ONE TOWN SQUARE: at the intersection of peak oil, climate change, and land use

Last week I sketched out the outlines of a new land use agenda – which in essence would take our existing planning program but re-think and re-work it based on principles of ecology.

This week I’d like to take one further step back and look at the role our planning program needs to fill in the context of the enormous challenges confronting our civilization. We know that energy supplies, and oil in particular, are posed to decline, perhaps precipitously, and that the decline will probably commence sooner rather than later. We also know that our profligate burning of fossil fuels threatens to unleash dangerous, even catastrophic, global warming. But what are we planning to do to ensure a decent life for our children and grandchildren?

The answer, unfortunately, is pitifully little – especially in our land use planning program.

Oregon – which is responsible for about 1% of U.S. emissions, roughly proportional to its share of U.S. population – has set a goal of a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. This approaches the 80%-90% reductions necessary to avoid an increase of more than 2°C in average global temperatures. But there’s no guarantee that an increase in average temperatures of more than about 0.5°C won’t set off feedbacks that could result in runaway warming. It may be prudent to not only halt emissions, but to actually lower current atmospheric CO2 levels – to achieve negative emissions levels.

But even achieving a 75% reduction by 2050 would require radical changes in the way we live. How would we go about achieving that? And what role must land use planning play?

Let’s start with some numbers from DEQ’s latest Inventory Report – a pre-publication draft dated October 31, 2007.

Gasoline and diesel fuel use in transportation were the largest sources of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels at 40%, as of 2004.

Emissions attributable to electricity consumption also approach 40% of total emissions. About 50% of Oregon’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels – 40% from coal, and 10% from natural gas (rounding out our electricity portfolio are hydro at 40%, nuclear and biomass at 3% each, and wind and geothermal at 1%).

The remaining 20% of emissions come mainly from industrial processes (including agriculture).

So how is Oregon planning to achieve its emissions reduction goals?

The report Oregon’s Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions at pp. 10-12 sets out four strategies: 1) energy, land use, and materials efficiency; 2) cleaner technology (i.e., hybrids, hydrogen, biofuels); 3) sequestration (farm and forest capture & storage); and 4) education, research, and technology.

Who’s kidding whom? Biofuels are a significant energy source? Hydrogen is an energy source at all? Farm & forest sequestration? We’ve just put farm & forest practices off-limits. Technology will save us?So how do we implement these strategies? Here’s the entirety of the report’s plan on implementation of the first strategy:

• Equal the electric energy conservation savings achieved over the last 20 years, about 1,000 average Megawatts (aMW).
• Achieve comparable efficiency savings among natural gas and oil users.
• Offer more convenient and more efficient transit and other alternatives to driving cars and trucks, principally in urban areas along the I-5 corridor. Those areas have the ability to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and trips taken through careful land use and transportation planning.
• Insist on products that: 1) use fewer materials and require less energy to produce and transport to market; 2) last longer; and 3) are designed to be reused and recycled more easily and completely using less energy.

Equaling savings we’ve achieved in the past? Consumption is still going up! Offering more transportation alternatives and smarter consumption are going to get us to 75% reductions?

Oregon’s energy goals are set forth in Oregon’s Renewable Energy Action Plan. Oregon has set a goal of getting 25% of its electricity from new renewable sources by 2025 – with the caveat that the goal is dependent on funding. Oddly, no quantitative goals for total generating capacity are set or even mentioned. We are apparently to keep on increasing capacity, while adding renewable sources. From the data in this report, it’s impossible to know what achieving the goal would mean for coal consumption or CO2 emissions. The plan also includes goals for transportation fuels 2025: diesel is to include 5% biodiesel, gasoline is to contain 10% ethanol, and 15% of all gasoline is to be E-85. Again, no goals for total quantities of transportation fuels are set.

Can anybody take this seriously? These goals and plans are going to get us to a 75% reduction in energy consumption (sorry, we don’t have energy reduction goals) or emissions by 2050, while Oregon’s population is growing at the same time?

What we need is a real plan to actually mandate and achieve reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to eliminate emissions from the generation of electricity. This requires 1) reducing demand by imposing stringent efficiency standards on buildings, appliances, and industrial users, and 2) replacing fossil-fuel generating capacity with renewables. We need to set specific, numerical goals for the reduction in transportation fuel usage and implement programs to achieve those reductions.
We need specific, numerical goals to reduce energy consumption, by generation and consumption sector. We need specific, numerical emissions reduction goals, again by sector (i.e., transportation, buildings, industry). Our land use planning program must incorporate energy and emissions goals, and land use decisions must include review to ensure that these goals are met.

We also need to plan to increase the resiliency of our communities. We can’t know what the future holds. What we do know is that it’s extremely unlikely to be a continuation of the past. Our planning process needs to consider a range of possible scenarios and to incorporate risk management strategies. We may not know with certainty what the future holds, but we’d better prepare for it by increasing the capability of our communities to withstand shocks.