a senior editor at Sierra. He is the author, with Carl Pope, of the happily outdated Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. Otherwise he is a cyclist, cook, and father of two. Follow him on Twitter @paulrauber