Key words :
climate change
,fuel
,future energy
,global warming
,hydrocarbon
,light rail transit
,peak oil
,post
,public transportation
Post-Peak Oil (PPO) and Climate Change: A Call to Peaceful Arms
23 Nov, 2007 11:34 am
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeThis is a short article on community transformation in a time of preparation for a post cheap oil future. On the face of it, post-peak oil and climate change don't share many common threads, beyond being derided as hysterical prognostications by some of their non-believers. However, climate change is finally starting to be taken seriously by some of its former nay-sayers. We shall have to wait and see whether post-peak oil will continue to be dismissed as a crackpot conspiracy theory.
However, there is good news. The same efforts that can implement fuel savings, can also contribute to the amelioration of hydrocarbons in our atmosphere, a primary contributor to global warming. Since believing in global warming, has more adherants, than those of Post-Peak Oil (PPO), it is probably appropriate that any actions taken are associated with lessening the discharge of harmful hydrocarbons into our atmosphere. If the Post-Peakists are completely wrong about an impending oil shortage, we will have taken precious oil off of the market and begun a valuable foray into energy conservation while slowing down and hopefully eventually eliminating harmful greenhouse emissions. If the “Peakists” are indeed correct, we will have accomplished the dual objectives of slowing our draw down of valuable and critical oil reserves, while embarking on the road to climate stabilization.
The United States should begin an acceleration of the already existing, but incremental efforts at restoring our nation’s passenger rail system. The installation of new passenger rail corridors along with Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems in both our older long-established areas such as Jersey City, N.J., or newer faster growing areas similar to Portland, Oregon, are already reaping rewards not only in terms of passenger patronage and profits, but also in terms of targeted, mixed-use real estate development that encourages the utilization of public-transportation. The advantages of travel by rail includes less need of a car, hence a lessened demand for land-intensive parking facilities. The valuable square footage, that would have been dedicated to parking facilities, is freed up for the prospective developer to build additional (and more profitable) housing and retail units – all in close proximity to a passenger rail station.
Another economic benefit of transit-targeted development permits the redevelopment of abandoned industrial “Brownfields”, returning them to the various municipal tax roles and future viability as commercial enterprises multiplying to a greater employment base for the host city. Many “Brownfields” are centrally located in close proximity to existing passenger or freight rail trackage.
Between 1890 and 1930, the interurban streetcar lines served vast areas of our cities and surrounding metropolitan areas. These wonderful energy efficient (and electrically powered) lines even made their way out to the countryside. Farmers became the beneficiaries of freight sidings located on their property, where they could place produce and milk, bound for the urban market centers. The interurbans also provided electrical hook-ups to their trolley wires, providing farmers with a form of rural electrification, long before the Tennesee Valley Authority was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.
Unfortunately the interurbans were obviated by a combination of market forces (mostly based on cheap and abundant oil) as well as the punitive treatment imposed on them by the cities and municipalities that their lines ran through, where in addition to taxing their right of ways, burdened them with the exclusive responsibilities of maintaining the entire city streets (i.e.filling in automobile induced pot holes and snow plowing beyond their own narrow right of ways). However the coup de grace for the interurbans’ demise was corporate corruption. It is not my intent to detail this scandal, as it has been ably chronicled by many journalists and investigators. In essence, a consortium of companies, led by General Motors and Standard Oil of California, pleaded guilty to charges of monopolistic practices associated with the purchase of numerous street-car lines, and their subsequent abandonment; these were explicit violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Outside of collecting a pittance on the fines for this conspiracy, the government did absolutely nothing, opening up the way for the liquidation of the same lines, and subsequently cementing a future, exclusive automobile- centered transportation society, that had become manifest by the early 1960s.
The Interurbans Today At the conclusion of World War II, the remains of our interurban street car system was in it’s final death throes. Our population stood at just 130 million people back then. Today our national population is expected to pass the 300 million mark, by the end of this calendar year.
Returning to the theme of incrementalism, and the coming age of petroleum based scarcity, perhaps it is time to use our existing railroad and Light Rail systems as a template for the expansion of this nascent public transportation network.
With 85% of our nation residing in urban or suburban areas (including the most sparsely populated states), we can begin an expansion of this network, where potential passenger rail corridors can be expanded, often using under-utilized freight railroad branches, by simply adding an additional track through contract with the host private rail freight carrier.
Another potential area for possible expansion involves public utility right-of-way lines. Excepting the steepest grades, many of these utility lines possess property easements wide enough to accommodate a double-track passenger rail corridor. Additionally, many of these utility corridors run in close proximity to existing (developed) residential and commercial property zones, of various cities and their close-in suburbs. The utility line-based rail passenger expansion could eventually be extended to the newer, automobile oriented suburbs. Much of this can be accomplished with a minimum of property dislocation, since the existing property easements would not require condemnation. Not so incidentally, some of these same utility easements are located on the abandoned rail beds of the aforementioned interurban lines. The new system will address land use patterns, concurrently permitting higher densities and walkable communities in proximity to the stations. High Density Development doesn’t need to be a disturbing concept, as many areas of Europe demonstrate, the most recent Light Rail and Commuter Rail introductions have almost all contributed to enhanced property values in areas close to their stations.
Of course the benefits of a fuel efficient form of transportation that removes hundreds of automobiles from our maintenance intensive highway network as well as the attendant benefits of cleaner air, can only contribute to a healthier, more resource efficient society.
The incremental approach can be most effectively implemented with a regional approach to planning. As a nation, we still need to have the dreams of achievement that are justifiably recalled with pride when associated with NASA’s successful lunar program. We still need the passion of these dreams, but as a nation, the incremental approach provides the impetus for economic and political cooperation, in a time where we simply do not have the funds, or over-riding political consensus for a massive one- size- fits -all program. But the results will speak for themselves, and for the future of our nation; because we can and we must begin a land-use and transportation based “hybrid” change in our mobility, living, and working patterns. Whether referred to as “Smart Growth” or “New Urbanism”, this is an off the shelf technology that we can begin expanding upon today. The other “hybrid” is the “hybrid” car, such as Prius, this is a laudable start in the right direction, but is limited by it’s inability to address land-use patterns, that as currently constituted are destructive or at least adverse to developing ourselves into a truly energy efficient nation.
At the risk of being dismissed as a “technophobe” who is afraid of the future, I firmly contend, that this journey will redound to our society’s benefit, much sooner than any “hydrogen-based economy” (which itself is derived from fossil fuels), will deliver us from global warming and possible looming fuel shortages. Wind, thermal and solar power will of course all need to be implemented. However, it is in our transportation system and spatial-land use patterns, where true national security can be implemented and demonstrated.
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to NewsvineKey words :
climate change
,fuel
,future energy
,global warming
,hydrocarbon
,light rail transit
,peak oil
,post
,public transportation
On November 9, the Uppsala University in Sweden published a report titled "The Peak of the Oil Age - The Uppsala World Energy Outlook". The report performs an analysis of the oil production forecast done by the International Energy Agency in 2008. One day before the release of the IEA 2009 edition of its World Energy Outlook report, the team of researchers notably pointed to a world oil supply in 2030 some 26 Mb/d lower than the IEA's predictions. Dr Michael Lardelli, one of the co-authors of the study, answers Scitizen's questions.
An article in the Washington Post this weekend, together with a must-read interview in The Independent, a paper I used to read regularly when I lived in London, reminded me of an observation I made several years ago concerning the similarities between Peak Oil and Y2K. Having spent a fair amount of time in my former corporate role planning for the serious outcomes the latter might have produced, I don't intend this as a slam on the former. Without rehashing the technical arguments behind either phenomenon, it's worth spending a few minutes thinking about the consequences of a growing belief that we might be only a few years away from the end of oil, as we know it. Whatever one's take on the validity of the Peak Oil argument, it has already evoked noteworthy consequences, both positive and negative.
Laurel Graefe, a senior economic researcher working for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has written an excellent overview of peak oil, ?The Peak Oil Debate?. I consider this a must-read piece, as much for armchair oil experts as beginners, and as much for who published this as what it contains. This should be very high on your list of ?brother-in-law? documents, the ones you can safely recommend to co-workers, neighbors, or, well, your brother in law.
It is demand for oil that may peak as governments adapt to the problems of global warming, security of supply and an amplitude of market volatility that could bring economic ruin to nations and then the world. Oil-demand may be reduced preemptively to the production peak (peak oil) through more efficient vehicle technologies and finding alternative energy sources. Ultimately electricity is seen as the best "supply vector" for delivering energy to users. Probably it is a game of "tag" between reducing demand and falling supply; whichever comes first will win-out.
Leading UK companies have launched a report, The Oil Crunch: Securing the UK?s Energy Future, warning that cheap, easily available oil is likely to end by 2013, posing a grave risk to the UK and world economy.
The Energy Watch Group released a report last week, stating that peak oil was reached in 2006. Scitizen sought the professional view of Dr Peter Jackson, Director of the CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), whose position is that peak oil has not been reached. As well, we speak to Mr Jorg Schindler, the main author and Managing Director of Ludwig-B?lkow-Systemtechnik GmbH, about the report.
The Energy Watch Group released a report last week, stating that peak oil was reached in 2006. Scitizen speaks to Mr Jorg Schindler, the main author and Managing Director of Ludwig-B?lkow-Systemtechnik GmbH, about the report. As well, we sought the professional view of Dr Peter Jackson, Director of the CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), whose position is that peak oil has not been reached.
The price of oil has risen to almost $100 a barrel - a figure unthinkable from almost one fifth of that five years ago. Whatever economic reasons may be postulated for this, the underpinning cause is the fact of a decline in the resource of cheap oil. Oil is not running out, per se, but we can expect the price of oil to increase inexorably, and hence the cost of everything, since literally everything, not only fuel depends on cheap oil, including food. M.King Hubbert made a prediction of this for US oil in 1956, and his "Hubbert Peak Theory" in which oil production follows a logistic function, maximising at the point when half the original resource has been used-up (beyond which it declines relentlessly), which proved correct for the production of oil in the US in 1970, appears to apply also the world reserve of oil, which has in all probability, now peaked. A civilization (global village) that has been built on cheap oil must inevitably change, since there are no alternative technologies, including hydrogen, that can be imported to rescue it in time to replace oil. In all likelihood, it will transform into a system of small communities.
| [1] | Comment by logspirit
- 25 Nov, 2007 11:54 pm Some of these urbanized ideas, -- Not NASA, or Prius -- Light Rail, Electric Bicycles, etc... may work in the medium term, for a while... if we do it... but eventually, within the next 30 years, even a system like that won't be supportable on the available energy & material resources... Without unlikely, far reaching, technologies such as massive Wind, Solar and OTEC, which can't arrive online fast enough to head off much of the coming Peak Oil disaster. Meanwhile... other factors, such as unsustainable agriculture will add to the devil's brew. Eventually... survivors, if there are any, will be fully localized, somewhat like our cave dwelling ancestors, but probably a lot more miserable. It has been said, and it makes sense: "The only truly sustainable culture on Earth was the Stone Age culture." Reality is linear, a one way street, things change... never to be the same again. The Stone Age culture our ancestors lived in happened in an ecological paradise. Long ago self-evicted, long ago lost... destroyed. Now we talk about brownfield "opportunities". Now the sweet red apples are really soaked in toxic dew. We should reawaken our wild roots, welcome the invigorating rush of self-empowerment instead of the lure and trap of soporific ease. Maybe we need to push for a huge government program to develop and oversee and tax us for an all-natural eco-green human-powered strategic standard transportation system... uh, like walking on legs. Doubletime, march! "(If you drive a car), I?ll tax the street, (If you try to sit), I?ll tax your seat, (If you get too cold), I?ll tax the heat, (If you take a walk), I?ll tax your feet." ~The Beatles, Taxman |
Alert Moderator
| |
Author
Read moreMore on the Subject
