As the dog days of summer continue to bake much of the country, causing record breaking drought and scorching heat, it’s time to consider a dog’s view of doubling the fuel efficiency of America’s new cars and cutting their carbon pollution in half.  Although…it does depend on the dog:

Click here to watch “Double the Mileage” – with a certain famous political dog.

As summer heat continues, we have some cool news to look forward to. Next month, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation are expected to issue the final new fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for the new cars that will be sold between 2017 and 2025.

These standards, building on those already in place for new vehicles starting this year and running through 2016, will double the fuel efficiency and halve the carbon pollution our new vehicles emit.

The money, oil, and carbon savings from doubling efficiency are huge. In 2030 these standards will save 3.5 million barrels of oil every day, save Americans a net of $150 billion, and keep at least 640 million tons of climate pollution out of the atmosphere.

Benefits like these are why Americans continue to strongly support setting a high bar for fuel efficiency and reducing pollution.  A recent poll by the Consumer Federation of America shows that:

• 88% said the U.S. should reduce oil consumption;

• Those who said that it is a “very important” goal want to get at least five more miles per gallon fuel economy from their next vehicle;

• 74% said the new 54.5 mpg standards are a good idea;

• Significantly, 66% said they’d support the higher standards even if that meant higher sticker prices.

That strong support for strong standards was loud and clear last fall when more than 500 people turned out at hearings in Philadelphia, San Francisco and Detroit applauding the proposed standards from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation.  More than 280,000 comments were sent to the Administration saying YES to strong standards.

“It is clear that consumers have a growing appetite for fuel economy,” said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America. “As more fuel-efficient vehicles penetrate the market, I fully expect the preference for even higher fuel economy to strengthen.”

And it is – the public is responding:

Sales of vehicles featuring alternative power sources also jumped during the first six months of the year as gasoline prices rose. The segment, which includes traditional hybrids, plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles, posted sales growth of 71 percent through June. The Toyota Prius led the segment with 126,654 unit sales, a 90 percent increase over last year.

So doubling up is great news for vehicle owners (and those of us with dogs will remember to stop for walks!)

Half-a-million jobs!  That’s the good news from a new report released today by  the Sierra Club, the Blue Green Alliance, United Auto Workers and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

The report, called “Gearing Up” (PDF), confirms what many Americans – especially those in Michigan – already know. It tells a story about what happens when we act not just to protect our planet and save families money at the pump, but to ensure our auto industry is as competitive as possible.

Take political posturing out of the equation and we all know that the only way to deal with high gas prices is to use less gas. Americans know it – that’s why fuel efficient vehicles are among the top sellers in the country and why efficiency is now a top consideration for consumers looking to buy a new car.

In just three and half years, the Obama Administration has undone nearly 30 years of stagnation when it comes to raising the bar on fuel efficiency standards.  When the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation issue final carbon pollution and fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that will be sold in 2017-2025, this administration will have put our new cars on the path to being twice as efficient as the fleet of vehicles sold last year. These huge steps forward would not have happened without the ability of the Administration to bring together the auto industry, auto workers, Sierra Club, and others to work on progress.

These fuel economy standards are already paying off. Consumers have better choices – including a growing variety of electric vehicles.  In Detroit and around the U.S., thousands and thousands of Americans are at work helping to build the world’s most advanced efficient cars and trucks.  More efficient and less polluting cars will redirect billions of dollars away from Big Oil’s coffers and into our pockets while also creating jobs.

And here’s our good news big number: “Gearing Up” shows that the standards for 2017-2025 vehicles will create 570,000 jobs across our economy, including 50,000 jobs in the auto industry.

But the benefits don’t stop there. By 2030 we will be saving at least 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, keeping more than 600 million metric tons of global warming pollution out of the atmosphere and saving us a net of $150 billion dollars.

“Gearing Up” is great news for those of us who are looking forward to a stronger economy and a healthier future.

Here is some welcome news from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA): Transit ridership was up five percent in the first quarter of 2012 over the same period last year.

According to APTA’s newest numbers this is the fifth consecutive quarter of growth for rail and bus systems.  Americans took 2.7 billion trips on transit, with high gas prices helping to encourage the switch. But APTA notes that even when gas prices start to fall, riders stick with transit.

It isn’t just the big systems you might think about that are riding high, like NY or Chicago.  Record ridership was recorded in Ann Arbor, MI; Charlotte, NC; Fort Myers, FL; Indianapolis, IN; Ithaca, NY; Oakland, CA; Olympia, WA; San Diego, CA; and Tampa, FL.

Federal Rail Administrator Joseph Szabo also backed up APTA, “(P)eople are driving less and using transit more – and that those changes are permanent. America’s travel habits are undergoing rapid change,” he said.

APTA’s and Administrator Szabo’s assessment of transit ridership was consistent with a Washington Post story showing that America’s love affair with the car may be waning.  The Post story notes that congestion and high gas prices help diminish the allure of the car and the notion of driving as fun.

Both Administrator Szabo and the Post story reference U.S. PIRG’s very thorough analysis of how much we are driving and why we are driving less.  Nationally, those under 35 are driving less – dropping 23% between 2001 and 2009.

Younger Americans are not getting drivers licenses at the same rate as in the past.  Getting on the bus or train gets you where you need to go, while you stay connected by smart phone or tablet (or read the paper or a book).

Shifts are not only afoot in how much we drive but also in what we choose to drive. A recent Consumer’s Union poll also revealed that 35% of Americans are driving less.  And for Americans who are looking to buy a new car, fuel efficiency is now most important.  Of those saddled with a gas guzzling large SUV, less than three in 10 said they’d buy another.

When there are good choices to make, Americans are making them. We are driving less and taking advantage of public transportation to get where we need to go. And those that do drive are considering fuel efficiency. Both trends are good news when it comes to moving beyond oil.

Metro Atlanta (and Georgia) can find better ways to fund good public transportation — that’s why Sierra Club’s Georgia Chapter opposes ballot measures that will fund transportation projects set to come before Georgia’s voters in July.

Our chapter notes that there is indeed great potential for an alternative plan that achieves meaningful progress on commute alternatives for Georgians without needlessly subsidizing another wave of sprawl.

The Chapter noted that its decision to oppose the measures — Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) — in 11 of the state’s regions was easy; the decision to oppose the T-SPLOST for the Atlanta region was more difficult and therefore the Sierra Club backed up its decision with a detailed Plan-B.

While the Sierra Club notes that no plan is perfect, the Chapter leaders concluded that the list of projects that the Atlanta transportation ballot measure would fund was flawed to the point of outweighing its benefits. Concerns range from a lack of a cohesive vision for the area’s transportation system, a failure to have an equitable and representative regional transit governance in place, a failure to address the core need of the existing transit infrastructure, and that even transit projects that the Club supports in concept are vaguely defined and underfunded.

The Chapter is calling for voters to hold out for Plan B to stop Atlanta’s transportation future from heading in the wrong direction, and questions tax booster’s claim that this must be passed because it’s the only option. It is hard to make a tough decision on a ballot measure that includes transit funding. As my colleague, Colleen Kiernan, notes in her op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this is not a first for the Club:

A major American city faces a hotly debated referendum to expand its road and transit network. The local business community is solidly behind it, claiming that passage is vital to the region’s economic competitiveness. Meanwhile, a motley group of community organizations, including the state chapter of the Sierra Club, are opposing the measure.

The reaction to this opposition from proponents is fierce. “There is no Plan B!” they loudly proclaim. “This is the only chance we’ll have for a generation!” others cry. “The political climate won’t allow anything better!”

This may sound like Atlanta today, but the city in question is in fact Seattle, and the year is 2007. That city’s “Roads and Transit” referendum, an awkward mixture of popular transit projects and sprawl-inducing road construction, would eventually go down to defeat at the polls.

Despite predictions that another chance was a generation away, a Plan B was put to voters the very next year, this time focused entirely on expanding and enhancing the region’s SoundTransit rail and bus network — without the massive road expansion. The 2008 “SoundTransit 2″ initiative passed handily, and Seattle is now actively building out an ambitious regional transit vision.

Colleen was also recently interviewed by PolitiFact about the issue.

We can look further back to 1998, when the Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter opposed Measure B, a transportation ballot measure that was similar to those in Atlanta and Seattle. When the ballot measure failed, the then head of one of the involved transit agencies (AC Transit) said optimistically, “It just means we have to try and try and try again until we get it right. We’ll fine-tune Measure B and put it back on the ballot.”

And that’s what happened. Two years later an improved Measure B passed Colleen’s op-ed notes, “While the tax would fund initial segments of some popular transit projects like the Beltline, every new track-mile of light rail built would be matched by 16 lane-miles of road expansion — enough asphalt to cover Turner Field more than 200 times.”

For the Sierra Club that was too much of a bad thing. Like San Francisco and Seattle, Atlanta can get this right. This position has disappointed some and created a vigorous debate. But we will continue to work to increase transportation choices that will help Americans literally move beyond oil — in Atlanta and everywhere.

What does parking have to do with our addiction to oil? Quite a bit, it seems, once you dig into the issue. 

Americans are said to love their cars, and along with that is a love, or really, an expectation of parking – whether that’s free or cheap parking – it’s a lot of parking.  And so we have policies in place that encourage parking. Take for example current federal tax policy allows commuters to deduct $240 a month from pre-tax income to pay for parking for your commute, but only $120 per month for using transit.
 
The parking issue is hot in Seattle where Mayor Mike McGinn proposed to let developers who are building housing within 1300 feet of transit decide how much parking to provide for residents. The Seattle Times was appalled – calling it “utopian” to think residents will drop the car.  Streetsblog notes that “[m]inimum parking requirements are, essentially, a tax on development meant to encourage driving.”

Parking is a frequent issue among Sierra Club transportation activists, most recently in our own debate over the New York Times invitation to readers to respond to a letter posted by Randy Salzman on the need to change our car culture.

It so happens that Sierra Club’s San Diego Chapter transportation chair Mike Bullock is a parking expert, so I asked him a few questions about how changing parking policies can help reduce driving and our addiction to oil.

How does so called “free” parking feed our addiction to oil?
Well, of course it’s never free. It’s very expensive to provide parking. And we pay those costs, as employees, as residents, and as consumers. The “addiction feeding” comes from hiding those costs and making them essentially mandatory. If we had the free choice to not drive, once in a while, and save some of the money we are losing because of “free” parking, we would in fact drive less.

We often think of parking spaces – surrounding big box stores, in our downtowns, or near housing – as free.  How much does it cost to build a parking spot?
In many locations, it comes down to the cost of land. An acre of land only parks around 120 cars. So, where an acre is worth $1.2 million, the cost of the land is $10,000 per space. Parking garages would seem to be a smart choice where land is expensive, because the cars are being stacked. However the construction is expensive and the higher up you go, the larger the steel members have to be.

Construction costs are typically between$20,000 and $40,000 per space. Of course the prettiest parking is underground, because it is invisible to the urban landscape. However this is the most expensive parking. Developers have told me that this parking is around $100,000 per space. So the simple answer is that parking costs a lot.

What are some ways parking could be addressed to help cut our addiction to oil?
Except where parking is being operated to provide a legitimate profit for investors, the best way would be to unbundle the cost of the parking. This means that the cost is made visible and optional. There are several ways to do this. I have written a paper that described one way and it is a way that would always work. Using this method, any bundled cost could be unbundled. To those that are losing money due to the parking, the system would feel like getting paid to not drive.

Are there some examples where pricing parking has cut driving?
My paper on parking has a table with 10 cases of locations where parking became priced. These cases are put into three groups: those having poor transit, those having fair transit, and those having good transit. The overall average decrease in driving was 23%. The smallest change was 15%. Obviously, I wish we had more data.

If you want to learn more about parking and unbundling its costs, you can download Mike’s short paper here (PDF).

Gas prices are rising and so is pain at the pump.  But as Congress took a week off from Washington, it seems that Republicans are thrilled with rising gas prices – touting them as a political winner, even as high prices drain dollars from their constituents’ pocketbooks.

In fact, in a speech to students at the University of Miami, President Obama called out a headline that read: “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.”

We’ve already heard from Republicans clamoring to grant Big Oil’s wish list – drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts – all things that won’t affect the price at the pump, while endangering our national treasures. However, President Obama has put in place clean vehicle standards that promise to double the average fuel economy of new vehicles between now and 2025. These are standards that promise to deliver real relief for consumers at the pump and to significantly decrease our dependence on oil.

Just before the President spoke last week, Rep. Allen West from Florida complained bitterly about how much it costs him to fill the tank of his ultimate gas guzzler – an HR 3 Hummer.  In city driving, his gas hog will get perhaps 13 miles to the gallon. So, we thought we’d offer some useful tips to Rep. West and the offer some tips that all of us can use.

First, some pointers for Rep. West: We note he has two offices in his Congressional District –

Fort Lauderdale
6300 NE 1st Avenue – Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

and

West Palm Beach
3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 308
West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

We suggest that Representative West could use Tri-Rail to go between his two district offices in Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach for only $5.65, avoiding a 36 mile drive on I-95 that would use well over two gallons of gas if his Hummer gets 16.5 mpg.

Stuck in traffic the H3 might guzzle its way through $21.20 of gas. A Google search shows the West Palm Beach Tri-Rail station is 2.4 miles from his office.  For such a short hop, we suggest looking for a bus that runs from the Intermodal Transit Center to his office, but we suppose catching a cab could be an option.

The Ft. Lauderdale Cypress Creek Tri-Rail station is even more convenient, as it’s only 0.4 miles from his office, a nice eight minute walk. One of the benefits of leaving the Hummer at home is getting some exercise along the way.  If a trip to Miami is in the plans, the train will take you there.

We estimate that the trip will take a little over an hour vs. the best case time of 36 minutes in the Hummer on I-95 (but much longer during morning and afternoon rush hours).  But, aside from getting some exercise along with the commute, a ride on TriRail offers a chance to read and perhaps more important, time to  speak with constituents who are using the TriRail system to beat the high price of gas that so vexes the Congressman who might otherwise be stuck in traffic in the H3.

The fact is that 50% of Americans have access to transit as an option for avoiding pain at the pump.  Rep. West is luckier than most Floridians, who don’t currently enjoy the option of light rail that has long served the people of Florida’s 22nd District.

We agree with the President that this is one problem we cannot drill our way out of– but we can take smart and practical steps to reduce pain at the pump:

1.    Leave your car at home – take transit if you can.
2.    Bike to work or to the store.  We have some handy resources for first time bikers.
3.    In the market for a new car? Buy a hybrid or the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets your needs.
4.    Check your tire pressure frequently and keep your tires fully inflated. Full tires can improve your fuel economy up to 10%.
5.    Use a GPS – studies show that using a navigational device can reduce miles traveled up to 16%
6.    Ask your boss if you can telecommute one or two days per week.

Check out our web page for more ways to avoid pain at the pump (scroll down on the page).

Share with us your best strategy for keeping for avoiding the pump as gas prices rise!  You don’t have experience pain at the pump alone – join our Transportation Activist network and find out how you can get involved in your local area to increase transportation choices.

House Speaker John Boehner finally got the message– it is time to drop what has been broadly panned as the worst transportation bill ever.   Hoping the Presidents Day Recess would give him time to build support for his terrible bill, Boehner realized just yesterday that he couldn’t muster the votes to win.

It is amusing (maybe appalling) that Boehner sought to blame the Democrats for failure:

“Given Senate Democrats’ unwillingness to pursue a longer-term infrastructure and energy plan, House Republican leaders are considering a revamped approach that would retain the speaker’s vision of linking infrastructure to expanded American energy production, and allow Republicans to stay on offense on energy and jobs,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an email.

First, the Senate bill is a bipartisan effort and second, while it still needs improvement, the overall Senate package is, at the moment, a step in the right direction for transportation policy.  Boehner should recognize that even with the gimmick used to split a terrible bill into three pieces as a strategy to bypass defeat, the terrible bill was destined to fail.

So, the word is that the House bill will be “re-vamped.”  Really, the re-vamp must be a complete do-over.  While much attention has been focused on the maneuver to end transit funding — a deal brokered by President Ronald Reagan directing a portion of gas tax revenue towards public transit – the flaws of HR 7 run deep.

The bill eliminates dedicated funding for options like walking, biking, and programs like Safe Routes to Schools that helps kids bike and walk to school safely. It also takes an ax to Amtrak funding – all while gas prices are rising and Americans are looking for other transportation options instead of fewer and less safe options.

Additionally, the bill allows states to ram through projects without environmental review or public input.  Finally, the bill dumps road-widening to put more cars on the roads into a program meant to reduce congestion and clean the air.

The Republicans should learn some lessons from this failed effort.  From coast to coast, Americans want more not less transit; they want more options to walk and bike that are safe; and they like programs to help kids get to school on foot or 2-wheels.

Even Virginia’s Republican Governor announced his support when he awarded $5.9 million in Safe Routes to Schools funds to make bicycling and walking to school safer and more appealing for students at 28 elementary and middle schools in his state.

Governor McConnell’s statement includes:

“The Safe Routes to School program’s primary goal is to support communities that want to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and convenient option for children,” said Governor McDonnell.  “By providing these funds, as well as technical assistance to Virginia communities, we are helping to reduce congestion, improve air quality and promote other transportation choices. We also are encouraging healthy habits that we hope will transform into healthy lifestyles as these children grow.” 

Actually, we couldn’t have said it better ourselves! 

We need action by March 31. Just fixing one piece of HR 7, like restoring transit funding, is not enough to fix this bill.  HR 7 needs major repair. Until then, please make sure you tell your Representatives to vote no on HR 7.

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, House Republicans are rushing ahead with a “transportation” bill only Big Oil could love.

Once upon a time the Bridge to Nowhere came to represent the most wasteful spending and earmarks in transportation.  While earmarks targeting federal dollars for specific projects are gone, the House republicans have bested the bridge to nowhere with a so-called transportation bill that is good for Big Oil.

The bill mixes terrible transportation policy with Big Oil’s wish list: opening fragile and protected areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic coast to drilling, as well as pushing through the tar sands pipeline President Obama has already rejected.

Big Oil gets the right to drill and bad transportation policy ensures Americans get less public transit, less biking and walking infrastructure, and fewer safe routes to school for our kids. In short, the bill is a five-year recipe for driving more and using more oil.

The opposition amassing to the House’s “American Energy and Infrastructure Act” (H.R. 7) is growing and comes from all directions.

Last week Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) had this say about just one portion of the bill:

“I’ve been in transportation 10 years in the Florida House and close to 20 here, and it was truly the worst bill I’ve ever seen. The piece that we (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) passed at 3 o’clock this morning out of the transportation committee is the worst bill I have seen in the 30 years I’ve been elected.”

Opposition crosses party lines, with Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), a longtime ally of House Speaker John Boehner, opposing the measure in its current form and saying, “It’s his bill.” House Republicans in urban areas don’t want to see critical transit funding cut.

The New York Times does a nice job of summing up “A Terrible Transportation Bill.” In short, by the time three House committees had done their work, HR 7:

• Pushes money to highways while gutting investment in transportation options.

• Jeopardizes future funding for public transportation by ending dedicating funding for transit out of the Highway Trust Fund where transit receives a portion of gas tax revenues (transit funding has been part of the Highway Trust Fund since President Reagan was in the White House);

• Uses Big Oil’s wish list as one of the ways to pay for transit and other programs (money the Congressional Budget Office says is not up to the task);

• Eliminates dedicated funding for options like walking, biking, and programs like Safe Routes to Schools that helps kids bike and walk to school safely, and takes an ax to Amtrak funding; and

• Allows states to ram through projects without environmental review or public input.

Sierra Club joined more than 600 groups from across the country to oppose the provision that ended dedicated funding for transit. Last Spring nearly 70,000 Americans sent a simple message to the House and Senate:

“America needs a transportation system that ends our dependence on oil, cuts pollution, and provides clean, efficient, and affordable transportation options while putting the country back to work.”

Join us in taking action to help kill this bill. Call your Representative today. Just dial:  877-573-7693. The message is simple: Oppose HR 7 and get back to work on a transportation bill that will help end our dependence on oil, cut pollution, and provide clean, efficient, and affordable transportation options while putting the country back to work.  If you can’t call, send an email!

Click here to watch Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune’s testimony supporting clean cars.

After a week of public hearings in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco, we can safely say that cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks are a popular commodity.

More than 500 people, including concerned citizens, public health officials, veterans, small business owners, environmentalists and consumer advocates, came out to testify in support of the Obama administration’s proposal to strengthen fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and light trucks.

Thanks to these standards from the U.S. EPA and National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), the average new car you’ll see on the lot in 2025 will get 54.5 mpg and spew 35% less carbon pollution than the models in 2016.  That’s a big deal – and a big win for American families.

So just how broad is public support for these proposed standards?  Very!  Poll after poll has shown that Americans overwhelmingly support better fuel efficiency.  But this support is more than just a checked box on a survey – it’s real stories from real people.

When I testified in Detroit last Tuesday, I was inspired by the near-unanimous support for 54.5 mpg cars from the more than 100 people who came out to give their reasons for supporting clean cars.  Nearly everyone from the United Auto Workers’ President and members to local citizens concerned about air pollution from smog and climate disruption voiced united support for the standards.

It was great to have the hearing kicked off by Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who praised the standards and said “I am pleased that EPA and NHTSA are joining together to reach out and listen to what the American people have to say.”  The Go60 mpg coalition, which the Sierra Club is a part of, was featured in the New York Times’ piece on the hearing.

In Philadelphia last Thursday, we saw record turnout for an EPA hearing with more than 150 people coming out to stand up for clean cars including Sierra Club President Robin Mann.  There were so many moving testimonies – including Retired Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, who spoke about his first hand experience with the dangers of depending on a fuel supply line in Iraq, and Colleen Kennedy, a local resident with serious health conditions that have been exacerbated by smog pollution from cars.

Finally on Tuesday of this week, EPA and NHTSA held their last public hearing in San Francisco where Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune testified and called these standards the “biggest single step we’ve ever taken to move beyond oil and tackle climate disruption.”  Check out the rest of his testimony here.

The lone voice of opposition at all three hearings:  the National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA).  Yet with several individual dealers coming out to testify in support of the standards, even the industry publication Automotive News knows that NADA needs to stop exaggerating the costs and underselling the benefits of the standards.

The Sierra Club live-tweeted each hearing from @SierraClubLive.  Here are some of the highlights:

• @SierraClubLive NADA rep claiming that car buyers don’t look at mpg. Yet 3/4’s of Americans support strong #cleancars standards: bit.ly/xpL2sT
• @SierraClubLive Chevy dealer Thiel: “We’re going to go on with this until 2025 and I’ll tell ya what, we’re ready for it!” #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive Big shout out to the Raging Grannies for telling us to clean up our cars in song at #Detroit hearing! #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive For a sense of the ratio of those supporting vs opposing #cleancars standards today, see the score from Brady vs Tebow last wkd
• @SierraClubLive Robin Mann: “The planet is screaming and the time has come for us to stop turning a deaf ear.” #cleancars #beyondoil
• @SierraClubLive Rabbi Waskow: “I call it global scorching. Warming is too pleasant.” #cleancars #CleanAir #Philly
• @SierraClubLive .@Sierra_Club volunteer Bryan Crenshaw shows a picture of his son. 54.5 mpg is about our kid’s future. #cleancars pic.twitter.com/2jeOt5C0
• @SierraClubLive Local City Council Pres. Jeanette MacNeille: “For me as an asthmatic, #cleancars mean less trips to the emergency rm”pic.twitter.com/XRlzhu86
• @SierraClubLive Wow, amazing defense of the role of @EPAgov & #cleancars from Colleen Kennedy who has a serious heart condition.pic.twitter.com/Su93ArSf
• @SierraClubLive #cleancars are incredibly popular! Support vs opposition at today’s #Philly hearing about 100 to 1. NADA took its toys & went home
• @SierraClubLive Brune: As a father of two young kids, I’m relieved to know that the cars they’ll drive in the years to come will use less oil. #cleancars

These hearings were not the only opportunity the public has to voice support for strong new clean cars standards.  You can send your comments until February13th.  Don’t wait — help us show how broad and deep support is for clean cars!

And, if you enjoyed reading these tweets from the clean cars hearings, follow @SierraClubLive and you can check out yesterday’s live updates from the DC Auto Show.  After years of saying they couldn’t make new cars or trucks that use less oil, it was clear from the showroom floor that the auto industry is in a race to do just that.

(Click image to enlarge)

With gas prices still hurting Americans at the pump and threatening to climb higher, it’s time to start building better, more efficient cars that guzzle less gas.

Just weeks ago, President Obama proposed strengthening fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by 2025, building on the standards that he has already put in place for cars sold this year through 2016.  These means the average American family buying a car in 2025 will save $4,400 on gas over the car’s lifetime, even after paying for fuel-saving technology.  I was pleased to celebrate this and the other benefits of the proposed standards in November and received many comments.

The graphic above shows the benefits of these standards – and we encourage you to share it with your friends and family.

Now it is time to share your comments with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation.  Hundreds of Americans will be testifying at EPA’s and DOT’s public hearings over the next two weeks in support of these proposed fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards that would mean significant savings at the pump, cleaner air, more jobs and better vehicle choices for American families.

The hearings are January 17th in Detroit, January 19th in Philadelphia, and January 24th in San Francisco. If you can be at any of them, RSVP here.

I will be at the hearing in Detroit to urge Obama administration officials to keep these proposed standards strong.  We recognize how vital they are to our freedom and security, because our current oil addiction puts our troops at risk around the world and our families’ health at risk at home.  We also know how important these standards are to curbing the pollution that is causing global warming.

These standards enjoy overwhelming support from three-quarters of all Americans and 13 major auto manufacturers, including Detroit’s “Big Three”, have signed letters of commitment supporting strong standards.

It’s not hard to see why fuel efficient cars are so popular.  Instead of draining our economy by sending nearly $1 billion a day overseas for oil we can keep money in Americans’ pockets, which will create 484,000 jobs economy-wide by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto industry.  On top of that, we’ll be using 1.5 million fewer barrels of oil per day in 2030, the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year.  That’s a big deal, and it would cut carbon pollution in 2030 by the amount equal to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.

These standards should not be partisan or controversial.  Saving the average American family thousands of dollars on gas, cutting pollution and revitalizing the American auto industry as an engine of economic growth should be benefits we can all get behind.

This is the biggest single step that any U.S. President has taken to break America’s addiction to oil.  President Obama should keep doing the right thing and finalize these strong standards this summer. Join us at one of the three public hearings this month, or send in your comment supporting these standards right now.