That term has been around so I won't bore you with a page and a half synopsis. Basically, the idea is that there is a finite supply of oil on earth, oil discovery and extraction follows a curve, called the Hubbert Curve (because it was first proposed by M. King Hubbert in 1956), with production increasing to a point, after which production will fall and cost will increase (because the oil being produced is harder to get [tar sands and oil shale, for example], so more expensive. That, coupled with decreased supply means higher costs). That point is peak oil. There is some debate as to when peak oil will be reached, some say we already have, others disagree. Again, I won't go too deep, instead, I will send you here, if you want.
Daniel Lerch talked about planning after peak oil (he subscribes to the school that says we have passed peak oil, I do too). He brought up some very interesting points. The one I will write about here is volatility.
There are two assumptions we make about oil as a society, but also as planners; Oil will be available and affordable. After peak oil those assumptions are no longer given. The basic idea of supply and demand is at work. With typical supply/demand problems, Tickle me Elmo, for example, production can increase as demand increases. Oil is not the same. There is a discovery/production lag between demand and increased supply and a limited supply in general. This means that oil is volatile.
In a typical supply and demand model the time between now and when oil is no longer economically viable to produce would play out as you might imagine; costs will rise incrementally until we reach the magic dollar per gallon that we cannot afford. This is something we could deal with, we could plan for it.
Unfortunately, oil supplies will oscillate as new stocks are found then depleted which means uncertainty in both the assumption of availability and affordability. Uncertainty is a word disdained by anybody trying to created a long range plan of any sort. How does a city create a budget when prices vary (and more than likely vary wildly) from month to month.
When Hurricane Katrina hit fuel supplies were interrupted for municipalities and counties. When these smaller governments appealed to their state government for assistance they were sorely disappointed. The state fuel reserves were never meant to aid municipal governments, they were meant to keep state emergency vehicles on the road.
But this fuel volatility reaches far beyond local agencies. National and international trade will be affected, how will the economy cope? The recent rise in fuel prices brought with it a rise in food prices as transportation became more expensive and farmers converted their food crops to bio-fuel fields (another post).
Lerch's suggestions of how to effectively plan for the inevitable uncertainty are familiar refrains. He suggested 5 specific necessities, each with their own broad applications and effects:
1) Deal with land use and transportation.
My personal soapbox most of the time. Current land use practices are no longer effective. The idea of "drive till you can buy" shaping residential development will not work. I am afraid that in our increasingly polarized political climate people hear the phrase "lifestyle change" and think the suggestion is that we all live in 200 square foot apartments in 60 story towers and only eat soilent green.
Salt Lake County daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2007 was just over 24million. In one day residents and visitors of Salt Lake County drive 24 million miles, that is roughly 50 round trips to the mood - a day. Imagine if everybody lived a little closer to work and took some form of transit at least a couple of times. Put grocery stores closer and I don't think 75% reduction in VMT is unreachable.
I live in Murray and work in Draper, hardly the kind of walkable situation I would like. My round trip to work and back is 22 miles, depending on the route. I can do all but 5 miles of that on transit, two miles from home to TRAX (or TRAX to home) and 1/2 mile from the last 811 bus stop in Salt Lake County to my office (or the office to the bus stop). Usually I will ride my bike those 5 miles. But even if I drive to the TRAX stop I can cut 18 miles of driving out of my day with little effort.
As of now though, for most of us oil dependency is built into the system. On top of that (and I don't mean this to sound accusitory) the most important factor people consider when choosing a mode of transportation is convience. TRAX is full on Jazz game nights not because Jazz fans are a particularly eco-conscience bunch, but because it is easier than trying to find a parking space downtown on game night.
Increasing convience will take a restructuring of transportation planning. The form of our urban areas will have to change. Planners will need to take a critical look at the fundamentals of planning. As with any big change there will some growing pains (or shrinking pains) and a learning curve. This will require mild to moderate changes in lifestyle. Changes which, I might add, actually enhance our quality of life. The kind of cites people like to visit are more compact, walkable cities, greener with less need for a car.
2) Tackle private energy consumption.
City governments are starting to convert to hybrid vehicle fleets and CF light bulbs. Most stoplights are LEDs. But government consumption is only part of the equation. Emissions from cars are also only a part of the problem. Numbers from the Department of Energy show that 75% of Utah carbon emisisons come from commercial buildings, electric power, residential buildings and industry. Buildings, and the power needed to run them contribute more to carbon emissions than drivind, by a long way. Emisisons like that come from some form of fuel, largely natural gas and coal.
As with reshaping our cities, changing private sector energy use is essentially a question of will. Building codes require vent fans in bathrooms and GFI outlets near water. Why not requre more efficent heating, cooling, and insulation? Why not require a percentage of energy be generated on site? When cities give large tax breaks to corporations so they will locate in their bounaries why not requre their facilities to be net energy producers?
The technology is available. Institiuting it is a matter of will.
3) Attack the problems piece-by-piece and from many angles.
As with most problems, there is no panacea. The phrase Lerch used in his presenation was "there are no silver bullets, but there are many silver BBs." Energy is a complex problem. Land use is a complex problem. The world is complex. It will require us to look at every angle, and will reqire a myriad of partial solutions. Again, a matter of will. For all of our glaring inadequacies and blatand idiocy, the human race is extremely intelegent. I have no doubt we can solve our ills, we just have to want to.
4) Plan for fundamental changes and make fundamental changes happen.
Our society is interesting. For most of history people could not avoid problems that were sure to affect thier daily lives. Part of that is because their daily lives were fairly simple so problems were not easily avoided. We have the interesting opportunity to live in a time when our lives are complicated enough that many problems we face are hidden and a time when we have a nearly endless variety of entertainment options to distract us. I think about energy everyday. However, I do not think less of people who don't. Because the problem is so complex, and we do have the distractions it is easy to not see the immidiacy of the situation.
We can take a cue from any 12 step program here: the first step is admitin (realizing) you have a problem). Educating citizens, stakeholders, leaders etc etc, is the first step. I have some insulated coveralls. On the inside tag there is a warning, "Caution, these coveralls isulate from heat as well as cold. Use caution when working around flame or sparks as the wearer may not know they are on fire." How do you know to stop, drop, and roll if you don't know you are on fire? When we know we are in trouble, we will act.
5) Build as sense of community.
If number one is my soapbox, this is my favorite. Lerch used the example of a woman who was attacked in a neighborhood somewhere in New York who yelled for an hour before she died. When neighbors were interviewed by the police later they all said they thought someone else would take call the police. In this situation civil inattention went a step too far.
It is easy to feel insignificant in our cities, it is easy to feel like someone else will take care of it, whatever "it" is. Life in a community is different. A member of a community feels a sense of responisibilty to the rest of the community. More importantly, a member of a community feels like they can change something that broken, they are empowered.
Technology will only get us so far. It is the socical aspect of our society that will make all the chages possible. It might take a catastrophy to get people moving, but we might be able to get things moving and avoid a catastrophy.
It was a very interesting lecture. It is easy to see gloom and doom, but the good is there too.
No comments:
Post a Comment