Electric buses could pioneer a new age of clean and
efficient urban transport and put cities on track towards sustainability.
However, electric bus adoption is not accelerating fast enough for the world to
meet transport-related global climate objectives and help limit global
temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius.
The aim of this report is to fill in knowledge gaps and
provide actionable guidance for transit agencies and bus operating entities to
help them overcome the most common and debilitating barriers to electric bus
adoption. It provides a step-by-step guidance to establish and achieve electric
bus adoption targets using concrete and diverse real-world experiences.
Transit agencies and bus operating entities are encouraged
to maximize electric bus adoption targets based on local conditions and to
develop a responsible strategy for implementation. They should be actively
involved in planning and analysis; be serious about piloting and testing
projects; and collaborate with city policymakers and other stakeholders to
accelerate a responsible adoption of electric buses. [Note: contains copyrighted material].
The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater
treatment plant construction is authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan programs
through the clean water state revolving loan fund (CWSRF) program. Since
FY1972, appropriations have totaled $98 billion. In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA, P.L. 104-182) to authorize a similar state loan program for
drinking water to help systems finance projects needed to comply with drinking
water regulations and to protect public health. Since FY1997, appropriations
for the drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program have totaled
$23 billion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers both
SRF programs, which annually distribute funds to the states for implementation.
Funding amounts are specified in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account of EPA annual appropriations acts. The combined appropriations for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure assistance have represented
25%-32% of total funds appropriated to EPA in recent years.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. §§669
et seq.), enacted in 1937 and now known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, provides funding for states and territories to support
wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the
Interior, administers Pittman-Robertson. All 50 states (but not the District of
Columbia) as well as the 5 inhabited U.S. territories receive Pittman-Robertson
Funding for FWS to carry out Pittman-Robertson programs
comes from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.
Receipts from these excise taxes are deposited into the Federal Aid to Wildlife
Restoration Fund in the Treasury, and monies from the fund are made available
for FWS in the fiscal year following their collection without any further
action by Congress. Between FY1939 and FY2019, FWS disbursed $18.8 billion (in
2018 dollars) for wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety
activities for Pittman-Robertson programs.
Local organisations, thriving among smallholders dependent on
adjacent forests or trees growing on their farms, constitute perhaps the
world’s biggest and most effective force for improved rural livelihoods and
sustainability. They face fast-changing pressures. Many are likely to find it
useful to have an organisational goal of contributing to climate resilient
landscapes. Various international programmes can help in understanding and
supporting such contributions – especially through practical actions for
climate adaptation and mitigation, and forest restoration. ‘Landscape
approaches’ are helpful for analysing the various connected issues, while
context-specific politically-savvy planning is needed for effective action.
This paper explores the possible motivations and actions for climate resilient
landscapes amongst four different sorts of forest and farm producer
organisations (FFPOs): indigenous peoples’ organisations, community forest
organisations, forest and farm producer groups, and processing groups in urban
and peri-urban contexts. The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) aims to help FFPOs
to further develop and pursue such practical actions over the next five years.
[Note: contains copyrighted material].
The U.S. tax code supports the energy sector by providing a
number of targeted tax incentives, or tax incentives available only for the
energy industry. Some policymakers have expressed interest in understanding how
energy tax benefits are distributed across different domestic energy resources.
For example, what percentage of energy-related tax benefits support fossil
fuels (or support renewables)? How much domestic energy is produced using
fossil fuels (or produced using renewables)? And how do these figures compare?
The U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in
2018, concluded that “the impacts of global climate change are already being
felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the
severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce
greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.”
Members of Congress and stakeholders articulate a wide range of perspectives
over what to do, if anything, about GHG emissions, future climate change, and
related impacts. If Congress were to consider establishing a program to reduce
GHG emissions, one option would be to attach a price to GHG emissions with a
carbon tax or GHG emissions fee. In the 115th Congress, Members introduced nine
bills to establish a carbon tax or emissions fee program. However, many Members
have expressed their opposition to such an approach. In particular, in the
115th Congress, the House passed a resolution “expressing the sense of Congress
that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.”
A survey of 93 leaders, representing a wide range of
organizations working to advance human well-being and economic development,
reveals a global development sector in transition and perhaps even turmoil.
Ending extreme poverty is no longer the defining lens through which development
is viewed: State fragility and climate were mentioned nearly three times more
often than poverty, and migration was mentioned more than twice as often.
Leaders worry that responses to these and other global challenges are
inadequate. [Note: contains copyrighted material].