Portland proposes 11 steps to cut fuel consumption in half by 2030

[MarkDaMan]

Portland Executive Summary available here
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=150016

Complete 86 page plan available here
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=145732

Portland striving to cut fuel consumption in half by 2030
The City Council is likely to approve the goal of reducing oil and natural gas use
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
By STEPHEN BEAVEN
The Oregonian

Portland commissioners are expected to pass a resolution today that requires the city to adopt a goal of cutting oil and natural gas consumption in half by 2030 to head off predictions of a looming oil shortage.

The resolution, led by Commissioner Dan Saltzman, would require cuts for residents, businesses and government in a city that fancies itself a leader in sustainable development.

Some savings will be easy to achieve because so much fuel is wasted each day on transportation and space heating, said Bill Scott, a member of the city-appointed task force that has studied the issue since last year.

Changing transportation infrastructure and individual lifestyles, however, might prove considerably more difficult. One costs money, and the other requires altering how people do everyday tasks, such as getting to work and shopping for groceries.

But Commissioner Sam Adams said the future of fossil fuel requires a fresh approach.

"We need to find a new way to maintain the mobility of the city," Adams said, "given that oil costs are going to go through the roof."

What might that mean for the average person?

Adams sees a bigger investment in mass transit to limit one-person car commuters. That could mean expanded streetcar lines, more marketing for car pools or more buses. It could also mean a freeway toll lane.

Portland is known for redevelopment projects that include housing and retail and thus limit driving. Adams said the city might push that type of development further.

"We are the national leader in some of these things," he said. "But we need to do more."

The resolution represents six months of work by the task force, which recently finished a long report that will guide the city in its efforts.

In some ways, the report repeated what everyone knows: Dependence on fossil fuel isn't sustainable, especially with predictions that say the global production of oil could peak in the next 10 to 15 years.

The city is ahead of the curve. SustainLane, a Web-based ranking system, puts Portland No. 1 among the nation's 50 biggest cities for sustainability. Portland is also one of the first cities to tackle issues related to oil production peaking and a leader in cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

But a 50 percent cut in fuel consumption in a city of more than a half-million people is a tall order.

While the report includes 11 major recommendations to help reduce fuel consumption, the resolution itself is a loose framework intended to help the city achieve a nonbinding goal.

Besides, city government has only so much influence on residents and private businesses. The city can't make everyone take the bus. But it can charge for parking to discourage driving.

"We can create an environment where people have the flexibility to make decisions that reduce fuel use," said Michael Armstrong, who works in the city's office of sustainable development and helped oversee the task force.

Stephen Beaven: 503-294-7663; stevebeaven@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...080.xml&coll=7

[Urbanpdx]

Well said:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=220

Peak Oil — A Wish-Fulfillment Fantasy for Secular Idiots

Secularists and leftists enjoy sneering at conservative Christians who believe in the Rapture and other flavors of millenarianism. Reasonably so: it takes either a drooling idiot or somebody who has deliberately shut off most of his brain, reducing himself to an idiotically low level of critical thinking, to believe such things. The draw, of couse, is that each individual fundamentalist implicitly believes he will be among the saved — privileged to honk a great big I TOLD YOU SO! at all those sinners writhing in the lake of fire.

It is therefore more than a little amusing to notice how prone these ’sophisticated’ critics are to their own forms of idiotic millenarianism.

Anybody remember Paul “Population Bomb” Ehrlich? This is the guy who predicted that megadeaths from global famine would be the defining feature of the 1970s. Or Jeremy Rifkin, the guy who told us all in 1986 that the Frostban bacterium engineered to protect plants against cold snaps would mess up the Earth’s climate? Or the brigade of self-panickers (Carl Sagan was briefly one of them) who warned us all back around 1980 that an impending Ice Age was about to destroy civilization? Or, hey — how about the ozone hole; remember when we were all going to die of UV-B-induced skin cancer?

It’s easy to laugh at those particular doom-mongers now; there has been plenty of time for their predictions to fail. But we have plenty of apocalypse merchants peddling equally silly scenarios, on equally thin evidence and bogus reasoning, today. And the same ’sophisticated’ secularists who lapped up Paul Ehrlich’s nonsense are swaying to the Gospel shout of global warming and “peak oil” — just as self-hypnotized, and just as stone-stupid, as an Ozark Mountains cracker at a tent-revival meeting.

Rather than getting to gloat over sinners writhing in a lake of fire, the draw is getting to feel superior to capitalists and Republicans and Americans; they will all surely Get Theirs and starve in their SUVs when the Collapse Comes, while virtuous tree-hugging Birkenstock-wearers, being in a state of grace with Gaia, will retire to renewable-energy-powered communes and build scale models of Swedish socialism out of macrame supplies or something.

The hilarious part is how self-congratulatory the secularist millennarians are about their own superiority over the religious ones, when in fact the secondary gain from these two kinds of delusional system is identical.

I could write a book on the amount of fraud and bullshit in the global-warming-panic industry — but I have other things to do this month. so let’s look at an even more recent manifestation of secular millenarianism — the peak-oil collapse scenario.

Witness, brothers and sisters, witness. The oil, it’s going to run out. Peak production of the world’s oilfields has either passed or is about to pass; from here on out it’s rising oil prices forever. Now we wave our hands and pronounce that the energy-guzzling capitalist West (and especially Amerikka) is so addicted to cheap oil that its decadent empire will collapse, collapse I tell you. Barely concealed gloating follows.

There are so many mutually-reinforcing idiocies here that it’s hard to know where to start. As I was thinking of writing about this, one of my commenters pointed out that above $32 per barrel it becomes economical to build Fischer-Tropsch plants and make your oil out of coal. This is old tech; the Germans did it during WWI. At slightly higher price points, MHD generators to burn garbage start to look good.

These are instances of a more general phenomenon: markets adapt to price shifts! To wreck an economy with oil-price rises, they’d have to spike so fast and so far that you somehow couldn’t run the cement trucks to build the Fischer-Tropsch plants. Not gonna happen.

In fact, the long-term trend will be that the amount of oil inevested per constant-dollar value of goods produced in the U.S. economy drops faster than the price of oil rises. This is a safe prediction not because manufacturers have all bought into Green ideology but because they want to make money. This means that they have a market incentive to use their inputs (including oil) a efficiently as possible, and to substitute less expensive inputs for more expensive ones. It’s called capitalism, and it works.

(And, by the way, the cheapest input of all is information. Buckminster Fuller pointed out forty years ago that as technologies mature, the products tend to get smaller and lighter and less energy-intensive and smarter. Your cellphone today weighs less than it used to, and costs less oil to produces than it used to, because its design is smarter. Information has replaced mass. This trend will continue and accelerate.)

The peak-oil collapse scenario is not credible for five minutes to anybody who understands market economics. But the sort of people who believe it are blinded by their own prejudices; fundamentally they think market economics is an invention of the Devil. They need to believe in the collapse, because they need to believe that the wickedness of Americans and capitalists and Republicans will be punished.

[pdxman]

Why do you post crap like this? Mods?

[MarkDaMan]

Urbanpdx, your post has nothing to do with my post above so either put this in a new thread or don't post it. It also should have the author and source under the title.

[Snowden352]

I think the point he's trying to make is there are many holes in the theory of "peak oil." (a point I think is valid)

As an aside, I think the city can do more to encourage people to change their transportation habits (or choices) if they encourage people into changing (positive reinforcement) rather than punishing them for their choices (negative reinforcement). In the modern, globalized world, the level of congestion problems the city is trying to create to get people away from driving will have to reach a certain level before people actually act the way they want. At the same time, I think this level will also adversely affect businesses in the area. In other words, the amount of congestion it would take for people to get out of their cars will drive away more businesses than get people out of cars. Remember, one of the key points of Portland's economic growth comes from its ability to move goods cheaply (compared to the other three major ports).

I think the city should instead offer tax incentives to businesses (the principle reason drive during certain hours) to encourage people to carpool, or take some kind of shuttle. I don't know whether they do, or if they do enough. (To be honest, I've been thinking on this a lot and have too many opinions on what to do to list them here).

Returning to the earlier argument (the effort by the city to reduce fuel consumption), I don't think this kind of action is wise, or well thought out. It's better to consult with economists/consultants on the effect of these actions before, well, acting. It would be wise to avoid anything that might negatively impact the region.

(I'm done, sorry for the lengthy post)

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by snowden

I think the point he's trying to make is there are many holes in the theory of "peak oil." (a point I think is valid)

Well, if urbanpdx had an opinion I think he might have valid points, most people do. However he cut and paste someone else's points from another blog without crediting the author or source. Just posting a link with the story doesn't say it isn't his writing so unless he is the author of the Armed and Dangerous blog I do believe that is plagiarism and against forum rules.

Originally Posted by snowden

Returning to the earlier argument (the effort by the city to reduce fuel consumption), I don't think this kind of action is wise, or well thought out. It's better to consult with economists/consultants on the effect of these actions before, well, acting. It would be wise to avoid anything that might negatively impact the region.

I'm not sure if you clicked on the 80+ page report but it does explain who the committee is and how they came up with their recomendations. Also keep in mind this is a non-binding resolution...goals if you will, not law.

I always have a hard time with the assumption that proposing alternatives to the mainstream society would be a negative for the region. The same could be said about Oregon's bottle bill, the first in the nation or the streetcar, since Portland was the first to build a modern line. However, it spurred billions in development. Or Intel tax breaks as the hi-tech industry wasn't mature when Oregon successfully and agressively wooed Intel to locate and create the Silicon Forest along with thousands of jobs.

I could imagine that if we can keep road capacity at the current level with minor investments, moved commuters off the road, encouraged housing/work/shopping along mass transportation, and reigned in sprawl, our frieght would move faster due to less people using the roadways, our air would be cleaner, less negative health effects of asthma, cancer, and even diabetes as people out of the cars would be exercising more, and our treasury would be fatter without the massive cost of always upgrading the system to meet 20th century demand, which in the 21st century, no city yet has been able to build themselves out of congestion.

[Urbanpdx]

Thanks Snoweden, I don't want to argue the whole Peak Oil BS but want to point out that it is not a forgone conclusion and don't appreciate my money being spent on the "theory". If Adams is so sure "that oil costs are going to go through the roof" maybe we would all be better off if he took our money and invested in oil futures? I can't help but wonder how much of his own money in invested in the "certainty". I would wager that it is zero. It reminds me of the mortgage broker who says that he is sure rates are going up/down soon but has not risked any of his own money in the futures market.

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

I could imagine that if we can keep road capacity at the current level with minor investments, moved commuters off the road, encouraged housing/work/shopping along mass transportation, and reigned in sprawl, our frieght would move faster due to less people using the roadways, our air would be cleaner, less negative health effects of asthma, cancer, and even diabetes as people out of the cars would be exercising more, and our treasury would be fatter without the massive cost of always upgrading the system to meet 20th century demand, which in the 21st century, no city yet has been able to build themselves out of congestion.

Just because you can "imagine" it does not give the govenment the right to make me pay for your dream. Especially since the evidence is not there.

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

or the streetcar, since Portland was the first to build a modern line. However, it spurred billions in development.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

[nehalem5]

I think the city should instead offer tax incentives to businesses (the principle reason drive during certain hours) to encourage people to carpool, or take some kind of shuttle. I don't know whether they do, or if they do enough. (To be honest, I've been thinking on this a lot and have too many opinions on what to do to list them here).

352,

I think thats a good idea, but I question the potential of that working here. I see a similar thing being enacted in London, the congestion charge, which by the way our own embassy refuses to pay. diplomatic immunity, whatever. its the attitude this country has with anything inhibiting the car.
with regards to Portland, I think the biggest thing Metro can do given the inevitable expansions of the growth boundary that occur is tighten up on the zoning. allow subdivisons but plan them in a grid pattern where people can actually walk to the store. allow for transit options...you know the choice to drive to wash square if you want but also take a shuttle/bus to the max.

and on last bit of chum to the trolls,
why does the idiocracy (the nonsecularists and nonleftists) believe in everything having the potential for infinite quantities. oil, unsustainable growth, people, food, fish, road capacity for cars, the list goes on.

[Snowden352]

Nehalem, I wholly agree with the grid pattern, though I don't know about the mass transit bit (I'm not quite sold on the potential of it to replace cars--assuming cars need replacing).

Regarding the whole "Non-secular/secular" divide, I think:
A) people need to lighten up on when a person disagrees (It's a forum, for god's sake; a place for DIALOGUE).
B)I think the leaders of both sides want to encourage this sort of factionalism (it keeps 'em in power)
C) I'll have a point here when I tan think of it.

Lastly, I think the point of contention between the diferent perspectives on the amount of resources available is: finite vs. infinite.

There's some articles in wikipedia on this, but for a brief summary:
One side thinks there's only so much material on the planet and we've squandered most of it and so need to do as much as possible to recyle, reduce reuse (as per an old commercial I saw as a kid) to prevent the planet from going down the shitcan.
The other thinks innovation, science, and human growth causes the whole sum of resources to increase exponentially.

My own opinion, is a little of the former and a lot of the latter. I think that humans DO have an impact on the world (maybe worlds in the future?) but that technology, and human innovation provides us the means to mitigate these impacts and can improve the human lot overall.

There I've laid myself bare.

[Urbanpdx]

Originally Posted by nehalem5

352,

I think thats a good idea, but I question the potential of that working here. I see a similar thing being enacted in London, the congestion charge, which by the way our own embassy refuses to pay. diplomatic immunity, whatever. its the attitude this country has with anything inhibiting the car.
with regards to Portland, I think the biggest thing Metro can do given the inevitable expansions of the growth boundary that occur is tighten up on the zoning. allow subdivisons but plan them in a grid pattern where people can actually walk to the store. allow for transit options...you know the choice to drive to wash square if you want but also take a shuttle/bus to the max.

and on last bit of chum to the trolls,
why does the idiocracy (the nonsecularists and nonleftists) believe in everything having the potential for infinite quantities. oil, unsustainable growth, people, food, fish, road capacity for cars, the list goes on.

London is on to something. More accurately pricing of lane capacity, transit and parking will do a lot to give us the correct amount of useage.

Unconstrained by leftists, technology has abolished resource scarcity and is the driving force shaping demand, economic wealth, and progress. Just look at the living standard of Singapore, they have almost no natural resources. 30 years ago, who knew that a man could make a $56 billion dollar fortune selling software before he made it happen? 50 years ago, who knew that the world population could grow to consist of 6 Billion people. Someone somewhere must be creating something from what used to be nothing. Today we live in a world of abundance unimagined decades ago, we have more. We have so much food we pay farmers not to farm and have an obesity problem, we live so long we have trouble paying for retirement, unimagined problems indeed!

America in particular has transformed a once-desolate wilderness into farms, stores, skyscrapers, cities and air-conditioned houses, not by taking those goods away from poor people or by consuming the world's resources. We have reshaped valueless elements of nature into a form beneficial to humans.

I could go on but we will get off track againg an upset the leftists here so I wont comment further on this.

[MarkDaMan]

Originally Posted by snowden

Nehalem, I wholly agree with the grid pattern, though I don't know about the mass transit bit (I'm not quite sold on the potential of it to replace cars--assuming cars need replacing).

Regarding the whole "Non-secular/secular" divide, I think:
A) people need to lighten up on when a person disagrees (It's a forum, for god's sake; a place for DIALOGUE).
B)I think the leaders of both sides want to encourage this sort of factionalism (it keeps 'em in power)
C) I'll have a point here when I tan think of it.

Lastly, I think the point of contention between the diferent perspectives on the amount of resources available is: finite vs. infinite.

There's some articles in wikipedia on this, but for a brief summary:
One side thinks there's only so much material on the planet and we've squandered most of it and so need to do as much as possible to recyle, reduce reuse (as per an old commercial I saw as a kid) to prevent the planet from going down the shitcan.
The other thinks innovation, science, and human growth causes the whole sum of resources to increase exponentially.

My own opinion, is a little of the former and a lot of the latter. I think that humans DO have an impact on the world (maybe worlds in the future?) but that technology, and human innovation provides us the means to mitigate these impacts and can improve the human lot overall.

There I've laid myself bare.

great...I respectfully disagree, however, the City of Portland is adopting these measures and if you could veer back to the conversation about how this might change the future look of Portland, that would be swell. My intention of posting this thread was not to debate global warming vs. mitigating global warming, it was that the city is committing itself to these goals and it will make Portland look different in the future, but howso?

If you disagree with the goals the CoP is persuing, go to a City Council meeting, but this forum is about discussing architecture and planning. Since policies will affect our architecture and planning in the future I'm curious as to forumers opinions about the changes that could be expected.

People on this board will lighten up when posted articles are no longer hijacked by a few forumers that have something to prove to the world, and using this forum as a tool to do that.

[Snowden352]

Okey-dokey then.

[edgepdx]

Arggg! This is the kind of thread that just chaps my hide. Instead of adding anything productive to the debate UrbanPDX uses it as an opportunity to rant like a lunatic about the evils of trying to forecast into the future using science. My favorite is this line - "Or, hey — how about the ozone hole; remember when we were all going to die of UV-B-induced skin cancer?". Not only is it completely off topic, it's completely wrong. Skin cancer rates were indeed increasing in Australia and indeed the ozone layer is recovering due to an international ban on CFCs prompted by the dire warnings of scientists.

UrbanPDX are you really trying to argue that setting a goal of being more energy efficient is a bad thing?

[zilfondel]

You guys should read the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by William McDonough for a good perspective on how technology can help save us all - it is a very optimistic book at how we can improve on how things are built as well as the environment.

Note, however, that recycling IS a form of high technology - and a very smart investment by businesses. After all, a resource is a resource is a resource, whether it is a tin can, pile of iron ore, or sunlight.

[65MAX]

^^^^ That's a great book.

I also wonder, how could somebody be AGAINST setting goals to reduce energy consumption? What's the harm if we DO reduce our usage by 50%? Honestly, these people are just arguing to be arguing. Professional antagonists. Their statements are completely idiotic.

[sirsimon]

^ I'll have to pick that book up at the library sometime. I get tired of all the doom and gloom future predictions - my little spirit begins to feel crushed thinking about the future.