Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

 

 
The current problem is that we need to move towards greener modes of transportation to decrease the amount of emissions being released into the air. S575IS: Clean, Low-Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act (Introduced in Senate - IS) is the bill proposed to help do this. 

Everyone who breathes in the air around us is affected by this issue because these pollutants seep into the air and move around through precipitation. This isn't an issue that affects just one area or one group of people. There are no possible losses with this issue. The gains are savings on money due to reduced purchase of gasoline, decreasing use of oil, which is quickly depleting, and also cleaner fresher air. The people that would gain from this are those who reduce driving, increase walking, or increase bus transportation/car pooling because they are the ones saving money. The average American who lives in an area that’s walkable and has transit spends only 9% of their income on transportation, while a person living in an area that requires driving spends more than 25% of their income each month on transportation. Everyone else will also benefit because of the reduction in gas emissions released, therefore decreasing diseases caused by poor air quality.The consequences for this issue are that many people in rural areas where there is a lot of transportation are being the most affected. Although each and every one of us is affected, these are to the highest extent.
The economic cost of this issue is how much money we spend each year on oil, a quickly depleting unsustainable resource. We all bear these costs by purchasing gasoline everyday.Some economic benefits would be that we would be moving towards resources that are better for our planet and also saving money in doing so. By carpooling and riding the bus we are decreasing the amount of vehicles on the road and also decreasing the amount of toxins released in the air. By walking we are completely getting rid of toxins released. 

The social impact of the issue is creating better living communities with better air quality and communities where there is more walkable area. Also, by increasing the amount of bike riding and walking people are doing we are already establishing healthier lifestyles and people. According to an article by Stephen Heckeroth, "A rider exhales about 250 cubic feet (7 m³) of slightly CO2 enriched air that is used by plants to complete the cycle that allows life to exist. A car going the same 100 miles (160 km), on the other hand, creates 13,000 cubic feet (364 m³) of exhaust, which is enough to fill the cabs of more than 150 cars and kill all the occupants." Its ridiculous that there are major fines for littering the ground but the invisible "trash" that is put into the air is overlooked and unpunished. 

The social costs of this issue are looking at how fast paced our lives are and condensing them so that bus transportation, carpooling and walking are a realistic option. Everyone needs to start understanding we all need to do our part to make this happen.  Everyone bears this cost because we all have things going on in our lives but the ones who bear this cost the most would be people who are especially accustomed to driving themselves everywhere and who schedule their lives one thing right after another. Those who are affected least are those who already count on the bus or walking to get from point A to point B. The social benefits of this is that people will be able to enjoy their time more and possibly enjoy being able to relax and enjoy what this healthier choice. 

The barriers are once again peoples busy schedules. There isn't always time to wait for bus' or transfer to others in order to get where you're going. Also not everyone lives on bus routes or knows someone who lives close enough to make car pooling worth while. Bad weather and extreme cold are also barriers for walking. The ways to overcome these barriers is to 

The resources for this issue are getting money to fund more bus routes so that more people have access to this option. Another resource would be for employers to have group transportation for its employees. If the government could enact some sort of reimbursement for companies for choosing this option it would become much more popular. Even if companies want to help improve on this issue they might not have the funds to do so. No one wants to be charged more taxes but it may be necessary to make a change.

There is some history on this issue based on revisions to the Clean Air Act. The original act included stationary sources of air pollution such as plants and didn't take in to account mobile sources of air pollution which had become the largest source of many dangerous pollutants. Amendments to the Clean Air Act were passed in 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1969. These amendments authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to set standards for auto emissions, expanded local air pollution control programs, established air quality control regions (AQCR), set air quality standards and compliance deadlines for stationary source emissions, and authorized research on low emissions fuels and automobiles. The results of these changes have made some difference but the ultimate difference was including mobile pollution.

Those who support this issue are: Oveta Culp Hobby,Ralph Nadar, Edmund Muskie, Russel Train, Paul Rogers, Alan Simpson, George Mitchell, and Henry Waxman. Those opposed to this issue are: Robert Byrd and John Dingell, Jr. We can involve allies and opponents in advocacy efforts towards this by showing them that if we don't come together to do something about this now soon global warming, and other things happening due to so much pollution in the air, are going to make our environment unlivable. 

My recommendation is to vote yes for this policy so we can move forward and reduce pollution and increase our air quality. No one wants to breathe in dirty air and we all are the reason this is happening.