As the European Union begins its debate on how to remove carbon emissions from the transport sector, it could do worse than look across the pond to see how the United States is dealing with the issue. While often derided for its resistance to emission-reducing measures, the US nonetheless has a few key pointers that are worth picking up.

The United States is widely seen by Europeans as an example of how not to tackle climate change: the US Congress was never close to ratifying the Kyoto Treaty, former President George W Bush only reluctantly accepted that climate change was man-made, and the US is by far the most polluting nation in the world per capita, with a particular appetite for gas-guzzling cars. And yet, when it comes to transport emissions and congestion, there are still some lessons to be learned from the US.

For an idea of how the US can actually set a global example, look at the six-year $556 billion transport plan unveiled by President Barack Obama in February, as a way to boost U.S. economic competitiveness and spur job growth. While cutting other spending, Obama aggressively accelerated efforts to upgrade aging roads, bridges, introduce a $53-billion high-speed rail service with the package, and provide $119 billion (a 127% raise) for public transportation. The total is 60% richer than the last transportation blueprint enacted by Congress, which expired in 2009. Obama’s has long seen rail as an area of opportunity for creating jobs and improving the nation's transportation system. In addition, the President is calling for what is being described as “setting historic new fuel economy standards” that will raise the average fuel economy for passenger vehicles - including a push for vehicles with more advanced fuel technologies (hybrid, electric).

So what does this mean? According to David Burwell, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment, this is a hugely ambitious program and represents a massive change in transport priorities for Washington. Speaking at a debate in Brussels hosted by Edelman/The Centre, and co-organised with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Burwell said the Obama proposals – if confirmed by Congress – would go some way to addressing the environmental consequences of the American model of cheap oil and free roads. He said that underlying the proposals were explicit links between transport policy and low carbon goals, including a bonus system to reward states that tie transport to the environment. It is also ambitious because it looks at the US as a single market in a way that the EU does not: while the Trans-European Networks (TENs) aim to deal with Europe’s overall priorities, the national barriers between member states still represent an impediment to decision-making.

But while this could represent a huge step for the US, Burwell had some words of caution. He noted that $336 billion – or 60% of the overall six-year transport budget – would still be devoted to highways. This, he pointed out, was mainly thanks to long overdue infrastructure repairs: the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates it will cost more than $2 trillion to bring roads, bridges, and other infrastructure to a state of good repair. “That large figure for highways is almost exclusively ‘fix-it-first’ money,” Burwell said. “In the US, we build but don’t plan, and in Europe we plan but don’t build.”

The US approach earned praised at the Edelman/The Centre debate from Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s Director General for Mobility and Transport. Reute pointed out that both Europe and America shared similar challenges, but different political climates. The Commission, of course, unveiled its own White Paper on Transport in March 2011, which includes the aim to halve the EU’s use of conventional cars in cities by 2030, and insist all vehicles used in EU cities ought to be powered by low-emission technologies by 2050.

Reute explained that there were a number of drivers for the Commission proposals, including the fact that the EU’s internal market had now made transport more efficient, and that innovation had changed the scope for low emissions. Yet while Europeans are much more active users of rail networks for travel, Reute noted that the US is far more advanced when it comes to rail freight. “Europe is not so good in rail freight,” he said. “We want to develop rail freight corridors in Europe.”

While he called for more discussion Reute said he wanted a “more realistic” debate on transport, and in particular end the “sterile” discussion on modal shift. “Let’s look at the reality: our agenda is a reduction in the use of oil and in emissions while not affecting the ability of people to move,” he said. “We need to ensure that transport remains a growth engine.” That aim is at the heart of both the European and American strategies. And while they have their differences, there are enough fresh ideas in each to provide some inspiration for one another.