The NRDC must not feel much like defending natural resources anymore if they support cellulosic.

On the surface, the idea to create more realistic (like in physics!) and pragmatic economical models looks very appealing. However, in reality it will not work because of very simple reason – physics deals with still nature while economics deals with relationships between us, humans. Thus to create any working economical model, we have to understand ourselves on the first place. The history of medicine (psychiatry, for example) clearly shows that we really don’t know ourselves well enough to build any “realistic and pragmatic models”.

However, there is a solution to many if not all of our economical and other problems. I’d suggest reading what Michael Laitman has to say about it. Just check this link http://www.laitman.com/2008/11/economics-needs-a-scientific-revolution/
to learn more about alternative solutions.

Mike

If that doesn’t work we can always hope for some king of virulent epidemic to kill off a couple of billion people so the planet won’t be so over-populated.

The approach outlined by the Big Look is nothing more than business-as-usual with a tint of greenwashing. The free market fundamentalism and anti-regulatory bias shines brightly through. There’s no sense of the urgency of the climate crisis we face, and the obliviousness to peak oil is nothing less than shocking. It’s the religion of economic growth that got us into this predicament, and more of the same no matter how it’s described (”increased trade-sectors, green industries, and high-tech clusters”)will only worsen the problem. What’s needed is a fundamental re-thinking of our place within ecological systems – or as Nietzsche would say, a revaluation of values (Jason’s teaching Nietzsche this year).
I’m thinking about writing a more thorough response to the Big Look’s conclusions and recommendations, but am wondering if it’s worth the effort or if anybody’s paying attention.

Energy Watchdog Warns Of Oil-Production Crunch
IEA Official Says Supplies May Plateau Below Expected Demand

By NEIL KING JR. and PETER FRITSCH
Wall Street Journal
May 22, 2008; Page A1

The world’s premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency is in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world’s top 400 oil fields. Its findings won’t be released until November, but the bottom line is already clear: Future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought. …

You are, of course, correct. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. My purpose in posting this analysis was to highlight the magnitude of the changes in behavior we will have to see, even assuming fairly ambitious improvements in technology. I will have to wait until another day to take the next step, as you are already suggesting, of figuring out how to facilitate the needed changes in behavior. For now, the reality is that many in state government who are discussing what Oregon needs to do have not yet fully appreciated just how much behavior will need to change, hence our transportation and land use systems will need to change to facilitate that.

This is a really thoughtful post, and the analytical framework you suggest is clear and useful.

One point that I would make is that our built environment poses serious constraint to changes in behavior. We have a tremendous investment in “hard” infrastructure with long life cycles – our houses, neighborhoods, transportation systems (meaning mostly roads and other auto-supportive infrastructure). Changing behavior wouldn’t be so difficult were we not so locked in to our current land use patterns.

Ever-rising transportation fuel prices as we head down from peak oil should lend momentum to the effort to change behaviors. We need to be thinking about how to change our legal infrastructure – our systems of land use laws and building codes – so as to encourage and enable people to change behaviors as the incentive to do so (i.e., higher and higher fuel prices) compels then to do so.

What you suggest is exactly what we are proposing in Lane County.

We are working on updating our website to include a Goal One Institute page, on which we plan to provide links to the draft documents for projects we are working on. This will offer the opportunity for anyone who is interested to review and comment on drafts as they are being developed. It would also provide samples for people to apply and modify for other jurisdictions.

This is very much a work in progress. For now, I’ll email you the draft.

Full disclosure: I am a part-time hearings officer, on contract to a county and a couple cities. I also represent clients before elected and appointed boards and agencies, and before hearings officers, in cities and counties throughout the state.

I wonder how the idea translates to rural development; do you favor making smaller lot sizes and mixed uses available there, as well?

I’m all for some mixed uses out in my neighborhood. Not so sure about smaller lots, though.

Spatial measurements are regionalized variables only meaningful in the local context at the time they are taken. Relax the planet is fine.

Dunes City on the Coast is an example. While the community adopted the first non-key-facility moratorium, the first septic inspection ord., and the first low-phosphorus ord., it has experienced massive resistance in adopting simple concepts like updated erosion-control ords, or new storm-water ords.

These are relatively simple matters. So imagine the large “push-back” concerning more extensive regulatory measures. (Need I reference Measure 37 and the decision (failure?) of the Legislature to attempt an actual repeal? I imagine this was, in part, based on the “anti-regulatory” rural vote/mentality.)

And “local” media will be sorely tested to clearly explain issues presented at a local level.

So, my personal impression is that state-wide regulatory measures are more viable, with local groups working hard to provide “cover” for innovate state legislative forces willing to lead.

rand dawson
Siltcoos Lake

This is being treated as “pie in the sky” by most media, and most transportation “experts”.

Darn shame, because it holds a lot of promise, as it could help ameliorate the major fight we’re going to have trying to stop sprawl.

The state’s energy planning, as shown in this document, is a joke, but it’s not very funny.

this isnt an issue about rational allocation of public transportation dollars…its a squeeze play…how the public transportation dollar is hijacked to serve mega-corp interests…

or the corollary…how the planning structure is dysfuctional…to the extent there is a structure…(the state has given a grant to these people….my gawd)

rr–