Sam Takes on JPACT Over Greenhouse Gases


OPB is quoting Mayor Sam Adams threatening to vote no on the Regional Transportation Plan unless we can get project-by-project analysis of climate change impacts (against a context of an RTP that predicts a 50% increase in GHG emissions by 2035).

Metro is taking the position that such analysis would be available for the 2014 RTP update, and meanwhile suggests some interim actions:

  • Local transportation system plans – TSP updates will begin in late-2010 to be consistent with the new RTP policies and targets, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program – Metro Council and JPACT/MPAC revise the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) criteria to help the region select transportation investments that meet all the RTP performance targets including minimizing global warming. Multi-modal transportation investments within designated centers, corridors and employment areas should be the focus of investments.
  • Corridor refinement plans – Investments identified through corridor refinement plan studies will be evaluated and prioritized on their ability to best leverage the region’s desired outcomes, including minimizing contributions to global warming.
  • Local land use commitments and regional capacity ordinance work – In December 2010, adopt a regional capacity ordinance that commits communities and the region to specific land use actions that minimize contributions to global warming.

I’m with Sam that we need per-project analysis. Go, Sam, go!


51 responses to “Sam Takes on JPACT Over Greenhouse Gases”

  1. Upcoming technology will make most of this GHG hysteria, as it impacts corridor planning, irrelevant. I think the real goal should be to adapt EPA regulations to allow genuine fuel conserving vehicles, even if they don’t meet EPA ppm emission standards. There are already vehicles with outstanding mpg standards available elsewhere in the world. Why not in the US?

    Sam, please come into the 21st Century.

  2. Upcoming technology will make most of this GHG hysteria, as it impacts corridor planning, irrelevant.

    The presentations I’ve seen from experts suggest that vehicle technology/fuels will at best reduce GHG about 10%. This issue is NOT going to be irrelevant.

  3. GHG includes, not only CO2, but also very abundant methane and a host of chemicals used in manufacturing processes—which can be thousands of times as effective in restricting atmospheric heat loss, pound for pound, as CO2. In light of that—-but I don’t know if any transportation policy would reduce overall GHG by any more than 10 %.

    And we could devise an expensive transportation strategem that actually has very little impact. Economics really is “the dismal science”; better left to people like Joe Cortwright.

  4. Thomas Carlye says:
    Economics is:
    “a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science.?

  5. Ron –

    Here’s a recently-published, thorough summary (yes, an oxymoron, but it seems to fit in this case) on RealClimate about the impacts of methane:

    It’s all about me (thane)!

    Although methane is an important contributor to climate change, and there is much room for mitigation on that front, the article concludes:

    CO2, however, is still increasing dramatically despite the slow down in the economy, and so current growth in radiative forcings is dominated by CO2 and that will very likely continue for decades. Despite our increasing appreciation of the role of other forcings (including land use for instance), the overwhelming driver of climate change in the 21st Century will be CO2 increases.

  6. Not sure how that pertains to Adams’ analysis of what Portland is to do or what the reliability of the source is. Oh well, keep trying, Bob R.

    Locally, PGE should never have taken down the Trojan nuclear plant. Wiped our a lot of good union jobs. Not sure how much of it was due to the left wing protestors. Now we have to rely more upon coal from Boardman.

  7. OK, I promise to ride my motorscooter when the weather is good again. Not sure that it actually gets 70 mpg like the Chinese manufacturers claim…. Can I ride it on the bike path?

  8. “Not sure how that pertains to Adams’ analysis”

    Ron, not sure why you’re debating me… You brought up methane and its impacts, and I gave you a contemporary reference. Thought you might be interested.

  9. Ron, if you’re not being facetious, you might want to know that no motorcycles of Chinese origin are approved for highway use in this state (and motorscooters require plates, insurance, and a motorcycle endorsement, and are prohibited on bicycle facilities). Scooters can easily get that kind of mileage, I used to have a Spanish-built Derbi Boulevard, usually got around 70 MPG in the city and around 80 on the highway. Real Oregonians don’t sweat a little rain, they get better raingear and deal with it.

  10. Bob, You keep telling us that this is not a forum to debate the existence of AGW, then quote this:

    CO2, however, is still increasing dramatically despite the slow down in the economy, and so current growth in radiative forcings is dominated by CO2 and that will very likely continue for decades. Despite our increasing appreciation of the role of other forcings (including land use for instance), the overwhelming driver of climate change in the 21st Century will be CO2 increases.

  11. My tree is confused…

    He didn’t understand why greenies pretended to love tree-kind yet hate the very air that they breathe.

  12. Bob, You keep telling us that this is not a forum to debate the existence of AGW,

    Yes, that’s right, this is not the forum to debate the existence of AGW. Glad you finally noticed.

    Please note that nothing I posted was a debate about the existence of AGW. It was a post regarding the mechanism of one greenhouse-related gas in relation to another.

    The debate we’re having here, operating under the assumption (shared by the vast majority of climate scientists) that AGW exists, is just what we can do about it, particularly with regard to transportation and land-use planning.

    This is a pro-planning blog, JK. As stated in the rules, there’s a point of view here. There’s also room for discussion and disagreement, but this is also a moderated forum and the moderators decide what’s appropriate.

    You know this, it’s been explained to you hundreds of times now.

    It’s not your blog JK. You don’t get to dominate every discussion. Deal with it.

  13. My tree is confused… He didn’t understand why greenies pretended to love tree-kind yet hate the very air that they breathe.

    Simple: Your tree has been hearing falsehoods regarding “greenies”.

    If there were sufficient trees (and/or other natural consumers of CO2) to absorb all the extra previously-contained carbon that we’re releasing, then the matter of climate change would be far less serious.

  14. Bob–would this be a better summary of the blog’s position on global warming: That it’s not global warming itself that is off-topic, but DENIAL of global-warming that’s off topic?

    JK may argue that that’s unfair, censorship, etc, but as you point out, its not his blog.

  15. It might be getting close as a definition, but I suspect we’d then become mired in arguing what “denial” means, whether or not it is mere “skepticism”, etc.

    As I’ve said before, this sort of thing has no more place here than having a debate on a biology blog about creationism or “intelligent design” every time someone discusses a biological process in terms of evolution.

    Another analogy is that a blog devoting itself to discussing policy objectives for gay rights and marriage equality shouldn’t constantly be degenerating into arguments about whether being gay is a “disease” or whether gays “recruit”, etc. There’s plenty of outlets for such discussions, whether you agree or disagree, but it is also perfectly valid for a blog to take on a certain set of assumptions as a basis for discussion, and bar distractions from those assumptions.

  16. Bob–would this be a better summary of the blog’s position on global warming: That it’s not global warming itself that is off-topic, but DENIAL of global-warming that’s off topic?

    I’ve updated the site’s ‘rules’ page to clarify the topic:

    This site HAS a point of view, generally supportive of transit and compact development, and efforts to reduce VMT (vehicles miles traveled) per capita, including as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    So the site POV assumes Global Warming exists, just as it assumes that compact development is a good thing.

  17. My tree disagree with you…

    He feels that the extra ‘air’ we have been providing him is a good thing, and, like all other life on earth, prefers warm weather.

    Personally, I don’t think a controversial topic like GW should be a factor in creating laws because there are way too many opportunities for abuse.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  18. Bob R: The debate we’re having here… is just what we can do about it [AGW], particularly with regard to transportation and land-use planning.

    JK: OK, what are the lowest cost forms of motorized transportation that will reduce CO2 emission per mile traveled? Bus, small car, rail? What is the cost per avoided ton of CO2? How does this compare to other CO2 reduction strategies? What is the cost in travel time and how will this affect our standard of living.

    JK: What emits the most CO2 building a 2000 sq ft condo in a concrete & steel high rise or a single story wood frame house? Which uses less energy over its lifetime? What is the cost per avoided ton of CO2? How does this compare to other CO2 reduction strategies?

    JK: If we have a major transition to electrically powered transportation, where will the electricity come from? What will it cost compared to today’s rates?

    JK: How many lives will be saved by the above measures compared to other uses of the same amount of money?

    Thanks
    JK

  19. JK, are you quoting yourself from some other conversation? I see you attributing nearly every line to yourself there, but I’m not seeing the original references at all.

    For an excellent discussion of the many questions you ask there, I suggest you check out the many topics available on realclimate.org, for starters.

  20. Here’s a short paper to get you started:

    Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2006) (PDF Format)

    From the abstract:

    The results also show that low-density suburban development is more energy and GHG intensive by a factor of 2.0–2.5 than high-density urban core development on a per capita basis. When the functional unit is changed to a per unit of living space basis the factor decreases to 1.0–1.5, illustrating that the choice of functional unit is highly relevant to a full understanding of urban density effects.

  21. Personally, I don’t think a controversial topic like GW should be a factor in creating laws because there are way too many opportunities for abuse.

    I could argue that single occupancy vehicle transportation should not be a (or the only) factor in creating laws because there are way too many opportunities for abuse.

  22. My tree disagree with you…

    He feels that the extra ‘air’ we have been providing him is a good thing, and, like all other life on earth, prefers warm weather.

    Except that the respiratory cycles of most plant species are limited by phosphorous, not carbon, so a little extra CO2 won’t do them any good at all.

  23. Bob R: JK, are you quoting yourself from some other conversation? I see you attributing nearly every line to yourself there, but I’m not seeing the original references at all.
    JK: They were separate statements, all key questions to be answered before we rush into, possible contra productive, action.

    Bob R: I suggest you check out the many topics available on realclimate.org, for starters.
    JK: Forgive me if I have little respect for the “science” at a site run by Eco-Activists groups with ties to Al Gore and John Kerry, that seems to specialize in ad hominem attacks and refuses to post many critic’s comments, even when made by peer-reviewed journal article authors. They, however, been forced into certain key admissions: Realclimate.org/index.php?p=13; realclimate.org/index.php?p

    I prefer ClimateAudit.org, the site that broke the hockeystick as verified by two National Academy of Sciences reports, including the Wegman report. Icecap.us and wattsupwiththat.com are also pretty good.

    But we digress from possible actions:

    Bob R’s Refrence: When the functional unit is changed to a per unit of living space basis the factor decreases to 1.0–1.5, illustrating that the choice of functional unit is highly relevant to a full understanding of urban density effects.
    JK: 1.0-1.5 is not much of an improvement – maybe we should just have smaller homes in sprawl. Or insulate them better? Or put more people in each unit (see Dr. Zhivago )

    BTW, do you have a source that are is not into delusions like “peak oil”? To believe in peak oil you have to deny economics (reduced supply rises prices which reduces demand and increases supply (as seen by recent major oil discoveries), chemistry (you can make oil) and history (Hitler made oil to supply 50% of his late war years oil supply).

    JK: Here is good description of a book from four MIT researchers on reducing CO2 (no, I did not know of this post when I made mine):
    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2139

    Thanks
    JK

  24. 1) Take several dozen dinosaurs, dead.

    2) Heat to several thousand degrees.

    3) Let stand under pressure for tens of millions of years.

    4) Drill, extract, refine.

  25. JK critiques: Forgive me if I have little respect for the “science” at a site run by Eco-Activists groups with ties to Al Gore and John Kerry

    You certainly have every right, as a matter of opinion and personal taste, to disregard a source if you don’t much care for the company that source keeps.

    I hope you therefore, unlike your past pronouncements, be equally understanding of those who reflexively distrust so-called “science” funded by Big Oil / Big Coal lobbyists.

    We’re making real progress here, JK, thanks for the concession.

  26. Jason McHuff Says:
    (JK: you can make oil)
    OK, then, what’s the recipe?
    JK: Its here (be sure to explore the links for other methods):
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
    fischer-tropsch.org/
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process

    Here is a company currently making oil from both natural gas and coal:
    sasol.com/

    Here is the “ran a war on synthetic oil” link:
    airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

    The links are from PortlandFacts.com , a valuable resource for inquiring minds.

    Thanks
    JK

  27. Bob R.: I hope you therefore, unlike your past pronouncements, be equally understanding of those who reflexively distrust so-called “science” funded by Big Oil / Big Coal lobbyists.
    JK: Actually my dismissal of realclimate.org came after getting tired of reading their personal attacks instead of scientifically attacking the studies, so it was not really “reflexively”.

    But your know that because the post that you are responding to included this:

    that seems to specialize in ad hominem attacks and refuses to post many critic’s comments, even when made by peer-reviewed journal article authors.

    Can you provide a similar rational reason to dismiss science funded by the so-called “Big Oil / Big Coal lobbyists”, which by the way, is tiny compared to the funding on the alarmist side? For instance Al Gore gets a $100k speaking fee and has invested heavily in companies that will only prosper if the government mandates using their overpriced products and services. Google these: Generations Mutual fund, Kleiner Perkins, CAMCO GLOBA, and “A convenient £50m for green Gore”. Also Google’s board of directors, and Apple’s board of directors.

    Thanks
    JK

  28. That scientists know how to synthesize the stew of hydrocarbons known as “petroleum” isn’t terribly surprising, JK. Unfortunately for both those processes (only one of which appears to be in use anywhere), you’re trading one non-renewable resource for another, and burning a lot of energy (and creating a lot of pollution) in the process. Useful if you need hydrocarbons in a particular form (oil to run your economy when you’re being embargoed for some reason), but not a solution to the energy crisis.

  29. Bob R,

    Why don’t you just adopt the approach of Gavin Schmidt and realclimate?

    It’s possibly the most biased, censored, redacted, manipulated and editing of comments blog on the planet.

    And why is it?

    The truth about realclimate

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

    The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don’t want you to know that.

  30. Thanks for proving my point about reflexive dismissals. By the way, John, mention of the relationship (or lack thereof) “Environmental Media Services” is readily found on the RealClimate site. There’s this thing called Google which is very helpful in this regard:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

    RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

    Also, John, please use the blockquote tag or another indicator when copying/pasting a quotation from another site. Otherwise it just looks like you’re posting those words as if they were your own, when in fact they were really written by someone else. I wouldn’t want anyone to think that you were a “shill”.

    Now, back to JPACT.

  31. [Moderator: Debate-over-existence of global warming portion removed, and criticism of the personalities and comment policies of RealClimate.org removed.]

    You want to recommend and quote realclimate? Ok, but that’s quoting OHSU or Homer Williams telling how great the Tram and SoWa are. Or quoting TriMet on how well WES has worked out.

    [Moderator: I don’t believe we’ve ever quoted any of those people or organizations in the contexts that you state. I’m quite certain no regular author here has posted a piece on “how well” WES has worked out, unless by “well” you mean pointing out problems, such as the piece about TriMet’s financial involvement in Colorado Railcar. You must have been reading some other blog. Your and JK’s repeated efforts at distracting this conversation away from the primary topic demonstrate perseverance, but you’ve had your say and it’s time to move back to the main discussion.]

  32. OK….just what road projects would Sam think are not beneficial to this metropolitan region? ( I will note here that Adams is still only a Portland official, not one of METRO) I can think of some that significantly reduce VMT. But is he going to be against them, too? Maybe cave in to other pressures that would thwart those significant shortenings of typical trips?
    To wit:
    1. A bridge across the Willamette at Lake Oswego would produce a big reduction in VMT between the communities on either side. A reduction if you are in a bus, on a bicycle or in a hybrid car. Nevertheless, this could have some community resistance.
    2. The “Northwest Passage” would be a big reduction in VMT, for people going from Clark Co. to the burgeoning urban reserve areas of Washington Co. A savings if you are on a bus, a bike, hybrid, motorcycle, whatever. And I’ll bet there are a few similar concepts around the region.

    But Sam apparently is in favor of allowing more congestion–and slow traffic–on I-5, at least by default. Because “Failing to plan is planning to fail”—which pretty much sums up our approach to the Interstate 5 system.

    So does Sam want to hire the EPA to do a full scale study of each option? How are we going to know that these “project by project” analyses will get all the facts?

    And RTP is predicting a 50 percent increase in GHG by 2035. This is not surprising since that is equivalent to the predicted population increase. Why does Sam think that certain road projects might cause this increase, and not the population growth? And when they do predict this 50 % increase is that raw volume, or the specific effectiveness of the aggregate GHG components? Even if an extra million people moved here—and not a single one used an internal combustion engine vehicle burning fossil fuels—- there would still be a significant increase in GHG. People, unfortunately, produce GHG just like other critters.

    Now, does Sam’s apprehensiveness account for the advent of far less fossil fuels being used in forthcoming personal vehicles? Or is it based upon models from the present or 2001 or what? One thing about a true scientific analyses is that it needs to anticipate developing trends.

    It appears that our region is to be exemplary in reducing GHG. And I would hope that our desire to be an example to nations like China, that are rising fast as major contributors to greenhouse gas, succeeds. Good intentions so far. Yet what if rigorous analysis reveals that our intentions did not produce the desired result? What, then, do we say to the Indians and Chinese, or others who are modernizing? “Sorry, bud, we tried and didn’t make it. But you have to do it right. We can help you figure it out.”

    Finally, if achieving this “vision” of people living and working in “designated centers, corridors and employment areas” I hope Sam has a way for people to pay the greatly added costs of condo life. Though I have long recognized certain benefits of high density living, what is killing it for me as any sort of realistic possibility is, frankly, the HOA fees, which are about as much as the property taxes. So, in order for any inhabitant in one of these areas to come up with the $200-400 monthly for the HOA fee what economic activities do they have to resort to? Get a second job as a taxi driver?

    Is Sam an economist or a politician? My guess is the latter and he is just following the playbook of greatly inflated public works budgets that his ilk love to go from. It helps secure votes from groups that depend upon governmental largesse. How about it Sam? Got a Ph D in econ.?

  33. EngineerScotty Says:
    1) Take several dozen dinosaurs, dead.
    2) Heat to several thousand degrees.
    3) Let stand under pressure for tens of millions of years.
    4) Drill, extract, refine.
    EngineerScotty Says:
    OK, but you need tens of thousands of alligators.
    Obtaining them is left as an exercise to the reader.
    EngineerScotty Says:
    That scientists know how to synthesize the stew of hydrocarbons known as “petroleum” isn’t terribly surprising, JK.
    JK: Fooled me.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. [Moderator: Further debate of polices over on realclimate, tangentially coming into yet another pointless and off-topic debate about the existence of global warming removed.]

  35. [Moderator: Response to further pointless debate about realclimate and the existence of global warming removed.]

    Bob will probably delete this post, as it contains as much substance as your repeated attempts to suggest that climate change is still an issue that is disputed among respectable scientists as opposed to paid shills (just a bunch of assertions), bur if you’re gonna persist, I might as well get my licks in. :)

  36. But at least Bob can have a chuckle before he hits that edit button…

    [Moderator: Not this time, but thanks for the thought. I do work for a living, and sometimes I can’t keep up with the blog at every waking moment, despite Al’s conspiracy theories as to my omniscience. :-) ]

  37. [Moderator: Link to PDF about survey indicating disagreement among meteorologists about climate change removed. JK, you’ve been warned many times, yet you persist in these pointless and prohibited distractions. You are now on comment vacation for the rest of November. Have a nice Thanksgiving, and come back when you can be a productive participant.]

  38. We should not only NOT be building new roads, we should be removing freeways from cities altogether. Residential and employment patterns will change to accommodate this.
    Freeways are toxic rivers, quit apart from CO2 impacts, and a public health danger to everyone who lives anywhere near them. Sam is “right on,” as far as he goes.

  39. [Moderator: Portion responding to JK’s personal beliefs regarding climate change removed in light of the other removals, above.]

    I thought this thread was about Sam Adams’ convoluted (in our estimation) attempt to change that. If you think his dispute with JPACT is well founded then that is where you should direct your comments.

  40. Hank Sheppard Says: We should not only NOT be building new roads, we should be removing freeways from cities altogether. Residential and employment patterns will change to accommodate this.
    JK: Yep, employment patterns will change. Jobs will disappear. Companies will move to areas with less congestion where one can waste less time in traffic.

    You know – like Seattle is losing Boeing a piece at a time.

    Thanks
    JK

  41. [Moderator: Link to PDF about survey indicating disagreement among meteorologists about climate change removed. JK, you’ve been warned many times, yet you persist in these pointless and prohibited distractions. You are now on comment vacation for the rest of November. Have a nice Thanksgiving, and come back when you can be a productive participant.]

    Bob, you are the one who brought up realclimate:

    Here’s a recently-published, thorough summary (yes, an oxymoron, but it seems to fit in this case) on RealClimate about the impacts of methane:

    You toss out people for following up on something that YOU introduced.

    How very progressive.

  42. [Moderator: And another response to climate change existence dispute survey among meteorologists PDF removed.]

    Sorry, I thought you’d opened the door for this discussion. Won’t happen again. I hope.

  43. At the risk of tempting the wrath of God (or of Bob), this morning’s Oregonian has an article about the operators of the Spirit of Portland riverboat (which is moored just south of OMSI, near where the new transit bridge will be built), threatening to sue Tri-Met if the bridge isn’t re-designed to have a higher clearance over the river. The current clearance, planners claim, satisfies the legal requirement to accomodate river navigation–but the riverboat operators disagree.

    Why?

    The concern that g***** w****** will cause the river levels to rise (excluding flood events), with the result that the Spirit (a tall, three-deck floating restaurant) will no longer be able to safely navigate under the bridge. Operators want a few more feet added to the navigation channel, so that even if river levels do rise, the dinner cruise business will be able to continue unaffected.

Leave a Reply to EngineerScotty Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *