gildone

Actually, it's not my line. I stole it from Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. :-D

^I guess we are mostly in agreement, except that prudence doesn't have to be altruistic. Prudence can be profitable. If a prudent project is one that turns a profit, then there should have been a lot more work done on energy efficiency by now. Remember, efficiency is cheaper than fuel even at the cost of $25/barrel of oil (or it's equivalent) and that's in today's dollars-- or to put it another way, it's cheaper to save fuel than to buy it. Efficiency savings drop directly to the bottom line, increasing profits. Many energy efficiency gains have higher rates of return in a shorter payback period than many other investments. The definition of prudence is exercising sound judgment. The sound thing for the market to do has always been greater efficiency, but again, the market has failed to act in the most profitable manner. In the end, it's economic decisions made by people that constitute "the market." Whenever people are involved, there is a certain level of irrational behavior.

Home rule does make things difficult, but ask Greater Ohio and they will tell you that other home rule states have found ways to regulate growth. Perhaps not with growth boundaries, but other means. Unfortunately, I can't recall what the Greater Ohio person who said this during a radio interview I heard a year or two ago what those things were... In Ohio, until we make changes to our transportation policies, we're not going to stop auto-centric suburban sprawl.

The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to the concept of markets, people often confuse profitability with prudence. What's most profitable isn't always what is prudent. In the case of Alberta's natural gas and tar sands, what's most profitable is to use the gas to make tar sands because the gas is captive. There are no pipelines--which are very expensive to build--to take the gas anywhere else for a more prudent use given the reality of fossil energy depletion. The more expensive oil gets, the more profitable it will be to keep the gas right there making oil out of tar. The market also doesn't adequately deal with the problem of the environmental damage tar sands processing does as well as its contribution to climate change. That's because the market doesn't value the environment, if it did, we wouldn't have an EPA or environmental regulations. Because the natural gas supply in North America has peaked, and because of climate change and the environmental damage tar sand processing does, the most prudent thing to do is to not waste the natural gas at all on the tar sands. None. Period. What I was trying to say is that we are getting the price signals too late for the market to be the best way to handle things. We needed to start making serious changes in the way we use energy 20or 30 years ago. The market didn't think so because fossil energy was cheap, but now, the hour is late and the transition is going to be a lot more difficult than it had to be. The market alone wasn't the best way to handle it. I think this is where we differ: The way I see it, what can we use for transportation fuel and how much are we willing to pay are the wrong questions to ask. Given climate change, fossil energy depletion, and other legitimate environmental concerns such as mountain top removal in W. Va and Kentucky what are the most prudent courses of action? But since the market places no significant value on climate stability or on the environment, it can't properly deal with these questions. Additionally: The cheapest and most profitable thing to do is get more efficient with energy. At $25 per barrel (and even a little less), efficiency is cheaper than fuel, but "the market" didn't continue with efficiency gains after mid 1980's even though significantly more gains were possible-- and profitable. This is perhaps the biggest failure of the market to act as far as energy goes.

As we approach the era of growing scarcity of fossil fuels, it's going to become less and less possible to move water from the Great Lakes to the arid regions west of the 100th meridian and beyond to the far side of the continental divide. The west has to learn to live within its local/regional water budget. That means it can only support so many people. Period. Back to the subject of growth here's a great excerpt from the book One Life at a Time, Please , by Edward Abbey (published in 1978) p. 60: "If progress means change for the better-- and I'll support that-- then growth as we have come to know it means change for the worse. Let me try out another new fangled maxim here: Growth is the enemy of progress. "Look around and see what growth has done for your city. "A city not growing is dying" says San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein. Really? You sure? "Why not consider the possibility that a city, like a man, woman, or tree should grow until it reaches maturity-- and then stop? Who wants to live forever under the stress and strain and awkwardness of adolescence? Life begins at maturity. A human who never stopped growing would be a freak, a mutant, a monster, a sideshow geek eating live chickens for supper and toppling dead of diabetes and kidney failure into an early grave. We passed the optimum of urban growth and population many decades ago. Now we live in the age of accelerating growth and diminishing returns. Think of it this way Miss Feinstein. When a city stops growing its citizens can live. In peace. Security. With a modicum of domestic tranquility. "

^Whether or not something makes money isn't the point and it isn't the problem. The market is reactive to prices it's not proactive. Markets do a lot of things well, but not everything. It doesn't read whether or not a resource is being put to its highest and best use and it isn't capable of planning in advance. The market can't really deal with the question of whether or not we should be wasting natural gas making oil out of tar sands rather than using it to make fertilizer or to heat homes. This is resource problem that we needed to start preparing for 20 years ago in order to have the smooth and relatively painless transition. In other words, it needed to start well in advance of the price signals that we are only now beginning to experience. 20 years ago, this was a long term problem. It's not a long term problem now. Markets don't react to long term problems. They react after the prices change which in some cases, is too late.

I couldn't find anywhere else to post this, but since transportation and urban growth are closely related, I thought it would be ok to post here: This is a very interesting and timely Op-Ed from Albuquerque as the region debates how best to plan for growth in the coming years. Someone raised the heretical question: Is it even possible for us to grow much more? http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct/12/vb-price-thinking-ahead/ Why are we planning for growth when we need to cut back? By V.B. Price Friday, October 12, 2007 Population predictions for greater metro Albuquerque over the next l8 years seem delusional. If we top a million people by 2025, it will be a double-edged miracle. On the good side, it will mean New Mexico had done something no place in the country has managed to do - solve its water, energy, transportation and sustainable agriculture issues. It also means that global warming and peak oil declines had somehow reversed themselves...

An important part of the equation going forward is going to be more than just the cost-- energy returned on energy invested has to be taken into account. It takes a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get 1.5 barrels worth out of the tar sands. The tar sands are processed with natural gas. With natural gas supplies in North America tightening and approaching peak (the northeast almost ran out of natural gas two winters ago), it's going to become questionable as to whether or not we want to continue to use gas to turn tar sands into oil. Nuclear plants are being considered, but that's not the highest and best use of nuclear fuel either. As for coal, turning it into liquid fuels is also energy intensive. It is also coming to light that the long touted statistic that we have 200 years worth of coal in the US has been based upon outdated and inaccurate data. According to Richard Heinberg and others, it's now looking like we'll be facing "peak coal" in about 30 years (Heinberg presentation on the subject: ). You also have to factor in the BTU value of the coal, which is dropping as much of the most energy-dense coal has been used up. In terms of BTU value per ton extracted, coal production peaked in the US in 1998. Then there are the pesky little problems of our continued carbon-loading of the atmosphere, damages to watersheds from mountain top removal for coal and from converting tar sands to oil (there's a new book out on this called Stupid To The Last Drop).

^Well, it has peaked for non-OPEC countries. OPEC hasn't admitted yet whether or not their production is declining. It probably is as Saudi Arabia is pumping more and more heavy oil.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003950475_cars15e.html As traffic gets nastier, many of us are shifting gears By Peyton Whitely Seattle Times Eastside bureau After years of commuting from his Greenwood-area home to his downtown job, Steve Kaiser decided last year to move closer to his office near Pike Place Market. He now walks the few blocks to his job. His Volkswagen Jetta sits in its garage five days a week, and his driving has plummeted to about 4,000 miles a year — about 80 percent less than before. "It just seemed excessive to be driving every day," he said. A growing number of fellow King County residents apparently feel the same way...

^did Andrew Bremer's letter referred to above get printed?

Oil Futures Hit New Record of $86 Monday October 15, 2:19 pm ET By John Wilen, AP Business Writer Crude Prices Surge As OPEC Estimates Supplies Are Falling While Demand Is Growing NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices surged as high as $86 a barrel Monday for the first time after OPEC said crude production by non-member countries is likely falling even as global demand for oil is rising... http://www.foxnews.com/wires/apw_archive_page/0,4703,101507,00.html

^Britain is spending more to upgrade a single line than Amtrak gets in one year. We're so stupid about transportation in this country.

^If the main driver for Cleveland making the decision it did about the airport taxicabs was the fact that poor service was being provided (like refusals to take passengers to places like Berea, Brook Park, and Lakewood), then shouldn't the taxi cab companies have done something to make the service they provide better instead of taking this route of suing after Cleveland has made its decision?

Editorial: Locally or nationally, you can't let the infrastructure slide forever Friday, October 05, 2007 Posted by the editors at http://blog.cleveland.com/post_riposte/ on 10/1/07 at 4:50 p.m. Cleveland has a problem involving a shift ing slope, a ruined road and a threatened 60-inch-diameter sewer line that carries up to 20 million gallons of waste and storm water during a big rain. In Minneapolis, the problem was the Interstate 35 bridge, which collapsed spectacularly Aug. 1, killing 13 commuters... © 2007 The Plain Dealer © 2007 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved[/size]

The following quote sums things up all too well. It's from a speech Van Jones gave earlier this year to the Pachamama Alliance. Source article: http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=98 "People say that I am hard core about some of this stuff but I know because I have been to Davos, and I've sat with Bill Clinton and I've sat with Bill Gates and I've sat with Tony Blair and I've sat with Nancy Pelosi. I've sat with all these people who we think are in charge, and they don't know what to do. Take that in: they don't know what to do! You think you're scared? You think you're terrified? They have the Pentagon's intelligence, they have every major corporation's input; Shell Oil that has done this survey and study around the peak oil problem. You think we've got to get on the Internet and say, "Peak oil!" because the system doesn't know about it? They know, and they don't know what to do. And they are terrified that if they do anything they'll loose their positions. So they keep juggling chickens and chainsaws and hope it works out just like most of us everyday at work. That's real, that's real. "And so I'm hard on people, I try to tell a few jokes, you know, to make it go down easier, but I'm hard on people. But I will tell you why I am hard on people. This is real ball, this is the last chance, this is it. I'm not telling you that; Tracy's not telling you that. You go to places like I go, and the Pentagon will tell you that." Van Jones (1968-) is a civil rights and human rights advocate in Oakland, CA working to combine solutions to social inequality and environmental destruction. He is the co-founder and executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which now employs 24 staff members.

Drove down Euclid today from Playhouse Square to just before the Cleveland Clinic. The project has come a long way since my last tour a month and a half ago. Lots of stations up now. The new traffic lights on Euclid have a very long red. The signal lights for the buses are interesting and already look like they are set to give buses priority. I'm looking forward to riding it when it's finally done.

The peak oil crisis: On contemplating $100 oil By Tom Whipple For the last few days, the press has been full of stories about the possibility of oil reaching $100 a barrel this winter. As prices have been bouncing around in the low $80s for the last couple of weeks, another $20 increase will do it. The theory behind the $100 forecast is that supply and demand is very tight and that China, India and oil-exporting countries are growing their domestic consumption so fast that even if the U.S. goes into a recession the situation will continue to tighten... Article archived at : http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=35357 Original article : http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1875&Itemid=35

Ok, who on this list from Columbus is going to write a letter to the paper countering this?

^I think it needs to be clarified to the media that the trains are expected to cover "above the rail costs" or the "operating costs". The fares will never cover the capital costs.

All Aboard Ohio Meeting on October 20. Register online at www.allaboardohio.org: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Greater Cleveland RTA 1240 West 6th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Registration: $35 Or call 614-228-6005 Breakfast and Lunch are provided! 9:30 a.m. Meeting Registration 10:00 a.m. Welcome to Cleveland! Joe Calabrese, GCRTA CEO 10:05 a.m. All Aboard Ohio business meeting Member ratification of election reform package 10:45 a.m. Break 11:00 a.m. Ohio…a look at the current situation and the Ohio Hub, Midwest Developments, and other updates 12:00 p.m. Luncheon Tower City Presentation 1:00 p.m. Rail Leadership Conference and Issues Lake Shore a focus and possible initiatives and discussion 2:00 p.m. Roundtable Breakouts 2:45 p.m. Roundtable Reports and Discussion on Plan of Action 3:30 p.m. Agreement on Plan of Action and Follow Up 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

Peak Oil Review - September 24th, 2007 http://www.energybulletin.net/35073.html By Tom Whipple ASPO-6 last week; ASPO-Houston next month (Oct 17-20) Last week in Cork, Ireland, some 300 attendees at ASPO-6 heard former U.S. Energy Secretary James Schlesinger say, “Conceptually the battle is over—the peakists have won.” Shell’s former Chairman Lord Ron Oxburgh stated unambiguously, “today the era of cheap energy is over; a move away from fossil fuels is urgently needed.” CIBC’s Jeff Rubin’s highlighted the coming problem with declining oil exports, pointing out a key example: “in 10 years, Mexico could become an Indonesia—a former oil exporter that is now a oil importer." ... [snip-- other interesting stuff here, but it's more economic in nature]

I think the state can afford to pay for the PEIS itself. When you'll be getting over $9 billion in economic returns (conservative) on a $4 billion investment, it's worth the $5-8 million for the study.

Automobiles are 19th century technology and we haven't abandoned them. What's the difference???

The peak oil crisis: the quiet time By Tom Whipple On the surface, very little happened during the past week. Hurricane Dean did little damage to oil production and the next major hurricane of the year has yet to form. Oil prices gyrated in the low seventies in response to changing credit crunch news. For a while, Wall Street decided the credit crisis was coming under control and the stock market had some good days... Article archived at : http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=34088