Rep. Pearce: Bad for drivers and our air

Full Report

New Mexicans are fed up with congestion, pollution and gas prices

New Mexicans know that our transportation system isn’t doing the job. High gas prices are draining consumers’ pocketbooks. Traffic congestion takes away time we could spend at work, at play or at home with our families. And the pollution that comes from vehicle tailpipes fouls our air, harms our health, and contributes to the warming of the planet.

New Mexico needs representatives in Congress who will embrace bold solutions that can cut the cost of commuting, provide new transportation options for more people, and clean up our air.

Unfortunately, Rep. Steve Pearce has consistently sided with the auto industry, Big Oil and other powerful special interests on issue after issue: opposing fuel economy standards for cars, incentives for clean, alternative fuel vehicles, and curbs on excessive speculation in the energy market.

Bad transportation policy keeps us hooked on oil and stuck in traffic

For decades, Big Oil, the automakers, the highway lobby and other powerful interests have held sway over transportation policy in Washington, D.C. Now, America’s drivers and our environment are paying the price. For example:

• Automakers have fought tooth and nail against stronger fuel economy standards for cars. As a result, America spends twice as much each year on gasoline as we did five years ago. That’s an additional $200 billion per year sucked out of Americans’ pocketbooks, with much of it sent to unfriendly nations overseas.[1]

• Similarly, automakers have fought stronger emission standards for cars. Emissions from cars are a major source of air pollution such as smog and are a leading contributor to global warming. The gasoline we use in our cars and trucks produces more carbon dioxide—the leading global warming pollutant—than the entire economy of any other nation in the world other than China, Russia and Japan,[2] and unhealthy air affects 125 million Americans.[3]

• The highway lobby has fought for more money for new highways while starving transportation alternatives of funding. Since 1956, the government has spent $2.5 trillion more dollars on highways than on public transportation.[4] As a result, many Americans have no good transportation options, condemning drivers to spend more than 4.2 billion hours sitting in traffic in 2005.[5]

Transportation choices for the 21st century

America has the know-how to take on our transportation challenges. We have the technology to make cars and trucks that use less gas and produce less pollution. We can provide transportation choices such as modern public transit to more Americans, relieving pressure on our overcrowded roads. We can also take advantage of clean, alternative sources of energy. For example:

• The technology exists to make our cars and trucks go much farther on a gallon of gasoline. Automakers could achieve a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon within 10 years with existing technology.[6]

• New technologies such as plug-in hybrids—which use a combination of gasoline and electricity—could allow cars to get more than 100 miles per gallon, saving more than $1,500 at the pump, while reducing pollution.[7] Several automakers are now racing to produce plug-in hybrids within the next two years.[8]

• Cities across the country are pushing to expand their public transportation systems to accommodate a surge in demand for transportation alternatives. Transit ridership hit a 50-year high in 2007.[9] Interest is also growing in building new high-speed rail links between American cities to provide an alternative to the hassles of flying and driving. High-speed trains can reach up to 200 miles per hour while using far less oil.

New Mexicans are hungry for alternatives to traffic congestion, high gas prices, and polluting vehicles. But achieving a better transportation future means taking on powerful interests in Washington, D.C.

The 2008 election and America’s transportation needs

The next senator from New Mexico will be a key vote on a host of important transportation issues. We must elect leaders who are willing to stand up to the auto industry, Big Oil and other powerful interests and work for real solutions to safeguard drivers’ pocketbooks, clean up our air, and keep America moving.

Unfortunately, during his time in Congress, Rep. Steve Pearce has been a consistent and reliable vote for the special interests and against sound transportation policies.

Rep. Pearce: Bad for drivers and our air

Since coming to Congress in 2003, Rep. Pearce has sided with Big Oil and voted against a host of initiatives that would have helped save consumers money on gas, ease congestion, clear our air, and reduce our dependence on oil. For example, Rep. Pearce:

• Opposed increases in fuel economy standards for cars that will save New Mexicans money at the pump, cut oil consumption, and reduce global warming pollution.[10]

• Opposed incentives for high-tech, plug-in hybrid cars that can get up to 100 miles per gallon.[11] If run on clean electricity, plug-in hybrids can reduce the air pollution that puts the health of 1.4 million New Mexican residents at risk.[12]

• Opposed legislation to invest in improving America’s passenger rail system, which can provide a cleaner alternative to the hassles of flying and driving.[13]

• Took $46,650 in campaign contributions from the oil industry during the 2007 to 2008 congressional session.[14]

The Choice for New Mexico: Tom Udall for Senate

Tom Udall is the better choice for New Mexico. He strongly advocates regulations to curb the excessive speculation on Wall Street that has led to record oil prices. For long-term energy solutions, he is a proponent of clean, renewable energy sources.

Specifically, Rep. Udall has voted for stronger fuel economy standards for cars,[15] for incentives to encourage the purchase of fuel-saving plug-in hybrid cars,[16] and investing in passenger rail to give Americans more transportation options.[17]

By electing Tom Udall to the U.S. Senate, New Mexico voters can ensure that they have a champion fighting for their interests—and not those of Big Oil—in the critical transportation and energy battles that face the next Congress.

About Environment New Mexico

We all want clean air, clean water and open space. But it takes independent research and tough-minded advocacy to win concrete results for our environment, especially when powerful interests stand in the way of environmental progress. That's the idea behind Environment New Mexico. We focus exclusively on protecting New Mexico’s air, water and open space. We speak out and take action at the local, state and national levels to improve the quality of our environment and our lives.

Sources

1 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 23 June 2008.

2 Emissions from oil from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006, 28 November 2007; International emissions from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual 2005, 1 October 2007.

3 American Lung Association, State of the Air 2008, 2008.

4 U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit, March 2008.

5 David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute, The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, September 2007.

6 Union of Concerned Scientists, Common Sense on Climate Change Solutions #1: Make Better Cars and SUVs, downloaded from www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101/common-sense-solution-1.html, 19 September 2008.

7 Environment America, Reduce Our Oil Dependence: Support S. 3335 and Credits for Plug-In Electric Vehicles, undated.

8 Both General Motors and Toyota have pledged to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles around 2010. See Micheline Maynard, “Toyota Will Offer a Plug-In Hybrid by 2010,” New York Times, 14 January 2008.

9 American Public Transportation Association, 10.3 Billion Trips Taken on Public Transportation Ridership in 2007 – The Highest Level in 50 Years; Ridership Increased as Gas Prices Remained High, press release, 10 March 2008.

10 Voted against Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, HR 6. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll040.xml. 18 January 2007.

11 Voted against Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, HR 6. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll040.xml. 18 January 2007.

12 Air pollution based on “at-risk” population as identified in American Lung Association, State of the Air: 2008, 2008.

13 Voted against Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, HR 6003, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll400.xml, 11 June 2008.

14 Contributions from oil industry based on Oil Change International, Follow the Oil Money database, data downloaded from oilmoney.priceofoil.org/index.php, 19 September 2008.

15 Voted for Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, HR 6. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll040.xml. 18 January, 2007.

16 Voted for Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, HR 6. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll040.xml. 18 January, 2007.

17 Voted against Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, HR 6003, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll400.xml, 11 June 2008.