Going to a movie is something I rarely do — public life doesn’t leave too many nights free and frankly I’d rather spend time with the family or a good book than risk most Hollywood fare. But last Wednesday I went to a screening of End of Surburbia put on by a newly formed group of concerned citizens billing themselves as Peak Oil Portland. I’ve got to say, the film veered perilously close to being a horror flick — complete with approaching, seemingly invincible monster that will destroy life as we know it.
Given that the American lifestyle is so dependent on massive consumption of energy, any talk of reducing energy use engenders accusations from the pro-business camp of being “anti-growth” and “anti-prosperity.” The film’s thesis that the reduction in energy will be involuntary and drastic, and will cause widespread economic disruption if not collapse. No wonder some in the audience began to wail about the threat to their retirement funds and quality of life. I wonder how it will be received by those that repeat endlessly the mantra that “quality of life begins with a job” as a magic incantation against regulation and taxation?
With stars like urban critic James Kunstler and oil investor Matthew Simmons, End of Suburbia will be hard to ignore. Events like the 2003 failure of the east coast power grid and recent dramatic reduction of oil reserve forecasts by Shell Oil as well as the Saudis add evidence to the claim that we are really going to burn up all the natural gas and oil. (We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto. In the real world resources are limited.)
Of course, way before that happens, world demand for energy combined with declining or more expensively extracted supplies will cause large and unending price hikes. Our country is very vulnerable to any disruption in our energy sources. We import most of our energy (80% of oil, 50% of natural gas) and consume much more per person than other industrialized nations. End of Suburbia details in excruciating detail the profligate nature of suburban development, going beyond the energy issue into a general critique of sprawl and promotion of more urban development as a partial response to the coming energy crisis. Will smart growth and new urbanism be enough? What do we do with the hundreds of square miles of suburbs if gas prices climb to $5-10 a gallon?
Kunstler’s dark vision sees the suburbs as future slums for those without the bucks to buy a place in town where they can live without a car. He goes farther to point out that today’s comfortable middle class won’t just be car-less but may not have jobs at all as today’s economy requires huge inputs of oil to operate. In this he is seconded by the capitalist Simmons. Sustainable, locally self-reliant economies will become necessary, not a utopian indulgence in the future these two foresee. The greedy myopia of Measure 37, encouraging conversion of prime farm, orchard and forestland into vacation homes and subdivisions, is exposed as suicidal when imported food will once again be made a luxury by increased costs of shipping goods around the world and it is prohibitively expensive to commute by car.
What can we do here? The good news is that much of what we are doing is helping reduce our dependence on fossil fuel: light rail, farmers markets, bike lanes, insulating houses, keeping tight urban growth boundaries, building housing in city centers. But, if the problem is as great as laid out in End of Suburbia there is much more we need to do.
69 responses to “Movie Review: End of Suburbia”
JK: Due to the length of Rex’s article, I’ll depart from my usual practice and just quote pieces.
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : Movie Review: End of Suburbia
. . last Wednesday I went to a screening of End of Surburbia put on by a newly formed group of concerned citizens billing themselves as Peak Oil Portland. I’ve got to say, the film veered perilously close to being a horror flick — complete with approaching, seemingly invincible monster that will destroy life as we know it.
JK: REX, there you go again. You just love that chicken little, sky is falling, world is coming to an end stuff don’t you? (Do you listen to Art Bell too?)
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : . . . The film’s thesis that the reduction in energy will be involuntary and drastic, and will cause widespread economic disruption if not collapse.
JK: The world ran out of oil once before and coped with it ok. Remember whale oil lamps – they were replaced by better kerosene lamps.
Also remember that the Feds are all over the “running out of petroleum problem.” They even formed an agency specifically to deal with the problem.. Perhaps you have heard of the agency: the USGS, formed in the late 1800’s just before the Oklahoma (Texas?) Oil fields were discovered.
You say the price will go up? Well that is what encourages people to get real busy solving the problem (the magic of a free market, often forgotten by government types). What will higher prices get us? I’m glad you asked: Tar sands and shale are both reported to be supplies of oil larger that the middle east, but more expensive. Marginal wells will be re-opened. New processes will be discovered.
How will we cope with higher prices? Prices in Europe are around 2 ½ times our prices and they survive. They also drive smaller, more efficient cars. As an aside, eventhough the prices are outrageous, people are driving more in Europe and may soon catch up with us. At last report they are driving only 6 percentage points less than us in spite of the higher prices. (They are also abandoning the high density central cites as fast as they can afford to)
Did I forget to mention the conversion of coal into gasolene? Hitler ran his war machine partly on it. South Africa also used a coal-gas process. We have huge supplies of coal – maybe thousands of years (I forget)
Then there is the electric car. It just needs a battery breakthrough and we can have endless, non polluting transportation. Hydrogen may be a transition technology until good batteries become available, but the stuff is so hard to handle and dangerous that this may never happen. In either case the electricity will come from non-polluting, non CO2 producing, nuclear power. As an aside, nuclear power also puts less radiation in the atmosphere than our current coal plants which put tons of uranium, radium and thorium into the atmosphere annually. Don’t buy that shit? Well just check out the Oakridge National Lab: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html (Note the .gov – a government site)
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : I wonder how it will be received by those that repeat endlessly the mantra that “quality of life begins with a job” as a magic incantation against regulation and taxation?
JK: Well doesn’t it? (Of course that sometimes appears to be missed by the planners that seem to plan for everything in Portland except jobs. Or, maybe that is just my impression formed by watching the Lombard plan re-zone long time businesses to conditional use which will eventually drive them out.)
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : Events like the 2003 failure of the east coast power grid
JK: Happens every 1/4 century or so. What is the big deal?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : and recent dramatic reduction of oil reserve forecasts by Shell Oil as well as the Saudis
JK: Basic business lesson time, Rex: Say you are running a store and you have a 20 year supply of soda pop in the back room. At what point do you panic and scream we are running out? When you only have 15 years? Of course if you have the only soda pop in town and start screaming shortage, you can expect to be able to charge a higher price if people believe you. You don’t suppose a little of that is happening here do you?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : We import most of our energy (80% of oil, 50% of natural gas) and consume much more per person than other industrialized nations.
JK: I agree with your implication that we should immediately take all necessary steps to INCREASE domestic exploration and production. Starting in those places known to have massive oil reserves. (OK, so you probably had a different scenario in mind)
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : . . .going beyond the energy issue into a general critique of sprawl and promotion of more urban development as a partial response to the coming energy crisis. Will smart growth and new urbanism be enough?
JK: Now we get to the hidden agenda of the peak oil and global warming folk: Rebuild society to conform to their vision of how others should live. BTW: What problem is smart growth supposed to solve? (Other than people’s desire to have a better life with a back yard and a little green around them)
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : . .. Kunstler’s dark vision sees the suburbs as future slums for those without the bucks to buy a place in town where they can live without a car. He goes farther to point out that today’s comfortable middle class won’t just be car-less but may not have jobs at all as today’s economy requires huge inputs of oil to operate. In this he is seconded by the capitalist Simmons.
JK: These guys remind me of the story of the patent office head who proposed closing the patent office because everything that ever will be invented has been invented. These people have NO VISION, NO FAITH IN HIS FELLOW MAN’s ABILITY. They also have no apparent knowledge of man’s tremendous progress in rising from the apes to master the earth and part the heavens, to build a modern society from raw dirt, flora and funa. They seem to think creative problem solving will stop while population/ consumption will increase. Perhaps they smoked a bit too much good stuff?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : Sustainable, locally self-reliant economies will become necessary, not a utopian indulgence in the future these two foresee. The greedy myopia of Measure 37, encouraging conversion of prime farm, orchard and forestland into vacation homes and subdivisions, is exposed as suicidal when imported food will once again be made a luxury by increased costs of shipping goods around the world and it is prohibitively expensive to commute by car.
JK: Of course truly sustainable life requires land – maybe 5-10 acres per house. At that level you have enough land to grow your own food, have a well and septic tank (or whatever) and NO NEED OF CITY services. You have room for solar panels and wind mills (prohibited by city code, I think). You only need to travel for latte at Starbucks and fine wine at the sidewalk cafes in the obsolete overpriced, tax subsidized (see http://www.saveportland.com) central cities.
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : What can we do here? The good news is that much of what we are doing is helping reduce our dependence on fossil fuel: light rail,
JK: Don’t forget that light rail is powered by coal and nuclear as well as hydro, so it emits uranium, radium and thorium into the atmosphere. (Referenced above) It also uses about the same energy as a small car PER PASSENGER MILE. (See: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm )
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : farmers markets
JK: How does this help solve the problems of no oil. Do these farmers grow without oil? Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t have to travel to these markets because we grew our own food on our own 5-20 acre plots?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : , bike lanes,
JK: For the young and strong. What about the rest of us? Are you being anti-handicapped person here? Isn’t a car the best mobility solution for the handicapped? Along with drive in businesses?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : insulating houses,
JK: Finally a good suggestion. One that has been done for hundreds of years or more.
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : keeping tight urban growth boundaries,
JK: Why? To prevent people from having enough land to be sustainable?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : building housing in city centers.
JK: You mean the kind of stuff we build in Portland’s pearl and N. Macadam that gets tax welfare? This stuff is not economic, that is why they give tax abatements and various other subsidies to well connected, campaign contributing developers that build this trash. Or are you referring to those five story apartment buildings growing like fungi in most of our, previously livable, neighborhoods that are so popular with the neighbors?
Rex Burkholder at 01:50 AM : But, if the problem is as great as laid out in End of Suburbia there is much more we need to do.
JK: And you have the answer: All of us should live the way you tell us to. Just like the jihadists want all of us to live like good Muslims and the Bushites want us all to live like good Christians.
What you are really advocating is that all should live by the mantra of the prevailing political power – yours for now. But you are forgetting that Mannix & company might win the next 10 elections and impose their will on you instead of you imposing you will on them. I suggest a better way is for the government to butt out and not tell people how to live, where to live or what to do with their property, including their bodies.
You can start now, by having Metro quit dictating policy to the cities and people under its thumb.
Thanks
JK
Actually JK if the government DID butt out then the Suburban lifestyle would die faster. Its only 100 years of Government subsidizes that have made suburban life possible. Metro’s job has never been to impose a lifestyle its been to try and find a way to offer alternatives that haven’t been able to compete against the massive subsidized suburbs. Be careful for what you wish for JK.
About 5 years ago, everyone was talking about telecommuting to save travel and some enlightened employers actually let people work at home. In addition, town centers like Hillsboro are popping up with major employers (like Intel) that have people who live very close to them. Allowing population to distribute itself naturally is going to override any METRO board planning.
It just seems that the urge on Metro’s part (probably to justify their existence) is to cram as many people as possible in as small a space as possible. If this is Mr Burkholder’s vision of the future, maybe he should re-examine some of his assumptions which are biased to support his viewpoint. I mean this movie sounds like the crackpot stuff that Ravi Batra was putting out.
I think we are already seeing the first stages of the geopolitical conflict arising out of peak oil. The Iraq War may very well be the first battle of the oil wars (unless GWB is simply off his rocker) and the controversy over a Chinese company trying to buy Unocal is clearly one aspect of this playing out.
I missed the movie, but am just starting into Kuntsler’s The Long Emergency on the same topic.
Thanks for the review, I’m anxious to see the film.
I’ve been thinking of this issue for quite a long time and have been frustrated to no ends by the lack of foresight and progress that our oil dependant culture has had.
So 2 years ago after doing much research, I decided to quite waiting for someone else to start solving the problem. I purchased a diesel vehicle and switched to running 100% biodiesel. Since then my direct petroleum usage has dropped to virtually zero.
Of Course BioDiesel is only part of a complete solution but there is a lot of research being done and the UNH Biodiesel Group has done a study showing how to replace most all of our current diesel usage by cultivating sea algae as an oil source. There is also GreenFuels which has a proof-of-concept running that shows how you cultivate sea algae on landmass using emissions from power plants to “feed” the algae.
Diesel vehicle (such as VW TDI’s) get nearly 50mpg, last 2x as long as gasoline vehicles and there are no modifications that you need to make to use BioD. Emissions are drastically reduced and the net CO2 emissions are zero (closed, short cylcle carbon loop).
While a lot of the fuel I use comes from Sequential Biofuels (who is breaking ground on a processing plant in North Portland in August), I also belong to the local co-op GoBiodiesel in which we collect waste vegetable oil from local restaurants and process it ourselves.
The coolest thing about BioD is that it is self empowering! You don’t need to wait for some solution to present itself.
Of course Bio fuels and alternatives won’t solve all of the economic hardships that we are going to be seeing, but the sooner we make serious transitions the softer the landing will be.
just sayin’
Jim’s deconstruction of my comments is interesting in that it clearly places libertarianism in the utopian camp. If only everyone had 40 acres and a mule, I mean, 5-10 acres, a ranch house, 2 cars, a windmill and solar panels they could really be free. Aside from the implicit call for land redistribution on a level Hugo Chavez would be envious of, it ignores that there is an incredible level of infrastructure that someone would have to provide. In addition, this implies 1) a level of knowledge of how to be totally self-reliant I don’t think ever existed in any culture and 2) that the existing societal relationships, including subsidies and regulations that created the current urban pattern are somehow “natural” and not the result of decisions, right or wrong, that our forebears made in response to the problems and opportunities of their day.
One of the key signs a child has matured into an adult is when they recognize that they are not the center of the universe and their lives depend on complex webs of duty and responsibility.
My duty as an elected official and a citizen is to look into the future and attempt to plan a course that will result in a good life for everyone in my community. Simply wishing away problems like population growth, income inequality or potential energy shortages would be irresponsible.
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : Jim’s deconstruction of my comments is interesting in that it clearly places libertarianism in the utopian camp.
JK: You mean like your “smart growth and new urbanism”. Of course the difference is that I AM NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE THIS PHILOSOPHY ON OTHERS, YOU ARE. You can’t even prove that “smart growth and new urbanism” works. Or that people want to live that way.
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : If only everyone had 40 acres and a mule, I mean, 5-10 acres, a ranch house, 2 cars, a windmill and solar panels they could really be free.
JK: Who said anything about cars? There would be very little need for driving except for going to the Pearl for a latte.
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : Aside from the implicit call for land redistribution on a level Hugo Chavez would be envious of,
JK: Who said anything about “land redistribution”? (I assume you mean by government decree) I am just asking to be allowed to be free to live where we want to live.
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : it ignores that there is an incredible level of infrastructure that someone would have to provide.
JK: What infrastructure? No power lines, no water pipes, no sewer pipes. Just a few dirt roads like we used to have in farm territory. Heck, most people wouldn’t even need cars. YOU should love this proposal it accomplishes all of the goals of smart growth (except for the rural cleansing part). Of course it would make you and metro irrelevant.
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : In addition, this implies 1) a level of knowledge of how to be totally self-reliant I don’t think ever existed in any culture
JK: What about the family farm of 100 years ago? That is the era that most planners are trying to emulate, isn’t it?
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : 2) that the existing societal relationships, including subsidies and regulations that created the current urban pattern are somehow “natural” and not the result of decisions, right or wrong, that our forebears made in response to the problems and opportunities of their day.
JK: RIGHT ON! We need to STOP ALL SUBSIDIES RIGHT NOW. The $250 million we are planning to give to N.Macaddam would be a good start. Are yo willing to publically advocate cutting this off?
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : One of the key signs a child has matured into an adult is when they recognize that they are not the center of the universe and their lives depend on complex webs of duty and responsibility.
JK: Beware of people peddling complex solutions to simple problems. Beware of snake oil salesmen peddling solutions to non problems. See “The Music Man”
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : My duty as an elected official and a citizen is to look into the future and attempt to plan a course that will result in a good life for everyone in my community.
JK: You job is NOT TO PLAN PEOPLES LIVES. It is to provide services that people need to live the way that they want to live. Planning peoples lives was tried last century and proven to be a massive failure. Remember Russia, China, Cuba etc? Unchecked government power also gave us death on an industrial scale. See Hitler, Stalin, Mau etal..
Rex Burkholder at July 10, 2005 12:03 PM : Simply wishing away problems like population growth, income inequality or potential energy shortages would be irresponsible.
JK: Two of those three problems are solving themselves as free people do their thing. Did you notice the “Population bomb” has fizzled? The purveyors of that coming crisis didn’t notice that when given a choice, women have fewer and fewer kids. You do know that most of the industrialized world now has a birth rate at or below replacement don’t you? (This is a reference to another “sky is falling” scare of the 60’s or 70’s that, like all to date, didn’t come to pass)
As to potential energy shortages, apparently you need to re-read my previous post. If government keeps its mitts off, the problem will likely solve itself. Of course the government is already limiting oil production, contributing to our foreign dependance. Why don’t you take a public stance against restrictions on domestic oil production? That would be a good first step in the government getting out of the way to energy independance..
As to income inequality. Notice that we no longer talk of poverty (I mean the real kind where people starve, instead of the USA kind where they cannot afford a 2nd ColorTV set) Our modern, free, industrial society solved that problem. Now the primary people in poverty are those that didn’t get a good education, had children out of wedlock and people who are “legal system challenged”. Plus a few who are unable to help themselves.
Rex, just get all children good schools and a good education and income inequality will also disappear or be greatly reduced (few things ever really disappear). Of course we can’t afford things like schools when we spend around $100 million annually on tax breaks and planning to achieve YOUR utopian dream for the metro region. Rex, take a stand for more money for schools and less for planning/development. See saveportland.com for details on this waste of money
Thanks
JK
cab at July 10, 2005 07:41 AM Actually JK if the government DID butt out then the Suburban lifestyle would die faster. Its only 100 years of Government subsidizes that have made suburban life possible.
JK: Well, the former farmland that my 5000 sqft lot is on WAS DEVELOPED WITHOUT SUBSIDIES, like most of Portland’s older neighborhoods. Do you think that the city put out big $$ to develop Ladds addition? Do you think Rex’s planners had anything to do with planning Ladds? Do you think city zoning dictated that nice little development? Ladds was developed without government planning in a era without zoning and with private money. It worked then, why wouldn’t it work now?
cab at July 10, 2005 07:41 AM Metro’s job has never been to impose a lifestyle its been to try and find a way to offer alternatives that haven’t been able to compete against the massive subsidized suburbs.
JK: Then why do they forbid building homes in many places and, in other places, dictate that if you build anything you MUST build high density. Just to keep Rex happy let me clarify that Metro does not dictate zoning, but does dictated density which each city is required to accomplish. If a city fails to meet its goals Metro has the power to REWIRTE the city’s codes to force compliance. So they in efdfect dictate zoning.
cab at July 10, 2005 07:41 AM Be careful for what you wish for JK.
JK: Be careful what dictatorial movements you get sucked in by.
Thanks
JK
Glad to see someone else blogging on this subject. I’ve been blogging about peak oil and M37 for a while now.
Also, Matthew Simmons just came out with a book on this subject: “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.”
Jim has completely hit the proverbial nail on the head. Rex’s vision of a dense, urban landscape dependent on mass transit would likely consume more resources and emit more pollution than current suburbs.
Mass transit construction and operation (other than costing more than –gag– $100 million a mile) consumes huge quantities of natural resources. As does farming, which Rex seems to think is immune to polluting and environmental damage.
Rex, quit with the social engineering. Why can’t Portland ‘plan’ for the wants and needs of the populace, instead of forcing us into apartments, buses and trains? The most successful nations are free-market, without Big Brother’s interference.
BTW, I live in the Beaverton suburbs (which you smart growthers love to bash) and I’m in walking distance to a park, a grade school, a greenway, a major grocery store, a convenience store, a sushi bar and a dry cleaner. I find it insulting when people like you criticize the suburbs when many suburban locations are probably less auto dependent then places like the Pearl.
Quick: What city is considered the most ecological city in the United States?
New York, New York.
Per capita energy, land, water consumption is the lowest in the country by far. See Northwest Enviroment Watch for a breakdown of consumption patterns in NW cities (http://www.northwestwatch.org/publications/CS_news_4_05_gas.asp)
Second, and take a deep breath; I am not criticizing the suburbs nor people who choose or have to live there. What I am pointing out is that suburban design is generally auto-dependent, and with coming energy and other resource limitations, high energy requiring living forms will become very expensive and difficult for people to afford. This is a problem that won’t go away just because we don’t want to deal with it.
And, once again, the suburbs exist as they do because of urban planners of the past designed the zoning and the transportation infrastructure as it is for a variety of reasons. To separate homes from noxious industries, to give people access to nature and to take advantage of “cheap” land newly accessible by the democratization of the car.
Changing conditions require new responses.
Finally, discourse about the future and what will undoubtably be difficult decisions is never eased by name-calling, Chris. Phrases like “you smart growthers” and “social engineers” contribute nothing to the debate and only serve to deny each others’ humanity and shared stake in that future. As Miss Manners would say, the root of civilization is civility.
Some disgruntled people around these parts. For starters, I live in the Lloyd District without a car..walk, ride my bike, or take public transportation everywhere. Portland has and is planning “for the wants and needs of the populace”. I believe building all of these dense areas, condos, apartments, trains, and buses because people want to live in an urban environment is sometimes referred to as “supply and demand” which corresponds with “The most successful nations are free-market”. I chose to live in an urban environment, METRO did not force me to considering I grew up in rural Missouri/Kansas.
As far as 5 acres where everyone can be self-sufficient. That would be fantastic if it were not so idealistic. You refer to solar panels, wind turbines, septic tanks, and wells. Who maintains and fixes those? We could all learn to fix it ourselves. Smelting and casting can not be that hard to learn…especially compared to mining iron-ore which I would also have to learn. Ooh…I hope my 5 acres has iron-ore, or at least copper! Where would we buy all that equipment in the first place?
Farming? That could work until someone cuts their leg off (farming is one of the most dangerous professions). With only dirt roads and no car anyway, it would be beneficial to have surgical skills too I suppose. None of these skills are needed at all when we have a severe drought, leading to another dust-bowl (these events actually do occur).
Lets get to real issue…oil. I agree with both sides. Some people want to live in the ‘burbs and have a yard, some people want to live in the city. It is not up to me to decide…nor is it METRO’s. What needs to happen though is thoughtful planning to help all sides live where they want to live. The MAX and streetcars run on electricity. For now, creating that electricity may not be environmentally friendly. It does however consumes much less resources than if you took everyone that rides MAX and gave them all cars…let alone what it would do to our streets and highways. In the future, MAX’s electricity can come from other resources (wind, solar, biomass, hydrogen, etc.) Automobiles on the other hand are much different. Using 1,000+ gallons of gasoline a year to get to work seems rather excessive considering oil is not a renewable resource. 100 years from now, we would have long depleted any domestic oil production. We could then follow the lead of the times of Captain Ahab and use whale oil(Sperm Whales produce the best quality oil). Whales are also not renewable resources. What to do now?
If you want to live on a 5 acre farm, go ahead…no one says you cannot. If you want to live in the city, great! If you want to live in the suburbs, fantastic, just do not complain to the city, state, or federal governments when gas is $10/gallon.
Sorry Rex, I didn’t realize “Smart Growther” was a derogatory moniker. These people don’t seem to have a problem with it:
http://www.sgli.org/news6.16.04.html
As far as social engineering is concerned, I don’t know what else you can call it. MAX and streetcars (which transport less than 1% of the population) have taken precedence over freeways; forcing the majority of commuters to use mass transit.
To say that that is -not- social engineering is disingenuous.
rex Burkholder at July 11, 2005 12:53 PM Quick: What city is considered the most ecological city in the United States?
New York, New York.
Per capita energy, land, water consumption is the lowest in the country by far. See Northwest Enviroment Watch for a breakdown of consumption patterns in NW cities (http://www.northwestwatch.org/publications/CS_news_4_05_gas.asp)
JK: Are saying that Portland should now seek to replicate New York instead of Los Angelas? (At last notice, Metero is trying to replicate LA here in Portland, See “Metro Measured”, a Metro Publication. Available at:
http://209.210.229.130/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
Thanks
JK
More Later,
JK
JK’s conventional wisdom on energy supply conflicts with the thinking of energy experts who do not have a vested interest [economic or political] in the matter. This is a quantitative, not qualitative issue. Talking about whale oil, oil shale, and electric cars is unpersuasive in light of the numbers. Oil consumption is increasing. Oil discovery is decreasing. Most experts see a peak in production in the period 2005-2015. No other source of energy can make up the difference. The price of petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel, heating oil, fertilizer, and asphalt, will increase precipitously.
The effects suggested in End of Suburbia are not unreasonable, especially if we do little to prepare for the change. This is quite inconvenient for those with a laissez faire, anti-planning, anti-public transportation prejudice. So it goes. I suggest that we not let their mistaken attitudes lead to societal ruin. Governments should take an aggressive lead in the transformation to sustainble economy. This should include the invigoration of localized economy [anti-globalism, in a sense].
Check out peakoil.net and energybulletin.net for information on the inevitability of Peak Oil and its consequences.
Hey, the back and forth here is great, but we’re straying a little bit close to attacking individuals. Please keep rule # 1 in mind.
Thanks.
Chris:
If so-called “social engineering” has the result of clean air and water, which many of us like to breath and drink by the way, then so be it. What’s life worth if you don’t have your health?
BTW, Portland’s “social engineering” has resulted cutting carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels. Yup, that’s right! And what’s even better is that the Kyoto Accords had targeted 1990 levels. Portland’s “social engineering” beat the Kyoto targets.
The question here is, will the city adapt to the changes that peak-oil will bring? Will the state? The country?
My last comment was directed at Chris McMullen not Smith.
I just cannot believe the oversimplification of issues that some people drop down to when discussing issues such as these.
Cities are the most complex things people have ever built. They are an evolving, changing “thing” of countless parts. Categorizing every city in this country as either “LA or NY” is inane at best, ludicrous at worst.
One thing that seems to have been missed when discussing the $100 – million per mile pricetage of the MAX is comparing it to the the automobile equivalent, the freeway.
Let’s pose a few questions:
who pays for the freeways?
who maintains the freeways?
why is the federal & state governments spending umpteen billions of dollars per year on freeways in this country?
Freeways are not a free-market system: they are designed, built and operated by transportation planners who, I believe, have their cookies on the wrong platter. Particularly the fact that freeways tend to be free for anybody to drive on them, which simply encourages ridiculous overuse of them.
Of course, with freeways, after you paid your taxes to build and maintain them, you still have to provide the car. And then there’s that parking space…
Sooo, some people in this blog are not happy campers. So be it. We have been talking about our city for the last thirty years in terms of smart growth. We want our farms close by. We like vegetable gardens. We want soy beans for biodiesel. Peak Oil and Global Warming will prove our point.
But I fear the individuals who deny any change, what so ever, will be so torn apart in their denial and rage as to become our locally grown “terrorists”. Way, way, to much anst and denial.
Chris Smith said
—“BTW, Portland’s “social engineering” has resulted cutting carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels.”—
Really?
How did they make the cause and effect determination?
Sorry
I guess that was Sid who said that.
The post line is is the wrong place IMO
Where are these ‘massive oil reserves’ that JK is referring to? US domestic production has declined every year since 1933, but not for a lack of trying on the part of the oil companies. So how are we going to drill our way to energy independence when it’s already been tried, and since you obviously haven’t noticed it failed. If such reserves did in fact exist, doesn’t it seem likely that at ~$60/barrel they would be rather profitable to extract? Perhaps you’re suggesting it will take $100, or maybe $200/barrel? Either way, what’s the point?
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM I just cannot believe the oversimplification of issues that some people drop down to when discussing issues such as these.
JK: I agree, like neglecting the fact that transit uses energy too. And about the same amount as cars on a per passenger mile basis. Or neglecting the fact that transit receives subsidies from road users. More below.
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM Cities are the most complex things people have ever built. They are an evolving, changing “thing” of countless parts.
JK: Of course. And that is why Portland style planning is doomed to failure – the planners aren’t smart enough to deal with the complexity and they aren’t smart enough to know they can’t do it.
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM Categorizing every city in this country as either “LA or NY” is inane at best, ludicrous at worst.
JK: It was Metro that decided to remake Portland in LA’s image, not me. See page 7 of Metro’s “metro measured”, available at: http://209.210.229.130/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM One thing that seems to have been missed when discussing the $100 – million per mile pricetage of the MAX is comparing it to the the automobile equivalent, the freeway.
Let’s pose a few questions:
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM who pays for the freeways?
JK: USERS pay all but 1-5% of the cost, unlike mass transit where non-users pay big bucks to support users. 80% of that TriMet fare is paid by payroll tax, gas tax and other taxes. TriMet riders pay less than 20% of the cost – TriMet riders are on welfare.
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM who maintains the freeways?
JK: Money from users. Oh, I forgot to mention that around 18% of gas tax money goes to transit system welfare.
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM why is the federal & state governments spending umpteen billions of dollars per year on freeways in this country?
JK: Why do you care – it all comes from road users and, of course, a bit is siphoned off to support welfare for transit. The real reason is that freeways are the most efficient and safest ground transport known to man. This raises your standard of living by keeping costs down for everything that must be transported to your local Starbucks. (Actually scheduled airlines are safer than freeways, but more costly and less fuel efficient.)
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM Freeways are not a free-market system: they are designed, built and operated by transportation planners who, I believe, have their cookies on the wrong platter. Particularly the fact that freeways tend to be free for anybody to drive on them, which simply encourages ridiculous overuse of them.
JK: Your beliefs aside, there are advocates of making all roads toll roads. I tend to think that would harm low income people. I’m sure that you concur. The reality is that freeways are used because they are the lowest cost and fastest means of getting from here to there. Would you like to see use adopt less efficient transportation that woould cost YOU more?
JK: Freeways appear to be overused because most cities quit building them around 20 years ago, ignoring the fact that the population was continuing to increase. This led to under building freeways in relation to the increase in demand. This set up a situation that when capacity was added, it was quickly filled, leading poorly informed intellectuals to conclude that you can’t build your way out of congestion while recommending the we build toy trains to build our way out of congestion.
Justin Wells at July 11, 2005 05:09 PM Of course, with freeways, after you paid your taxes to build and maintain them, you still have to provide the car. And then there’s that parking space…
JK: And after all that, cars are still cheaper than mass transit. Look at the real numbers, not those after the public welfare. Don’t forget that without cars paying for the roads, transit would have to pay its fair share and the price would skyrocket. Transit just does not work well outside of highly dense areas like LA, NY, Tokyo etc. Would you like Portland to become more like LA?
JK: One of the big things against rail is that it cannot share track costs with other users like busses can share road costs with trucks and cars. BTW buses are safer than cars but do not save energy over cars, while light rail is less safe than cars (measured on a fatalities per passenger mile basis) and is a bit more energy efficient while using coal for part of its power. Coal is well known to put radiation into the air: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Thanks
JK
Curt Sommer at July 11, 2005 10:57 PM If such reserves did in fact exist, doesn’t it seem likely that at ~$60/barrel they would be rather profitable to extract?
JK: They are rather profitable and ARE coming on the market now. Are you having problems with basic economics, like supply and demand and pricing?
Curt Sommer at July 11, 2005 10:57 PM Perhaps you’re suggesting it will take $100, or maybe $200/barrel? Either way, what’s the point?
JK: Right now we are at $60/barrel and $2.3/gal. At $120/bbl we can expect $4.60/gal which is about what most of Europe pays. They survive and so will we. We will buy smaller cars – that is what Europeans do (they drive almost as much as we do. See the video at: http://209.210.229.130/video/RM-Cox-20P-4.rm (Download then double click on the file name)
Tom Civiletti at July 11, 2005 03:40 PM JK’s conventional wisdom on energy supply conflicts with the thinking of energy experts
Sorry, Tom I’m out of time to reply to you. Maybe tomorrow.
JK
I take Steve’s point and am in the process of reorganizing how the comments are presented. It’s a work-in-progress :-)
Don’t forget my question, someone??
Sid said
—“BTW, Portland’s “social engineering” has resulted cutting carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels.”—
Really?
How was it measured and how did they make the cause and effect connection?
JK: USERS pay all but 1-5% of the cost, unlike mass transit where non-users pay big bucks to support users. 80% of that TriMet fare is paid by payroll tax, gas tax and other taxes. TriMet riders pay less than 20% of the cost – TriMet riders are on welfare.
I am a trimet rider, as are most of my acquaintances, we are far away from being on welfare. Think of it like this…you help pay for mass transit to help keep our highways less congested than they could/would be. I belive I pay big bucks for highways that I rarely use.
Sid said: BTW, Portland’s “social engineering” has resulted cutting carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels. Yup, that’s right! And what’s even better is that the Kyoto Accords had targeted 1990 levels. Portland’s “social engineering” beat the Kyoto targets
I’m sure our reduced carbon emissions have absolutely nothing to do with the fact there are no coal or oil fired plants, oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, major shipping, etc. in Portland.
Or the fact that we have stringent emission requirements on our cars — the auto owners are paying for that which has nothing to do with mass transit.
For those following the biodiesel angle, News4Neighbors has a post about an orientation session coming up.
Diesel vehicle (such as VW TDI’s) get nearly 50mpg, last 2x as long as gasoline vehicles and there are no modifications that you need to make to use BioD. Emissions are drastically reduced and the net CO2 emissions are zero (closed, short cylcle carbon loop).
You need to be careful with the Diesel bandwagon. I think diesel cars are the best way to go as well. But new diesel cars are not legal in CA starting in 2006 because of new emissions standards, and our illustrious governor wants to duplicate the CA emissions model for Oregon.
Also dont forget to tell people, that in order to produce your own Biodiesel, you need to purchase nearly $5,000 in equipment to do so. (last I checked)
It does seem interesting that people have trouble imagining the curve that will occur as petro supplies dwindle. Perhaps they imagine a gas tank, which decreases steadily until it suddenly runs out, but this isn’t an effective analogy.
Many oil resources are not exploited because they’re not profitable. But as we use up easily exploited sources of oil, the price increases, making them profitable enough to warrent extraction. This doesn’t prevent long term depletion, but it means there is less likely to be a sudden shortage, but rather a smoother long term increase in price.
As the price increases, people will ration their own uses, to cut out extravagance (I remember a fairly cold house when I was a kid–we only used the heating oil for special occasions). They’ll use smaller cars or hybrids and work to maintain their fuel efficiency (check that filter!). They’ll consider alternatives like biking, bussing walking for gratuitous transit. And as the price continues to increase, other alternatives, such as electric cars, will become more enticing (and in turn, encouraging more research).
Point being, not only will we extract oil from other sources, but the increase in cost will naturally encourage a decrease in use. It will result in changes to lifestyles, granted–but one has to be careful not to fall into the very enticing picture of doomsday scenarios. They’re dramatic, and they’re fun to imagine, but don’t generally come to pass. (not to say we should ignore them, but we have to try to weigh them carefully).
We also have to be careful about the people who profit politically from telling us to be afraid, be it of a coming oil apocalypse or nasty arab terrorists. Problems will arise, and some will require advance work to solve–but 95% of the time, the market provides for thousands of individual problem solvers who are better at finding solutions that fit individual needs, and which are actually worth the cost (because the individual is allowed to make the cost-benefit analysis on their own; how democratic!).
For a side note, I don’t own a car, but rely on my legs, a bike, or mass transit. While I enjoy the lifestyle (especially the affordability of it), I recognize other people have to cough up cash for me, when I ride the bus. So, thanks guys!
Jon Says: Also dont forget to tell people, that in order to produce your own Biodiesel, you need to purchase nearly $5,000 in equipment to do so. (last I checked)
JK: Home Power magazine has had articles on this over the last few years and I don’t remember getting the impression that it involved expensive equipment to do small batches. Might be inconvient though. (www.homepower.com)
Thanks
JK
chris lonigro Says: I am a trimet rider, as are most of my acquaintances, we are far away from being on welfare.
JK: Then you should paying your own way, instead of letting the taxpayers pick up over $6.00 of your cost everytime you step on TriMet.
chris lonigro Says: Think of it like this…you help pay for mass transit to help keep our highways less congested than they could/would be.
JK: Then you should PAY ME for staying home when I choose to not go somewhere.
chris lonigro Says: I belive I pay big bucks for highways that I rarely use.
JK: That belief is WRONG. Roads are paid for by fuel taxes and license fees. If you don’t’ pay these, you don’t pay much for roads (up to5% may come from other sources depending on who you read, but even buses use roads).
JK: The story that non-users pay for freeways is a lie put out by car haters. (I looked at the federal data and asked at Portland’s budget bureau.)
JK: I am sure you know that a significant part of mass transit funding comes from gas taxes. A pure subsidy by non-users of transit.
Thanks
JK
Hey Peak Oil People:
I just found this littel tidbit: Oil was $71.30/bbl in 1981 (today’s dollars)
So today’s prices aren’t even a record and you guys are in a panic.
Source: “Transportation Energy Data Book: edition 24” (a Federal publication) pg 10-6
Thanks
JK
July 12, 2005 06:53 AM Chris Smith Says: I take Steve’s point and am in the process of reorganizing how the comments are presented. It’s a work-in-progress :-)
JK: Hey Chris, did Mary Fetch ever cough up the data to disprove my claim that TriMet uses about the same energy as cars?
See: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
Fact: The current “Transportation Energy Data Book”, a Federal publication, shows 2004 model year cars getting 29.3 mpg (24.7 if you add SUVs to the mix. (Page 4-19))
July 12, 2005 12:55 PM Ben Garcia Says: It does seem interesting that people have trouble imagining the curve that will occur as petro supplies dwindle. Perhaps they imagine a gas tank, which decreases steadily until it suddenly runs out, but this isn’t an effective analogy.
Many oil resources are not exploited because they’re not profitable. But as we use up easily exploited sources of oil, the price increases, making them profitable enough to warrent extraction. This doesn’t prevent long term depletion, but it means there is less likely to be a sudden shortage, but rather a smoother long term increase in price.
{big section left out}
JK: Good explanation. I do however disagree that there will be much of a change in lifestyle as I think it probable that substitutes will be found that will eventually be better. Like coal and oil is better than wood for heat; kerosene turned out to be better that whale oil for light and oil turned out to be better than hay for transportation. (Less horse shit on the streets too.)
Thanks
JK
I couldn’t help but notice that today none other than Chevron has a two-page ad in the form of a letter in the Wall Street Journal regarding their purchase of Unocal (and the competition to buy it from a Chinese company).
The headline: It took 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.
In the text: “…many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing.”
Even the oil companies seem to be grasping the concept of peak oil!
P.S. Jim, yes TriMet is pulling together data on energy consumption.
Wow, JK those analogies are stretching pretty thin. Whale oil!? Whale oil was only used in minimal quantities by a much smaller population for lamps and cosmetics. Hardly essential survival items.
Second, where is this miracle substitute going to come from? Fusion is the best miracle candidate but it’s at least 50 years off if it works at all.
As for the population bomb, Yes, world population growth is slowing, however we’ve largely managed to avoid problems with our current levels using industrial agriculture fueled by, yes oil and gas. Remove the oil and gas from food production and things get much tighter. Pave over all the local farm land and you have an even bigger problem.
Anyway, I think we’ll know who is right and who’s wrong in the next few years. Does limiting growth have a worse downside than not if either side is wrong? Not a chance I want to take.
Also, JK you should really read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond if you want a well researched historical perspective on our current dillema.
I just unearthed my e-mail conversations last Fall (2004)with a Metro planner about the Hwy 217 expansion project.
It took four exasperating rounds to get the planner to admit — sorta — that their models do not reflect fuel prices as consuming an increasing fraction of commuter family income. Considering that the highway has a projected lifespan of 75 years, that’s a whole lot of wishful thinking about fuels and energy source trends.
Of course, I’m biased: I feel that the Washington County Board’s plan of changing residential Oleson Road into a multi-modal truck corridor represents sub-optimal thinking. (Before anyone squawks “NIMBY,” I neither live on, nor frequently drive on Oleson.)
Chris Smith July 12, 2005 03:23 PM : P.S. Jim, yes TriMet is pulling together data on energy consumption.
JK: Interesting. All they have to do is look at the data that they supplied to the Feds. I understand that it is in a publication on some Fed website. Hope they figure out how to find the data. Or more likely find excuses as to why the data doesn’t mean what it says.
Thakns
JK
The libertarian utopia where government is neutral has never existed and never will. Just consider two scenarios:
Cattle in many parts of eastern oregon are free to roam. If you want to keep them off your property, you have to put up a fence. If they wander into a road drivers are responsible if they hit them, not only for the damage to their own car but to pay for the damage to the cow. A few years ago we had a ballot measure that tried to change that so that the owners of cows were responsible for fencing. It was defeated by an opposition using the rather the slogan “Don’t fence us in.”
Scenario two is urban streets where parents are expected to keep their children safely out of them and auto drivers expect pedestrians to stay out of the road and look out for them. There was just someone killed on Hawthorne when he stepped in front of a car without looking. The driver had no liability as he would have for the cows in eastern oregon.
The decision of who is responsible for fencing cattle is one we have made as a society. The decision of who is responsible for the safety of pedestrians whether adults or children is one we have made. Both are “social engineering”. As are all the stop signs and signal lights set up to allow traffic to speed through intersections without having to negotiate with cross traffic.
The question is not whether we will be social engineers but when, how and for what purposes.
As for what people choose in the market – it is pretty clear from housing prices that people prefer to live in the city if they can get the same size house with the same amenities. Almost any house you find in the suburbs would be more expensive if you could find it in the city. Rents for similar apartments are cheaper in the suburbs. Of course there are some people who prefer suburban living, just as there are people who prefer to live in apartments. But the market clearly currently places a premium on urban areas.
Steve,
You asked:
“How was it measured and how did they make the cause and effect connection?”
I don’t know. E-mail Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times. He was the one who wrote the piece on Portland’s lowered emissions. I’ll assume for now since carbon emissions are mostly the result of the automobile, creating initiatives that target the level of such usage would result in the lowering of emissions. So when carbon emissions are indeed lowered after the implementation of certain programs that are directed at lowering emissions such as car-pooling initiatives, public transport, etc., the assumption is that the programs worked.
I know several small business owners who comp tri-met passes for their employees due to local incentives the city offers small businesses. Large companies do the same… my husband works for a large company that encourages its employees to use public transport. My husband gets a free tri-met pass each month and uses it to go to work and so do many of his colleagues. Of course this information is not scientific, but it gives a person the knowledge that the city is working with private business to take steps that help limit the amount of carbon emissions.
Sid said—“I don’t know. E-mail Nicholas Kristof from the New York Times. He was the one who wrote the piece on Portland’s lowered emissions”—
That’s a paculiar suggestion. Kristoff wouldn’t have any background supporting info. He didn’t do any of the research. He just took something sent to him and went with it. Looks like he may have embelished it though.
I am wondering where the curiosity or demand for hard science is on this topic. Any science.
Are we to presume it doesn’t matter if the cause and effect is negligable or nonexistant?
Most of the underlying claims in the report are highly suspicious IMO. Along with the conclusions.
We can not know for sure as of yet but would you have a problem if the report is proved to be a fabrication of sorts. I understand of course the
support by many for the kinds of things Portland has adopted in hopes of reducing greehouse gases etc.
But is it acceptable if the effectiveness of those efforts is falsified?
Does the hopeful ends justify the means?
Here’s the report on Portland’s emission reductions:
http://www.sustainableportland.org/osd_pubs_global_warming_report_6-2005.pdf
The report is not more than a letter to the editor or Nicholas Kristof piece.
I want to know if the so called successes are true and if the NET result is as claimed.
I certainly do not believe for one minute that our light rail increased transit ridership 75% or that our light rail reduced anything at all.
The NET effect of spending billions on something which, when really measured against other losses, contributes very little towards our transportation system cannot possibly do what it is claimed in this report.
The report clarifies no cause and effect directly connecting what was done with what was supposedly accomplished.
Most of it appears presumptive or wishful thinking at best.
I can presume as well.
For instance I can presume we would be serving far more transit riders and neighborhoods if we had spent the light rail billions on broadening our bus system with far more benefits.
I don’t believe the report at all.
Others belive it.
Is this a faith based report?
Sid July 12, 2005 10:34 PM: I’ll assume for now since carbon emissions are mostly the result of the automobile,
JK: Wrong. You car hating is showing.
If you bothered to look at the data in the report, you would have found this emissions data:
(category____1990 amount__2000 amount__ change__ % change
Residental_____1,951,113____1,984.188____+33____+2%
Commerical____2,080,219____2,485,205___+405___+19%
Industrial______1,529,928____1,296,749____-233___-15%
Transportation__3,793,717____3,731,390____-63____-2%
Waste__________267,476_____118,855____-149____-26%
I chose the 10 year period because that matches the census data. There were significant peaks and subsequent reductions which I didn’t look at yet.
The transportation data shows a 2% reduction. But US Census data shows that 21% more people drove to work each day. Who do we believe – a minor Portland agency or the US Census? (I don’t have total driving handy, but it is inconceivable that it went down.) See:
chapter 4 of: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm, exhibit 4.10 & 4.11
The big changes are an increase in commercial and decrease in Industrial. This is consistent with us losing family wage union jobs in industry and substituting low wage commercial jobs in trendy shops and restaurants.
Sid July 12, 2005 10:34 PM: I know several small business owners who comp tri-met passes for their employees due to local incentives the city offers small businesses. Large companies do the same… my husband works for a large company that encourages its employees to use public transport. My husband gets a free tri-met pass each month and uses it to go to work and so do many of his colleagues.
JK: You don’t seem to know where those passes come from: Area employers face FINES if they don’t reduce car usage. But they can buy TriMet passes at special low prices and it will be assumed that they are reducing car usage, wether or not car usage really goes down. They are basically blackmailed into buying the passes to avoid FINES. The one person that I know in the program uses the passes only for rose garden events and still drives to work.
Just another example of Portland’s hostility to employers. (A job is the most important element of livability.)
Thanks
JK
steve schopp July 13, 2005 10:43 AM: I certainly do not believe for one minute that our light rail increased transit ridership 75% or that our light rail reduced anything at all.
JK: What counts is market share: Transit travel to work market share increased by only 0.9 percentage point in the last 10 years. See chapter 4 of: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm, exhibit 4.10 & 4.11. Note that this is a government data source.
This is not a big transit success, but more likely statistical noise, or due to lower incomes as our un-employment is up due to Oregon’s failed policies.
For you transit advocates: at this rate they will have half of us out of our cars I ONLY 500 years.
But why push transit, it does NOT SAVE ENERGY and IT COSTS MORE.
See: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
Thanks
JK
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Wow, JK those analogies are stretching pretty thin. Whale oil!? Whale oil was only used in minimal quantities by a much smaller population for lamps and cosmetics. Hardly essential survival items.
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Second, where is this miracle substitute going to come from?
JK: Where is the next invention coming from? We don’t know, but one has always come along. It is the short sighted thinkers that assume that if they don’t know it, no one does.
JK: Here are some possibilities (in no particular order):
1. Shale oil/tar sands – already being produced and scaled up
2. New discoveries.
3. Naturally evolving increases in efficiencies. It may surprise you that efficiencies have been increasing for hundreds of years, because that saves money.
4. Coal gasification (Hitler ran his war machine on it in the later years, South Africa used it too)
5. Synthetic fuel from water and carbon using nuclear power.
6. Electric cars – these only need better, lower cost batteries to be practical.
7. Natural evolution more expensive substitutes as price rises.
8. More hybrids, increasing efficiency.
9 More small cars, increasing efficiency.
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM As for the population bomb, Yes, world population growth is slowing, however we’ve largely managed to avoid problems with our current levels using industrial agriculture fueled by, yes oil and gas. Remove the oil and gas from food production and things get much tighter.
JK: Why would anyone remove oil and gas from food production? However, price rises might increase food prices. BTW: You do know that today’s oil prices are not even the highest that they have been? High, yes, highest NO. Learn form history.
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Pave over all the local farm land and you have an even bigger problem.
JK: Metro already did that when they kicked out the farmers from the land east of the airport and paved it over. Planners have one of the last farms on Portland zoned for high density housing. It is not about farms, it is about planner’s wet dreams for Portland. Also, why are nurseries more important to you than affordable housing? That is what most area farms are now.
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Does limiting growth have a worse downside than not if either side is wrong?
JK: Downside:
Lack of affordable housing.
Highest unemployment in the country.
Little industrial land FOR JOBS, (if you care about jobs – the first step to livibility).
Spending BILLIONS to make a model compact city.
Shortest school year in the country
Car thieves get tickets instead of jail.
All due to the high cost of smart growth and land use controls.
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Not a chance I want to take.
JK: A very remote chance against the certainties above?
Adventuregeek July 12, 2005 04:00 PM Also, JK you should really read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond if you want a well researched historical perspective on our current dillema.
JK: I am not interested in another “chicken little” book in the long line of failed “sky is falling” books, all well reasoned with convincing data such as:
Limits to growth (we are running out of raw materials)
The Population Bomb (population increase will overcrowd the planet (think Soylent Green )
The coming ice age (forgot the exact name of this book, but some of that group is now leading the global warming hysteria which is slowly morphing into climate change. Climate change is finally something honest – the climate has always changed – ice ages and all that without man even being blamed.
And dozens more to suck in people like you.
JK: By the way, Adventuregeek , do you have a real name?
Thanks
JK
JK-
First of all, I don’t “hate” cars. That’s ridiculous. I do have a problem with the auto industry, the US industry in particular, for being so shameless about making cars that have high emissions and only get 12 mpg. And then they cry and whine that their profits are down and blame it on expensive healthcare coverage for their employees, which is part of them problem, but their sales have dropped as well. They lack the vision that they need to get ahead in the marketplace.
And since when was it so desirable to live in a city with massive traffic congestion? Maybe you know only one person who never uses her comped tri-met pass, I can think of at least 20 right off the top of my head… but then again I’m a member of the small business community and know lots of employees who use their passes and employers who are quite happy with Portland’s program… but then again they happen to be business owners who care about the air they and their children breath.
July 13, 2005 02:03 PM
jim karlock Says:
JK: Where is the next invention coming from? We don’t know, but one has always come along. It is the short sighted thinkers that assume that if they don’t know it, no one does.
JC: I’ve been following this issue for more than five years already. If only we could wish hard enough, and indeed it would go away. Your declaration of faith aside, you are correct, “we don’t know”. And the “we” in this case is a lot of money and specialized talent chasing the problem. The issue is not that there are no alternatives, the issue is that all added together they don’t add up to enough to replace petroleum at the same scale as we indulge in it today. Fossil fuels by most accounts are the savings of some 200+ million years of solar energy captured by organic photosynthetic processes. Our modern era will have blown through most of that energy savings in less than 200 years. If there is an answer to be found, and if there is money to made at it (and no question, there is money to be made!), I have no problem agreeing with you that people will get right to it. But I also suggest that you might try putting on your very best intellectually honest mind set and look further into this problem. There is presently no easy answer, and the consequences of the crisis at the end of our current petroleum fueled path are indeed dire. “End of Suburbia” in no way paints the picture of the worst case scenario.
JK: Here are some possibilities (in no particular order):
1. Shale oil/tar sands – already being produced and scaled up
JC: – Shale oil, the energy of the future, and always will be. People have been looking at this for a long time, at least since the days of the Arab oil enbargo. Higher prices for fuel will not bring this on line. It takes at least as much energy to harvest a barrel of petroleum from shale-oil as the barrel itself contains. No net energy gain.
JC: – Tar sands, definitely going to be with us as a petroleum source for a long time. But is limited in how much it can scale up by the amount of water and natural gas it consumes converting to oil. Also requires a very large energy input to turn the soilds into liquids. Currently using up enormous amounts of Canaadian natural gas that we might otherwise be heating our foods and houses with directly. Tar sands are not going to ever replace more than single digit percentages of current worldwide consumption rates of petroleum.
2. New discoveries.
JC: Of oil? or some kind of here-to-fore unknown sci-fi energy source, dilithium crystals perhaps? The world has been systematically scoured, and the pools of still untapped oil are ever smaller and ever more difficult to exploit. There are no more Saudi Arabias out there to find. But, the people in the oil bidness are going to get to every possible drop, I’m confident in this becoming fact.
3. Naturally evolving increases in efficiencies. It may surprise you that efficiencies have been increasing for hundreds of years, because that saves money.
JC: Definitely we can stretch what we have left. My Toyota hybrid sports the bumper sticker “Hybrids: good to the last drop”. But after the last drop, useless. Humans will one day look back and be astounded at the way we have used precious energy just to scurry back and forth.
4. Coal gasification (Hitler ran his war machine on it in the later years, South Africa used it too)
JC: we have enough coal in the USA for what, 250-300 years at the current rates of consumption? Problem is that if you start using it to replace petroleum then the current rates of consumption multiply by 5-6 times. You do the math, if you could replace petroleum perfectly, coal lasts 50-60 years? Then there are all those inconvenient environmental aspects to coal mining, burning and liquification…
5. Synthetic fuel from water and carbon using nuclear power.
JC: Carbon dioxide surrounds us, we release it from our very own lungs! Nuclear has the same problem as coal. “At current rates” you get a large date into the future. Start using it to replace fossil fuels and the number shrinks back down to under 50 years. I’m surprised you didn’t mention nuclear fusion. Another energy of the future, and always will be. People have been trying to capture a “sun in a box” for more than half a century now…I’m sure it will be with us any day now.
6. Electric cars – these only need better, lower cost batteries to be practical.
JC: But you still need to get the electricity somehow. Hydropower is somewhere around 5% of our current electricity generation. Windmills and direct solar to electricity together less than 1%. when you think electricity, think primarily coal, natural gas and nuclear. This is another one of those things that will increase our rate of coal burning by 5-6 times, and use up our nuclear potential similarly.
7. Natural evolution more expensive substitutes as price rises.
JC: Such as? And don’t forget the other obvious substitute as prices rise to high: doing without. Which is the whole point of the movie this thread started out reviewing.
8. More hybrids, increasing efficiency.
JC: Still good to the last drop, but no more.
9 More small cars, increaing efficiency.
JC: Again, still good to the last drop, but no more.
Personally, I think that fossil fuels will be with humans as long as they live on the planet. How they are valued and used is going to change a lot. Things like biodiesel are hopeful, but as you scale it up you displace food that we might have eaten instead. Even if we all quit eating biodiesel cannot replace the amount of petroleum energy we currently consume in a year. This problem is about scale, at magnitudes that many people have a very hard time coming to grips with.
Note to Chris Smith: I a copy of the DVD “End of Suburbia”, contact me if you want to borrow it.
Jeff Clark
Tigard
Ooops. Clarification on what I wrote: “I can think of at least 20 right off the top of my head…”
I meant 20 people who actually use their tri-met passes that they get from their employers.
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1
Comment removed for violation of Rule #1
I have removed the last several comments because in my opinion they began to turn in comments about the people involved. If this continues, I will close comments on this thread.
The culture of this site is to be about IDEAS.
(Note to Chris: Sorry, I hope that this is cleaned up enough)
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM (quoting JK): 5. Synthetic fuel from water and carbon using nuclear power.
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM: Nuclear has the same problem as coal. “At current rates” you get a large date into the future. Start using it to replace fossil fuels and the number shrinks back down to under 50 years.
JK: Do you have a credible source for this. I was under the impression that we had almost unlimited nuclear, especially with reprocessing. Gee, we have tons of weapons grade stuff that can be diluted and used for power (if the paranoid left would allow it).
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM: I’m surprised you didn’t mention nuclear fusion. Another energy of the future, and always will be.
JK: I didn’t mention this because it is only a potential energy of the future”
JK: Do you have a credible source for “always will be”
Thanks
JK
(Chris: I don’t see what was wrong with the pervious version of this, I hope I got the offensive parts out)
Sid July 13, 2005 06:42 PM: First of all, I don’t “hate” cars. That’s ridiculous. I do have a problem with the auto industry, the US industry in particular, for being so shameless about making cars that have high emissions and only get 12 mpg.
JK: That statement just proved my point about hating cars by making unfounded accusations against them. The average car now gets 29.3 MPG. Go back almost 3 decades and the avenge car still got 19.9 MPG – well above thhe claimed 12mpg. Of course these are averages (sales weighted) so some are better and some are worse. I try to use US government data which is where the above came from. Page 4-19 of the TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24. I consider data from the Green Nonprofit Corporate Industry generally between un-reliable and outright distortion.
Sid July 13, 2005 06:42 PM: And since when was it so desirable to live in a city with massive traffic congestion?
JK: It is not and we would not have such a bad problem if our government quit raiding auto taxes to build toy trains that increase congestion. A drive on Interstate Ave. will demonstrate this point.
Sid July 13, 2005 06:42 PM: … but then again they happen to be business owners who care about the air they and their children breath.
JK: Cars don’t pollute much any more – that ended a quite a while back. Do you know of a credible source for the claim that cars are significant polluters? (No Green Corporate claims accepted. No advocacy group climes accepted – they frequently exaggerate in order to scare people into sending money.)
Thanks
JK
July 14, 2005 12:19 PM
jim karlock Says:
(Note to Chris: Sorry, I hope that this is cleaned up enough)
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM (quoting JK): 5. Synthetic fuel from water and carbon using nuclear power.
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM: Nuclear has the same problem as coal. “At current rates” you get a large date into the future. Start using it to replace fossil fuels and the number shrinks back down to under 50 years.
JK: Do you have a credible source for this. I was under the impression that we had almost unlimited nuclear, especially with reprocessing. Gee, we have tons of weapons grade stuff that can be diluted and used for power (if the paranoid left would allow it).
JC: You’ll have to go do your own homework and inform your own opinions. What you will discover when you look deeper under the energy covers is that informed opinions are the best you are going to find. The reason one needs that intellectually honest mindset is that there are differing opinions, some constructed to defend a current status quo or vested position. One has to ultimately decide which rings true, and examining motivations is certainly part of it. But, if one is only looking for support for their own foregone conclusions, I’m sure that is available also. I’ve trained myself to think critically and for myself. My agenda ultimately is to look after my family and help my children prepare appropriately for their futures, that is my vested interest in this topic.
JC: As for opinions and bluster being all we’ve really got to go one… The lack of reliable oil data for example seems to be a pretty big burr under Matt Simmons (“Twighlight in the Desert”, and whom I beleive has looked at a lot of data!) saddle. Here is his most recent publically released presentation on the topic. http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/AAPL%20Talk%20Banff%20-%20July%201.pdf
As for nuclear fission, it of course has its own set of very inconvenient environmental and scaling up issues, and as I’ve read of late, major security issues too. But the bottom line of those who know much better than I seems to be that not only is fossil fuel finite and depleting on the planet, but so are fissionable nuclear fuel stocks! If you look out on the web, you’ll find this view along with data that supports it.
Jeff Clark July 13, 2005 06:56 PM: I’m surprised you didn’t mention nuclear fusion. Another energy of the future, and always will be.
JK: I didn’t mention this because it is only a potential energy of the future”
JK: Do you have a credible source for “always will be”
JC: I can’t take credit for originating that quip, but that seems to be a common beleif amongst the energy “wonks” I’ve been reading. Hope they’re wrong and a “star in a box” does eventually happen. Would open the door to very long term sustainable transportation with electricity and hydrogen — two possible solutions that if scaled up would seriously displace current electricity that is primarily produced with coal. There are some other good ideas out there too like the Solar Tower, if one has a lot of open desert ground that is not much good for anything else. Last I looked it seemed that it was comparable in capital cost to a coal-fired generator producing close to the same megawattage. Difference is that the Solar Tower could be sustainable as long as sunshine falls on the Earth, produces no CO2 or other greenhouse gases, produces no leftover waste material that is hazardous for 10,000 years and makes the desert bloom beneath it. Why not? Is it only imagination and vision that we are lacking? New coal fired power plants are going in all the time, so I’m pretty sure its not a lack of dollars chasing energy opportunities… http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/
Thanks
JK
My point in all of this finally is that truth’s like “the hidden hand” or “Moore’s law” may not apply universally in all areas of economic activity. Energy as we currently know it in the largest scale certainly looks to me to follow a different model. “Depleting non-renewable resources” would seem an appropriate rubric.
Jeff Clark
JK: The average car now gets 29.3 MPG
Thanks to the Japanese auto industry. If it weren’t for GM and Ford the average MPG would quite likely be higher.
JK: Cars don’t pollute much any more.
Really? So when the county sometimes requests people to limit their driving, what is that for?
Just for fun:
Rail was designed for a horses ass. See:
http://soloshideaway.home.att.net/535/transportation.htm
Sorry
JK
Sid Says July 15, 2005 11:31 AM : JK: Cars don’t pollute much any more.
Sid Says July 15, 2005 11:31 AM : Really? So when the county sometimes requests people to limit their driving, what is that for?
JK: The other polluter category is industry (ie: jobs) Would you rather they ask industry to shut down? I’ll see if I can find some numbers to pin this down. In the mean while you can see that transit does not save energy at the below reference.
Thanks
JK
references:
Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973 (download from: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download24.shtml
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
sid asked—“Really? So when the county sometimes requests people to limit their driving, what is that for?”—
I’m not sure. The DEQ repeatedly declares an Orange (or whatever color)watch day for no reason. In most cases pollution was not even close to their level that casues a problem.
Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973
From the top of that page in the report:
“Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences between the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors,it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages,and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
If someone says you can look it up, look it up.
Moreover if you look at the actual table you find that light trucks actually use more energy than transit. I believe the classification “light truck” includes SUV’s and makes up a substantial portion of the actual vehicles people drive. So even the data as presented does not support the idea that transit does not save energy.
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: From the top of that page in the report:
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM:”Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences between the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors,it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages,and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: If someone says you can look it up, look it up.
JK: We went through this on another topic. That just says know what the data means before you use it. If you do that you will see that I did not misuse it. It is as valid a comparison of all types of automobiles with all types of transit busses as is available. It is based on actual fuel consumption and actual passenger miles. What is you problem with this? Do you know of a better way to compare energy usages between bus and car, since you, presumably, are of the belief that cars are somehow energy wasters. (Remember I am not really trying to prove that cars are better that transit, just that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT TRANSIT SAVES ENERGY. And to open a few eyes to this reality.)
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: Moreover if you look at the actual table you find that light trucks actually use more energy than transit.
JK: Well duhhh? We are NOT talking about light trucks, we are talking about cars. I guess I foolishly assumed that you knew enough about transportation to know that the larger SUVs are light trucks because they are built on a light truck chassis. Note that smaller SUVs are NOT built on light truck chassis and are presumibly included in the cars listing. As to energy, if you look at table 4.18 you will see sales weighted CAFÉ estimates. When you include light trucks in the total fleet mix, the milage estimate drops by only 19% (2004 sales data), not some massive amount as it appears that you believe. Of course this average includes some of those SUVs that the greenies like to point fingers at, but they don’t appear to have much real world effect when mixed in with other vehicles.
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: I believe the classification “light truck” includes SUV’s and makes up a substantial portion of the actual vehicles people drive.
JK: Only those larger ones that are built on a truck chassis. See above answer.
Ross Williams July 17, 2005 10:06 AM: So even the data as presented does not support the idea that transit does not save energy.
JK: Wrong again. I have ALWAYS been arguing about cars not trucks. I suggested that we consider replacing Trimet with “small cars” (see reference below) not with trucks. The introduction of trucks appears to be your attempt to divert the discussion away from you losing position. Nice try.
JK: The data the I presented including, the page you noted above clearly shows the transit buses do not save energy on a national basis compared to cars. It also shows that transit buses do beat trucks – but that was never part on my claim. My claim is that Trimet is better than the national average, but still is not better than a small car. (Although it has been almost two weeks, I presume that Fetch & company will come up with some sort of attack on this claim) (see references).
JK: Nice try with the red herring.
Thanks
JK
Refrences:
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm
Page 2-14 of TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 24 ORNL-6973 (download from: http://cta.ornl.gov/data/download24.shtml
See table 4.18 for sales weighted CAFÉ estimates, including light truck
We did go through this. And I will ask again what you don’t understand about this statement?:
“it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes.”
Isn’t this exactly what you are claiming to do?
“I suggested that we consider replacing Trimet with “small cars” (see reference below) not with trucks.”
Even if you gave everyone who rides the bus a “small car” there are plenty of trimet users who can’t drive them. Nor would the street network and parking spaces in many areas be able to support that many new autos.
“I guess I foolishly assumed that you knew enough about transportation to know that the larger SUVs are light trucks”
And I assumed that you were talking about the real world, not a fantasy world where everyone drives small cars. Before replacing most of the current vehicles people drive, I would want to consider whether it would be cheaper to replace just the least efficient transit vehicles with more efficient transit vehicles instead.