[Timo]

Being a municipal planner in the midwest and a believer in P.O., i'll put this little conundrum out there where i know it will stand the best chance of being chewed up and spit back at me, figuratively speaking, of course. I distinctly remember my second grade teacher telling her class that the world would run out of oil within our lifetimes. That said, i suppose you could say that everything i ever needed to know, i learned in 2nd grade. I've been expecting her prediction to come true for some 30 years now, and lo and behold, she proved pretty doggone close to being right. It's clear to me when i look around that we're all collectively in the midst of a change in our way of living, the degree to which still to be determined. But, none-the-less, our world is changing, and i feel some huge responsibility to my community to help it prepare for what i see as the inevitable. Hence, i became a city planner. And woe is me for the isolation that decision has caused. In public circles and discussion of public policy, absolutely no one is willing to even discuss peak oil, the associated financial crisis, the interconnectedness of the global economy, our own contrinutions to global warming, etc., etc., etc.......Through 15 years here, i've been completely powerless to make these concerns heard and understood. So, i put this failure before you all for your suggestions on a suitable alternative to simply speaking to those who could possibly make a difference in the liklihood that our community will survive. What are some practicle, easily communicated and understood policies to consider that would help any local community recognize and prepare for the dim light of the future? I want local policies, not state or federal. And i have written a wind ordinance, am working on a solar ordinance, have made suggestions for geothermal heat pumps, promoted big wind for industrial parks, and on and on. I figure before i change wheels completely, i'll at least try a change in tires. What say you all? I firmly believe that any hope for future solutions will be gained at the local level, not at the global level. Any help out there?

[gnm]

First welcome....

Not sure what difference writing ordinances would make..... Is this like zoning guidelines?

No government institution has any interest in scaling back, powering down, or planning for austerity. Not only would doing so require them to "plan" for reducing their control and legitimacy, but when your very currency and social programs REQUIRE perma-growth models your institutions are functionally bankrupt from the start. Its only a matter of time.

Cheers!

-G

[shortonsense]

Through 15 years here, i've been completely powerless to make these concerns heard and understood.

Do you consider that this is any indication as to the reasonableness of your position?

So, i put this failure before you all for your suggestions on a suitable alternative to simply speaking to those who could possibly make a difference in the liklihood that our community will survive. What are some practicle, easily communicated and understood policies to consider that would help any local community recognize and prepare for the dim light of the future?

Starting a transition town in your neighborhood? While I am certainly not a fan of the concept, it allows a group of people to feel they are contributing towards a solution, provides some positive reinforcement to like minded individuals, etc etc?

Certainly trying to sell peak oil at face value doesn't work at all, as you've already discovered. Hiding it within a green/eco agenda though, that appears to have a better chance "closing the sale" as it were.

I want local policies, not state or federal. And i have written a wind ordinance, am working on a solar ordinance, have made suggestions for geothermal heat pumps, promoted big wind for industrial parks, and on and on. I figure before i change wheels completely, i'll at least try a change in tires. What say you all? I firmly believe that any hope for future solutions will be gained at the local level, not at the global level. Any help out there?

A transition town initiative sounds right up your alley.

http://www.transitionus.org/

[Narz]

Starting a transition town in your neighborhood? While I am certainly not a fan of the concept

Why not?

[shortonsense]

Starting a transition town in your neighborhood? While I am certainly not a fan of the concept

Why not?

For some reason, I have a natural tendency to instantly equate any Luddite-centric solution with pessimism. Unfair perhaps, but experience has taught me that pessimism and pessimistic attitudes are generally an excuse to sit around and whine, bitch, hand wring, crying into one's milk, etc etc.

Certainly I understand that my natural reaction may be completely unreasonable in the context of what Transition Town people are trying to do, but any group which has to rely on propaganda and fear to force compliance with their philosophy is immediately suspect in my book, such tactics smack of a hidden agenda.

[Revi]

I think all Cassandras experience the same thing.

Try giving kids the option of going out to dinner and the movies and not eating next week because there isn't any money, or eating baloney sandwiches at home and watching TV to save money. See what they go for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor)

[anador]

Well as an employee of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Co.: I can offer that governments are starting to see the light and sense in densified traditional town planning policies.

The impetus, as with any government endeavor, is not going to be based on environmental idealism, or even the fabled and ephemeral "American Dream"

Many cities are beginning to see the light in regards to the economics of the change to reinvested cities and a productive countryside. It is much cheaper for the city to operate sans-sprawl.

One of the chief successes on this slow-moving front is the Miami21 rezoning of the entire Miami-Dade region.

The problem with current zoning practices is that they aim to divide and seperate. Everything that is not specifically obligatory in a given zone, is banned from it.

The New Miami 21 approach follows the more reasonable idea that everything that is not specifically banned, is allowed.

That is an over-simplification, but alot of talk is happening at the very least. Traditional Neighborhood Developments or TNDs were never even heard of 10 years ago....... now the concept of true good-urbanism is being talked about again.

Thats a start at least.

[lowem]

... i became a city planner. And woe is me for the isolation that decision has caused. In public circles and discussion of public policy, absolutely no one is willing to even discuss peak oil, the associated financial crisis, the interconnectedness of the global economy, our own contrinutions to global warming, etc., etc., etc.......Through 15 years here, i've been completely powerless to make these concerns heard and understood.

Perhaps Singapore may be better able to make use of your skills and knowledge - over here we do public transport in a big way. This is across the road from where I stay - integrated transport, residential and commercial hub in the middle of the town center, light rail on top, heavy rail underground :



They are starting another iteration of this in the next town one stop away on the MRT.

I wrote in to say that the roads couldn't take a 3% vehicle growth rate forever and sure enough some years later they have cut down the allowable rate to 1.5%. But that's just me, as an ordinary citizen, peering in from the outside, and I'd venture I'm not the only one to have pointed out such an obvious fact.

I dunno but I'd suppose a bona-fide city planner could make a bigger difference.

[pup55]

One of the really long timers may remind me of who it was, but one of our original posters, I am thinking in the 2005-2006 time frame was also in this line of work and he went through exactly the kind of thing you are going through right now: He could see clearly that if viewed through the lens of PO a lot of the things they were doing and spending money on were completely senseless.....He was out in So Cal at the time, and eventually got to the point at which he was so frustrated and he was such a nuisance around the office, that his boss finally told him to find another job and he decided to relocate and ended up in a little bit greener place up in Oregon, I think...doing the same line of work. Like I said, someone who has been around for awhile will have to remind me of who it was...maybe you can contact him somehow...

But what you are seeing is completely typical. The higher ups in the urban management thing got there because they schmoozed the right people, namely the car salesmen, real estate lawyers and construction people that are on the county commission, and they got promoted because they stuck their necks out as little as possible, and played the game internally. Most of the people in a lot of the old-line corporations are exactly like that, in their own annoying way...

Unfortunately this situation has left our society in the situation that at exactly the moment where the most change is needed, the decision making function in a lot of these organizations are populated by the very people that are the least equipped to carry it out.

Tragic.

[mos6507]

For some reason, I have a natural tendency to instantly equate any Luddite-centric solution with pessimism. --snip-- Certainly I understand that my natural reaction may be completely unreasonable in the context of what Transition Town people are trying to do, but any group which has to rely on propaganda and fear to force compliance with their philosophy is immediately suspect in my book, such tactics smack of a hidden agenda.

TT, at least the public face of it, is anything but pessimistic, compared to standard doomer rhetoric. I don't see how they could ever put a happier face on it without losing all credibility.

The only propaganda on the part of TT is the way it perhaps holds out false hope for what it thinks it can accomplish (for instance, Transition Los Angeles is a lost cause).

[rangerone314]

TT, at least the public face of it, is anything but pessimistic, compared to standard doomer rhetoric. I don't see how they could ever put a happier face on it without losing all credibility.

The only propaganda on the part of TT is the way it perhaps holds out false hope for what it thinks it can accomplish (for instance, Transition Los Angeles is a lost cause).

I'd be forced to agree. I lived right outside that festering cesspool for nearly 3 years.

How about Transition Los Vegas? Or Transition Chicago, or Transition New York? Maybe Transition Miami?

I wonder if you add up the populations of every place that COULD transition realistically, and how many people they could absorb from places that can't (like LA, Vegas etc), what % of the US would transition.

Then I wonder what % of those places that COULD, WON'T (because of human nature) and what % of the US that corresponds to.

Then I wonder how they'll fare if refugees try to swarm into the US, or some of the stuff in "Earth 2100" happens. I do sympathize with the TTers because at least their heart is in the right place.

[Timo]

Folks, thanks again and again for all of your responses and suggestions. I feel silly mentioning this because it conceptually goes without saying, but i've gotten more responses from you all in 1 day than i've accumulated over the past 15 years. Gracias! And i saw one response in particular that may actually be of immediate use to me along the lines of Miami21. My wind ordinance was adopted, but only for non-residential applications with a max of 50 kw production capacity. At the time, i figured at least it's a start. Now though, my attempt to get residential small wind standards adopted is meeting a brick wall because most of my planning commissioners are translating their fear of the unknown into absolute resistence. I won't start the HAWT v VAWT debate here, but as i see it, a 20%-30% reduction in electricity requirements is nothing to laugh at and should be embraced. To get there, though,requires a turbine either on a 60' pole in the back yard, or a VAWT, or 2 or 3, attached to the roof. Absent any accepted standard for the design and appearance of such creatures, most people refuse to accept the aesthetic disruptions to what they consider normal. But, if i crafted the ordinance to exclude obviously unacceptable designs, whatever they may be, then everything else would be allowed. In time, and given the same repitition around the country, eventually, a standard will emerge. I've also tried to phrase our collective situation in economic terms. I've realized that the 20th Century was an economic bubble based on the exploitation of cheap energy. Bubles burst, whatever they're based on. We're seeing the slow leakage of euphoria from our global bubble right now. Some people recognize it. Some people don't. I guess we'll wait and see what happens tomorrow.

[ritter]

Timo,

I know what you mean. I'm a private sector planner doing mostly environmental compliance in the greater north Bay Area, California, arguably one of the most liberal and green areas of the country. Some of the smaller cities have implemented some good efforts, but with the economy being what it is, I fear many will fall flat. For an example of what appears to be a successful county-wide program to encourage energy conservation on residential and commercial retrofits, check out the link below:

http://www.sonomacountyenergy.org/energy-improvements.php

The real problem from my perspective is that I fear the ship has sailed and we've missed it. Efforts should have continued from the 70s in tight progression to get us where we'd need to be to adapt today. They didn't. The State of California is currently undertaking development of adaptation strategies for global warming (nothing for the energy crisis that I've seen yet). If the state is doing it, we're probably too late.

[shortonsense]

TT, at least the public face of it, is anything but pessimistic, compared to standard doomer rhetoric. I don't see how they could ever put a happier face on it without losing all credibility.

I tend to agree, their claims are certainly not that of a peaker or Doomer, contemporaneous to PO. They still need a trigger though, and their order appears to be:

"Transition Initiatives are part of a vibrant, international grassroots movement that builds community resilience in response to the challenges of peak oil, climate change and the economic crisis."

http://www.transitionus.org/

Peak oil first of course because its immediate, "as scary as you want to be", can be sexed up to sound all scientificy, and then throw in some climate change and the recent recession to try and snare anyone who doesn't fall for it.

The only propaganda on the part of TT is the way it perhaps holds out false hope for what it thinks it can accomplish (for instance, Transition Los Angeles is a lost cause).

Transition Town in Boulder is a near hysterical one as well. But maybe LA isn't all that bad, certainly Ruppert seems to think so.

[shortonsense]

The real problem from my perspective is that I fear the ship has sailed and we've missed it. Efforts should have continued from the 70s in tight progression to get us where we'd need to be to adapt today. They didn't.

Sure they did...the improvements just don't tend to get much attention. Efficiency improvements alone are substantial, let alone complete structural changes like EV's and Volts and such. And some of these improvements are natural extensions of the peak oils and "running out" claims based directly in the 70's.

Changes require stimuli...the 70's were a good start. So good in fact that this time, we haven't even needed shortages or rationing in America to start rolling out the next generation of transport.

[kublikhan]

There was a topic touching on this issue posted on the Oil Drum awhile back. It was about the fall of the Roman empire. At one point, the author puts you in the role of advisor to the king and challenges you to come up with solutions to the problem of the coming collapse. Unfortunately, even if the king is wise and highly regards your counsel, in the end you are basically arguing for a managed collapse instead of an uncontrolled collapse. As one might expect, you can expect the king and his subjects to be unreceptive to your proposals for a managed collapse, even if it is better than the alternative. It would mean political suicide.

As to your question about possible local suggestions, I would keep my lip shut about the looming crisis of peak oil. Instead, I would try to argue for things that are more mundane. Concentrate on things that reduce resident's energy footprints and reduce the city's energy bill. Funding and ordinances for things like:
1. "Smart" electricity/gas meters/thermostats.
2. Increased public transportation: buses, trains, etc.
3. Car pooling and shuttle initiatives.
4. Tax credits for improved home insulation and energy efficient appliances.
5. Motion sensors that turn on/off street lights and/or indoor lights. Also LED or fluorescent instead of incandescent lighting for both street and indoor lighting.
6. High vehicle registration fees and a gasoline tax to discourage car ownership.
7. Pro bicycle initiatives.
8. Perhaps a city wide "Go Green" campaign, pushing the importance of how residents can save tons of cash a year by making smarter energy decisions.

A few other ideas to help strengthen your city:
1. Cities should pay down debt and build up a cushion of reserves to pay for the rough times ahead.
2. neighborhood watch program.
3. Increased filtration of municipal water supply. Cleanest water in the region would be a nice talking point.

Now, it is a tradition of Druids (and also of ASPO) of alerting kings and rulers of the dangers ahead. After all, Merlin did that for King Arthur and we may imagine that the druid we are thinking of felt that it was his duty to do that with Emperor Marcus Aurelius. So, he decides to go to Rome and speak to the Emperor. Suppose you were that druid; what would you say to the Emperor?

Good question, right? I have asked it to myself many times. We could think of many ways of answering it. For instance, if gold is running out from the Empire's coffers, why not suggest to the Emperor to mount a naval expedition to the Americas? It is what Columbus would do, more than a millennium afterwards and the result was the Spanish empire - it was also based on gold and it didn't last for long. Maybe the Romans could have done something like that. But they didn't have the right technology to cross the oceans and, at the time of Marcus Aurelius, they had run out of the resources to develop it. So, they had to remain in Europe and to come to terms with the limits of the area they occupied. The Empire had to return its economy within these limits. So, there is only one thing that you, as the wise Druid from Britannia, can tell the Emperor: you have to return within the limits that the Empire's economy can sustain.

So you walk to Rome - kind of a long walk from Eburacum, in Britannia; a place that today we call "York". You are preceded by your fame of wise man and so the Emperor receives you in his palace. You face him, and you tell him what you have found:

"Emperor, the empire is doomed. If you don't do something now, it will collapse in a few decades"

The Emperor is perplexed, but he is a patient man. He is a philosopher after all. So he won't have your head chopped off right away, as other emperors would, but he asks you, "But why, wise druid, do you say that?"

"Emperor, " you say, "you are spending too much money for legions and fortifications. The gold accumulated in centuries of conquests is fast disappearing and you can't pay enough legionnaires to defend the borders. In addition, you are putting too much strain on agriculture: the fertile soil is being eroded and lost. Soon, there won't be enough food for the Romans. And, finally, you are oppressing people with too much bureaucracy, which is also too expensive."

Again, the Emperor considers having your head chopped off, but he doesn't order that. You have been very lucky in hitting on a philosopher-emperor. So he asks you, "Wise druid, there may be some truth in what you say, but what should I do?"

"Emperor, first you need to plant trees. the land needs rest. In time, trees will reform the fertile soil."
"But, druid, if we plant trees, we won't have enough food for the people."
"Nobody will starve if the patricians renounce to some of their luxuries!"
"Well, Druid, I see your point but it won't be easy....."
"And you must reduce the number of legions and abandon the walls!"
"But, but.... Druid, if we do that, the barbarians will invade us....."
"It is better now than later. Now you can still keep enough troops to defend the cities. Later on, it will be impossible. It is sustainable defense."
"Sustainable?"
"Yes, it means defense that you can afford. You need to turn the legions into city militias and..."
"And...?"
"You must spend less for the Imperial Bureaucracy. The Imperial taxes are too heavy! You must work together with the people, not oppress them! Plant trees, disband the army, work together!"

Now, Emperor Marcus Aurelius seriously considers whether it is appropriate to have your head chopped off, after all. Then, since he is a good man, he sends to you back to Eburacum under heavy military escort, with strict orders that you should never come to Rome again.

"Peak Civilization": The Fall of the Roman Empire

[Revi]

I reluctantly agree completely with what you are saying. There is no way to turn the empire around now. Time to pull back to defensible places.

Nobody is going to want to hear that.

[mos6507]

residential small wind standards adopted is meeting a brick wall because most of my planning commissioners are translating their fear of the unknown into absolute resistence.

Wind doesn't scale down to small sizes as well as, let's say, solar PV. This has to do with wind turbulence at low altitudes. So even if you allowed residential wind, unless you're talking a rural area with people putting up tall towers, it won't amount to much actual energy collected. It would be a psychological benefit at best to residents. Better not to encourage bad investments at a time when funds are limited.

[mos6507]

Peak oil first of course because its immediate, "as scary as you want to be", can be sexed up to sound all scientificy, and then throw in some climate change and the recent recession to try and snare anyone who doesn't fall for it.

Look, if you don't buy the "stick" aspect of Transition, then don't pass go. It's NOT FOR YOU.

As far as I can tell, what Transition is supposed to do is kind of unveil the curtain of doom briefly, but then immediately salve the wound with the hope that comes from The Power of Community. This is quite different from the constant doom and gloom you get from most of the doomerverse. The pragmatist in me doesn't see anything wrong with this in the sense that it attends to people's emotional health. For those who really do know how screwed we are (NOT YOU) there is a genuine need to direct attention towards productive pursuits rather than wallowing in despair. But there is also a side of me that craves honesty at all times. And when I crunch the numbers, the odds aren't that good even with Transition, but they're certainly worse without it. So it sure doesn't hurt.

[mos6507]

we haven't even needed shortages or rationing in America to start rolling out the next generation of transport.

Counting your chickens before they're hatched are you?

The idea that "the market" is paving the way for next-gen transport is wrong, wrong, wrong.

GM wouldn't even be in business today without a bailout, and the Volt, whether intentionally or not, was the secret sauce that opened the government purse-strings. Aptera is pretty much history at this point. Tesla is dangling by a thread. The Dodge EV initiative is dead. The only company that seems to be releasing an EV without a nail-biting soap-opera behind it is Nissan, but I haven't followed the money trail on that one. Maybe the Focus EV, if it ever materializes, would be the 2nd.

The EV market has suffered since the 90s due to two technological transitions, lead-acid to NIMH (which Cobasys in part spoiled) and then to Lithium. It also suffered from gas being cheap that whole time except for the runup through the last half of the 2000s, only to drop back to record lows again. EVs really appeal to only two segments of the population. Those with money who really care about emissions (a small niche) and those who are desperate to cling to personal transport in a post-peak era (which cycles up and down with gas prices). This is not a recipe for a sustainable market, especially considering that most people now consider new car purchases of any kind an unneeded expenditure.

The idea that we can $buy$ our way via green consumerism into a post-peak utopia can only exist in a thriving economy, otherwise it's an avenue reserved only for the rich who really have little to worry about from peak oil anyway, at least the early stages.

Most people will be forced to just use less energy whether they like it or not. Right now it's cheaper to just keep a beater car (even one with bad gas mileage) on the road, vs. buy some plugin for $40K+ in the hopes of long-term savings.