Someone once told me that loyal opponent Todd Litman, of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, thinks of himself as my nemesis. But I don’t want to be a nemesis to Todd. First of all, he is a nice guy. Second, he is pretty analytical; even if I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that he knows his way around a spreadsheet.
If I were to have a nemesis, I would want it to be someone who is really my opposite, someone who relies on exaggeration and over-the-top rhetoric to make his case. Someone like James Howard Kunstler.
Kunstler may be, like Todd, a nice guy. The only evidence I have one way or the other is that he once called me a “complete f**king idiot” on an urban listserv and described one of my papers as being full of “self-evidently silly ideas.”
Nice guy or not, Kunstler can’t be accused of being high on analytical skills (for example, he blames the housing bubble on peak oil). Instead, he bases his opinions on visceral emotion and mythology. He thinks the suburbs are ugly, so they can’t possibly continue for long.
In a recent post on his blog, he reassures his followers that we have reached peak suburbia. “It’s over,” he says. “The remaining things under construction are the last twitchings of a dying organism.”
He bases this, of course, on the peak oil theory, about which he was written an entire book. I’ve already responded to this book, but (as Kunstler’s self-declared nemesis) I have to add a few words in response to his blog.
The key part of his post comes in the third to the last paragraph: “We had better prepare to make other arrangements for living in this country, by which I mean specifically re-localizing, de-globalizing, with an emphasis on local agriculture wherever possible, the emergency restoration of passenger railroad service and related modes of public transit, the rebuilding of local commercial infrastructures, and a radical rethinking of how we inhabit the landscape under New Urbanist lines.”
In other words, energy might get expensive some time in the future. So we should spend billions of dollars now building rail transit, our agricultural system, and other infrastructure, plus heavily regulate everyone’s property to force people to live in high-density housing.
You will have your cash in the opportunity of viagra australia no prescription producing a cost-effective solution for ED. For a short term there can be a feel of typical condition where the blood canadian viagra pharmacy is moving into all the regions of Arizona, Michigan and also Washington. This condition is https://regencygrandenursing.com/life-at-our-facility/accommodations free sample cialis a form of erectile dysfunction (ED). You’ll discover that– especially in this newsgroup– individuals on the USENET system are good at staying on theme compared cheap brand levitra to exactly what you’ll watch in Web forums. This policy is insane. No one, especially not Kunstler, has a crystal ball to see into the future. There are so many other possibilities that we would be stupid to put a huge amount of our resources into this one limited (and in fact unlikely) scenario.
Here are just a few of the other possibilities:
1. Oil doesn’t peak for a century or more. Kunstler and the other peak-oil fearmongers only count 1 trillion barrels of liquid oil in the ground. Yet there are another 4 trillion or more barrels of tar sand oil and oil shales. These are more costly to extract, but those costs are declining. Moreover, the cost of the raw material is only a small portion of the cost of gasoline and other finished products.
2. Oil gets more expensive, but we find substitutes. Kunstler claims “No combination of alternative fuels will allow us to run American life the way we have been used to running it.” His case utterly falls apart if fuel cells, solar, or some other energy source becomes feasible. GM already has a car that can go 200 miles on a fuel cell. Ford says it is about to start making hydrogen-powered shuttle buses.
3. Gasoline gets expensive, but we keep driving anyway. As I’ve previously noted here, most Americans have enough discretionary income that we simply absorb higher gas prices and cut back a little on something else.
4. Gasoline gets expensive, we drive less, but move to the exurbs and telecommute. Kunstler might be right: the suburbs are peaking. But instead of moving from the suburbs back to the cities, lots of people might move further out and rely on UPS and FedEx to deliver the stuff we need. There might not be enough people left in the cities to use the trains we build now, so they’ll scrap them out and turn them into bike paths.
5. Something else. The above four are just the things I can think of, but my crystal ball is no better than Kunstler’s. The most likely outcome will be something that none of us can predict today. But the least likely outcome will be that Americans meekly allow themselves to be herded back to dense cities to ride around on trains that go where someone else allows them to go when someone else allows them to go there.
6. Kunstler is right. Let’s say worse comes to worse and people do stop driving and move back to the cities. Do you think they will want to be stuck with our moderate-capacity rail lines and inefficient housing construction techniques? No, they’ll probably tear everything out and start over anyway. If we worry about solving today’s problems today, and people do decide to drive less and rebuild the cities tomorrow, they’ll have plenty of old highway rights-of-way to build on, so the billions we spend today on rail rights-of-way and primitive transit and housing systems will be wasted anyway.
For the last 50 years, the planners and other authoritarians have taken an increasingly tight grip on America. We can only hope that Americans see through Kunstler’s rants and that this grip is peaking.
First, suppose gas triples to around $8.00 per gal. Doesn’t that pretty much put us where Europe is today? That means we may cut back our driving to Europe’s level of 78% of travel be car. We would probably would also get smaller cars, like the Europeans have.
If gas goes from $2.67/ gal to $8.00/gal, just getting a 60 mpg hybrid fully cancels out the increase (from $2.67) To think society will collapse or seriously change with a tripling of gas price is sheer idiocy, planer style.
More interestingly is that for gas to triple to $8/gal crude would have risen by a bigger factor, perhaps 400-600%. At those levels, huge new supplies will come on line:
1. Tar sands production, already in production, will ramp up as fast as possible. Since it is profitable at today’s levels, at 500% of today’s price, we will effectively be shoveling money to them to ramp up production. Since they will be making a couple hundred dollars per barrel, they WILL respond unless idiot planners stop them.
2. Gas from coal. Again economical at today’s prices. At four times today’s prices this process will be a license to print money. See http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel and http://www.fischer-tropsch.org
3. Worried about CO2? At $3-500/barrel, I’ll bet someone can figure out how to pull CO2out of the air, then just add H2 from H2O and you have methane. Crunch a few of methane molecules together and you get a liquid fuel. Of course the input energy comes from nukes. It is surprising how many so called experts don’t know how to make oil from carbon and water (Hitler ran a war machine on the process).
Then there is the electric car. At $8.00 per gal, those hybrids (above) probably won’t sell unless they have a plug on them so that you can charge them overnight and drive your first 20-30 miles petroleum free. Since this is approaching the average trip length, oil requirements will drop dramatically, especially if you can recharge at work or at the sprawling strip mall.
Huge profits will bring all sorts of energy out of the woodwork, if the free market is allowed to give huge rewards to those who actually do it, instead of trying to mandate fairness by taxing the windfall that will surely result from providing the technology of the future. If allowed to play out, the result will be dramatically more energy efficiency combined with moderate energy cost increase (after the initial bump up) resulting in lower overall driving cost and the ability to live further from the crime riddled, corrupt, overpriced, over regulated city centers. Unfortunately kooks like Kunstler, who appear to want to destroy our way of life, would stand in the way of this path to a higher standard of living, instead, preferring to have society revert to the 1900’s.
Bottom line: The only real thing to fear is planners screwing up the free market.
Thanks
JK
On July 12th, 2007, JimKarlock said:
“…the ability to live further from the crime riddled, corrupt, overpriced, over regulated city centers.”
So, instead of trying to fix the problems in the central cities, you just want to ignore it and move away from them? We’ve been doing that in Michigan for years, and look where it got us. I’m not saying it’s the sole reason for our recession, but when you are trying to attract businesses to an area, they might look at the central city. If they see that we don’t face problems, just move away from them, they could have second thoughts about coming to the region.
This appears to be a good primer on energy economics:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp
Of course,there is no such thing as a free lunch.
If the “energy return on energy invested” (ERORI) is anything less than 3:1, spending your money elsewhere, such as on conservation measures, probably makes a lot more sense than chasing your tail in spending a lot of energy to get small net returns.
For example, the site above claims that the ERORI on tar sands oil production is about 1.5 to 1.0, which is quite poor and hardly worth the effort. If this figure is correct, it makes more sense to build the nuclear plants needed to replace Alberta’s dwindling supply of natural gas currently used in the tar sands extracton process closer to the end consumers of the energy, e.g., producing electricity for North America’s cities rather than in the Northern Albertan wilderness.
msetty, don’t assume technology is constant because it is not. That is why most govt. planning cannot work out. If technology is discovered to make tar sand feasible than so be it, if not then so be it. Why do people that do not invest their own time and money always want “us” to do this or that? “We” should stay out of the way. If you want to invest in tar sands or insulation or hybrid cars you are free to do so anytime via the stock market. If you are right or wrong it won’t affect me.
I must add that “Gridlock Karlock” has been misled by Randal’s numbers, which usually omit information that doesn’t support the argument being made at any given time.
Sure, Karlock, auto travel may make up 78% of total passenger miles in Europe, but this figure is hardly the complete story.
First, total passenger miles traveled in Europe per capita is still considerably below the level in the U.S. But more to the point, auto travel in most European countries is still less than 60% of total trips, compared to around 90% in the U.S.
Second, transit typically carries 10% to 20% of urban area trips in Europe vs. 2% in the U.S., and walking/bicycling anywhere from 30% to 50% compared to 5%-7% here, tghe exact level depending on the country (in the Netherland, bicycling accounts for more than 30% of all trips).
High gasoline taxes are part of this, but overall densities are higher, even in the suburbs. European suburbs are typically built at two to three times the U.S. suburban average, even those areas where single-family housing predominates. While auto usage is high, transit, walking and bicycling is still significant, at a level an order of magnitude better than the U.S.
I’d expect U.S. habits with $8.00 or $10.00 gasoline to converge with the practices in Europe. As for a massive evacuation to exurbs with Internet access, the residents would still demand some sort of fast non-automotive connection to other places, e.g., electrified intercity rail or frequent bus service.
Living in “true” exurbias or suburbanized rural areas, for example, such as the Matanuska Valley 60-90 minutes outside Anchorage, Alaska, will still demand that pickup truck, even if it is a diesel pluggable hybrid (I don’t see how a 3/4 ton truck could be made to get better mileage than 30 mpg). The 20,000+/- daily commuters from there to Anchorage is certainly a travel market large enough to justify electrified regional rail along the Alaska Railroad, assuming such a project is planned correctly (not that they have any clues how to do it correctly, not yet, anyway).
In my version of Kunstler’s End of Suburbia, I think most people could still have their precious single family houses without living in high rise apartments. Future development should resemble traditionally American railroad/streetcar suburbs with walkable grid street patterns and most houses less than a mile of a rail station or steetcar stop, with the higher density multiple units adjacent to the transit stops–for the people who need or want them. I for one won’t miss the increasingly obsolete cul-de-sac/big boxes on the arterials pattern with mostly inaccessible, infrequent bus service on the arterials only.
“John Galt”:
Please keep in mind that I understand “libertarian principles” ad nauseum, but violently disagree with them.
You obviously misunderstand the concept of EROEI, which is a physical/ecological concept, to which economics is subservient (as economics is also subservient to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, even if Randall doesn’t get this).
Clearly. technology is not stagnant and in some cases, can increase the efficiency of many industrial and mining processes. But if a process still requires 1.0 unit of total energy to get out 1.5 units of energy from tar sands, you’re still far better off, both ecologically and economically, spending the investment somewhere else with a better EROEI, such as conservation, wind turbines or solar, or nuclear electricity close to end users.
I seriously doubt that tar sands will live up to the hype, particularly if this society adopts “taxing waste, not labor” as an organizing principle. Presuming that the mitigation costs of the water, air and land restoration problems presented by tar sands development are internalized into the price paid for the end product, the net EROEI will not change, and probably would get much worse.
There’s currently an ARG that is exploring American society’s possible response to coming peak oil. Seems we’re changing our habits.
I’m going into semiretirement in ~10 years and plan on having a consultancy that will teach suburbanites how to garden to replace some grocery trips.
DS
Trumbull said: So, instead of trying to fix the problems in the central cities, you just want to ignore it and move away from them?
JK: Yep. Big, dense cities have been becoming more and more obsolete for almost a century now. They are no longer employment centers, they are no longer shopping centers they are full of corruption and they are very expensive. What is worth preserving except old the archetecture?
Lets move on to a new frontier of new city forms designed for the way people want to live, not designed by some idiot planner to satisfy his desire for society to go back to the middle ages.
Trumbull said: We’ve been doing that in Michigan for years, and look where it got us.
JK: Happy people in the burbs?
Trumbull said: I’m not saying it’s the sole reason for our recession,
JK: they why bring it up?
Trumbull said: but when you are trying to attract businesses to an area, they might look at the central city.
JK: Might? Or they might look for thriving burbs to move to. Unless, of course they are over priced and over regulated – then they might look for less cost and less regulation. Perhaps to the South?
Trumbull said: If they see that we don’t face problems, just move away from them, they could have second thoughts about coming to the region.
JK: Might? Or they might not?
Thanks
JK
msetty said: I must add that “Gridlock Karlock†has been misled by Randal’s numbers, which usually omit information that doesn’t support the argument being made at any given time.
JK: Always nice to see you start with an ad hominem. That shows your lack of ability to attack the facts.
msetty said: Sure, Karlock, auto travel may make up 78% of total passenger miles in Europe, but this figure is hardly the complete story.
JK: Well, that 78% is up from 76%, 20 years age. And 78.3% doesn’t leave a lot of room for other modes.
msetty said: First, total passenger miles traveled in Europe per capita is still considerably below the level in the U.S.
JK: Please show a source.
msetty said: But more to the point, auto travel in most European countries is still less than 60% of total trips, compared to around 90% in the U.S.
JK: Please show a source. Trips don’t rally count. It is milage that consumes energy and conquers distance. Trips are merely a visit to a neighbor 50 feet away. So what?
msetty said: Second, transit typically carries 10% to 20% of urban area trips in Europe vs. 2% in the U.S.,
JK: Looks more like 10% to me with rail (presumably intercity & urban) bringing it up to 15%. Once again trips don’t count, only passenger-miles count. OOPS, almost forgot to mention that transit is losing market share big time: Rail = -23%, Bus&Coach = -27%, Tram & Metro = -21.4%
msetty said: and walking/bicycling anywhere from 30% to 50% compared to 5%-7% here, tghe exact level depending on the country (in the Netherland, bicycling accounts for more than 30% of all trips).
JK:
1) Please show a source.
2) Just shows their lower standard of living.
3) Are those modes increasing or decreasing?
msetty said: High gasoline taxes are part of this, but overall densities are higher, even in the suburbs. European suburbs are typically built at two to three times the U.S. suburban average, even those areas where single-family housing predominates.
JK: Please show a source. Also again shows their lower standard of living.
msetty said: While auto usage is high, transit, walking and bicycling is still significant, at a level an order of magnitude better than the U.S.
JK: Just another indicator of their lower income and bad government tax policies on energy.
msetty said: I’d expect U.S. habits with $8.00 or $10.00 gasoline to converge with the practices in Europe.
JK: They are already converging – have been for years: the Europeans are driving more like us, and using transit less, like us. As to $8-$10 gas – did you learn nothing from my original post? The effect will be only a temporary shock if the rate of price increase is high. In any case the ultimate result will be lower cost driving and a higher standard of living. Unless the planners screw it all up like they have done so many times in the past.
msetty said: the residents would still demand some sort of fast non-automotive connection to other places, e.g., electrified intercity rail or frequent bus service.
JK: Why? Who needs or wants it? Further if there is a real need, the users should pay for it, like the users pay for roads.
msetty said: Living in “true†exurbias or suburbanized rural areas, for example, such as the Matanuska Valley 60-90 minutes outside Anchorage, Alaska, will still demand that pickup truck, even if it is a diesel pluggable hybrid (I don’t see how a 3/4 ton truck could be made to get better mileage than 30 mpg).
JK: Of course, that touches on the basic problem with the planning mentality: if a planner can’t see how to solve a problem, it must be the case that it can’t be solved – so the planner decides to re-arrange society in the medieval model.
msetty said: The 20,000+/- daily commuters from there to Anchorage is certainly a travel market large enough to justify electrified regional rail along the Alaska Railroad, assuming such a project is planned correctly
JK: Then, I’m sure the users will be happy to pay for it without expecting welfare from other taxpayers.
msetty said: In my version of Kunstler’s End of Suburbia, I think most people could still have their precious single family houses without living in high rise apartments. Future development should resemble traditionally American railroad/streetcar suburbs with walkable grid street patterns and most houses less than a mile of a rail station or steetcar stop, with the higher density multiple units adjacent to the transit stops–for the people who need or want them.
JK: Have you ever considered letting people be free?
msetty said: I for one won’t miss the increasingly obsolete cul-de-sac/big boxes on the arterials pattern with mostly inaccessible, infrequent bus service on the arterials only.
JK:
What is wrong with cul-de-sacs – they have much lower crime rates than grids?
What is wrong with the efficiency of scale that big boxes bring?
Who need bus service when driving is cheaper and more energy efficient? Why not give cars to people who cannot afford them and taxi vouchers to the low income that cannot drive?
Thanks
JK
jim: Our present way of life is unsustainable, to say that this can go on forever is sheer madness. We consume 25% of the world’s oil, just 300 million people! China, with its 1.3 billion people doesn’t consume anywhere near as much as we do, nor does India. If everybody in the world wanted to live like us, we’d need 5 or more planet earths in terms of resources, oil and otherwise.
Suburbia as we know it is inefficient. It increases infrastructure costs as well as those of services such as fire, police, education, etc. If for example, if a gallon of gas became $10 tomorrow, people are going to start complaining about the lifestyle that we have allowed ourselves to get into. A polluting, wasteful lifestyle.
Material society has its limits, and those limits are going to be coming to a head soon.
Karlock:
TRIPS COUNT. Sorry if this irrefutable fact conflicts with your ideology.
If someone can make a shopping trip by walking three blocks to the corner bank, dry cleaners or deli, as opposed to driving 3-5 miles across town to widely separated locations by automobile, then a three-block walk is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to much longer, resource-intensive, resource-wasting multi-stop trip by automobile. See my post here for a fuller explanation (actually, this is for readers of this blog rather than Karlock, since I doubt he’ll get it).
If you don’t get this logic, you’re a hopeless ideologue and there is no point in discussing these things with you (but I already knew that.)
For the record, Switzerland is the richest country in Europe, and has the highest rate of combined rail and transit use at 17% of passenger miles. Trips by auto are only 45% of all trips in that country. By most accounts, Switzerland has the best overall rail and transit network on the planet. And the rail/transit share of trips and passenger miles has been relatively stable during the past two decades.
Google the sources on your own, Karlock. I’m not going to write an academic treatise for every comment on a blog; I’ve already done plenty of that for the various analyses I’ve done for the publictransit.us website (and will be again when I have UNPAID time to get them reposted–and I will gladly send you copies of these documents that illustrate, among other things, (1) people strongly prefer rail to buses, and (2) plenty of evidence regarding the minimum thresholds where rail is justified.
Every fact I quoted is available online at one place or another. Perhaps you could start with the amazingly complete statistics compiled by the Swiss government. If you don’t know how to Google Swiss statistics, too bad.
Ed said: jim: Our present way of life is unsustainable, to say that this can go on forever is sheer madness.
JK: Is it? Prove it.
Ed said: We consume 25% of the world’s oil, just 300 million people! China, with its 1.3 billion people doesn’t consume anywhere near as much as we do, nor does India.
JK: And your solution is to have us revert to third world standards? Did you completely ignore my post as th how we will make as much oil as we need? That’s what I like about planners – they have no ideas except revert society back a few hundred years because they have no foresight.
Ed said: If everybody in the world wanted to live like us, we’d need 5 or more planet earths in terms of resources, oil and otherwise.
JK: Lets consider what you might have said in the year 1800: If everyone suddenly consumed ten times what they do now and there are ten times as many of us, it will require 100 earths to support them. Hingsight shows that this would have been sheer idiocy, but that is what you just said. You are denying the probability that man is smart.
Here is a little example of how we are constantly making more planet earths: In the earliest times, man picked up minerals from the surface. His usage of material was limited to a the top few inches of the earth. Later mines went down a few hundred feet. The steam engine was inverted to provide air for deeper mines. Recently an oil well (that just happened to double the USA known reserves) went down several miles. As technology improved we thickened the usable surface of the earth from a few feet to a few miles. We effectively multiplied the earth. We have many more miles to go. Planners never think of things like this – they just do a linear extrapolation of consumption, assume a constant supply and tell the world that the sky is falling.
Ed said: Suburbia as we know it is inefficient.
JK: Prove it with some real data.
Ed said: It increases infrastructure costs
JK: Prove it with some real data. You are wrong on the cost of housing – housing is cheaper in low density. See http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
Ed said: as well as those of services such as fire, police, education, etc.
JK: Prove it with some real data. Taxes tend to be lower in the burbs – that is hint that you are wrong.
Ed said: If for example, if a gallon of gas became $10 tomorrow, people are going to start complaining about the lifestyle that we have allowed ourselves to get into.
JK: No they won’t – they’ll just get hybrids that get three times the gas milage and $10 gas effectively becomes $3.33. Add in a plug in option for that hybrid and driving costs will go down. The only thing that will stop this is if the planers / politicians screw it up.
Ed said: A polluting, wasteful lifestyle.
JK: Prove it with some real data.
Ed said: Material society has its limits, and those limits are going to be coming to a head soon.
JK: Pure speculation and lack of understanding man’s progress, probably combined with a bit of wishful thinking.
Thanks
JK
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9430924&CFID=10533970&CFTOKEN=46857255
In my view, some compose long comments in order to create ‘comment spam’ that serves to deter folks from reading comments. Engaging folks who think WV is the dominant GHG is like hitting your head against a skyscraper to get it to move out of your way – IOW, pointless, and it makes the comment thread more likely to be unreadable, which is the point for some.
DS
“What is wrong with cul-de-sacs – they have much lower crime rates than grids?”
Could you please provide a source.
If someone can make a shopping trip by walking three blocks to the corner bank, dry cleaners or deli, as opposed to driving 3-5 miles across town to widely separated locations by automobile, then a three-block walk is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to much longer, resource-intensive, resource-wasting multi-stop trip by automobile.
Yes.
Randal likes to cite Glaeser, so I’ll use him to say Glaeser and Kahn state the bleedingly obvious that sprawling MSAs have more trips and more vehicle trips under a mile (this is important for the false argument elsewhere on this site about sprawl and GHG emissions).
We also know the corollary, that density means fewer trips and fewer VMT, despite certain ideologues stating otherwise with their silly graphs.
DS
As Karlock said, economic growth–fueled by cheap and once abundant oil in particular–indeed has generated “five earths” along with the pollution load that his economic “five earths” generates.
The fundamental problem the planet faces boils down to two things:
(1) Available oil-e.g., HIGHLY CONCENTRATED ENERGY–that can be extracted easily is quickly being burned up, and developing substitutes is going to be much harder and far more expensive than simply expanding oil production in Saudi Arabia (the factor that “bailed us out” of the energy dilemma 1980-2000+/-), and
(2) Increasingly, the one earth that exists is less able to absorb the increasing pollution load and strain on various ecosystems that economic growth to “five earths” is putting on it.
Given the short-term outlook of the “market” and the fact that the “rules” of the “market” are based in law (e.g., “gummit”, it will take a lot more than the “market” to solve these problems.
msetty Given the short-term outlook of the “market†and the fact that the “rules†of the “market†are based in law (e.g., “gummitâ€Â, it will take a lot more than the “market†to solve these problems.
JK: And here is the planner with a bag full of dictates to save the world.
No thanks it was already tried and just got a lot of people killed:
Russia 190x
Germany 1930s
China 1949(?)
What is your problem with freedom (aside from the fact that you picture yourself on the dictating side)?
Thanks
JK
Trumbull said: (quoting JK) “What is wrong with cul-de-sacs – they have much lower crime rates than grids?â€Â
Could you please provide a source.
JK:
Sure. This is another of those little details that seems to be beyond planner’s ability to grasp:
As regards permeability, police architectural liaison officers will generally seek a legible and coherent movement network, beyond which the greatest gains are made by reducing, as far as is reasonably possible, the number of dwellings on through-routes.
By PETER KNOWLES, Force Architectural Liaison Officer, Bedfordshire police, uk
Available from: americandreamcoalition.org/safety/policingnu/policingnu.html
Here is another:
Burras Road was a pleasant cul-de-sac of 21 new homes in Bradford, England. Its residents were blissfully unaware that, just east of the site, approval for a proposed new shopping center required the breaching of their cul-de-sac by a bicycle-pedestrian path.
Planners favored this requirement because, they say, cul-de-sacs do not encourage movement and
therefore are “auto-dependent” and “anti-urban.” Opening up the site would connect residents to local services, and the path would promote walking and cycling.
The path connecting the shopping center to the cul-de-sac opened in 2000. Although there is no evidence
that the path has led residents to drive less, it did have a profound effect on their lives. During the next six months, a neighborhood that had been virtually crime-free saw its burglary rate rise to 14 times the national rate, with matching increases in overall crime, including arson, assault, and antisocial behavior.
Because a secondary school was located west of the cul-de-sac, the pedestrian path opened the neighborhood to a constant stream of students and others going between the school and the shopping center. Crime and vandalism became commonplace. “The path turned our piece of paradise into a living hell,” one resident complained.
By Stephen Town, Architectural Liaison Officer, West Yorkshire Police.
Available from: reason.com/contrib/show/301.xml
Thanks
JK
Dan In my view, some compose long comments in order to create ‘comment spam’ that serves to deter folks from reading comments.
JK: Long, detailed posts are needed to counter all of the absolute crap that planners believe. A good example is WV below:
Dan Engaging folks who think WV is the dominant GHG is like hitting your head against a skyscraper to get it to move out of your way
JK: That comment shows both a planner’s lack of knowledge and arrogance.
The fact is that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. Even Al Gore’s science advisor acknowledges it:
from a web site advised by Mann, the inventor of Al Gore’s hockey stick. RealClimate.org calls itself “Climate science from climate scientistsâ€Â. Its list of scientists includes Michael E. Mann, the creator of the hockey stick temperature curve that Al Gore made famous. (realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10)
From Real climate: (bold added):
In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal).
. . . it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%,
. . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
There you have it Dan, WV is more important than CO2. Where is Al Gore’s outage about water valor? Oh, I’ll bet he realized can’t control WV (if he even bothered to look that deeply before he went on his religous crusade to put the world back in the middle ages while lining his pockets at the same time.)
Then there is the little detail that FIRST the temperature goes up, THEN CO2 goes up!
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
…All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
Why don’t you open you eyes to the word around you instead of insulting those that are in touch with the real world.
Thanks
JK
I just found this:
8.16 The 1998 British Crime Survey (Budd 1999, table A.3.6 p51) shows cul-de-sacs to be
least at risk from successful burglaries. More recent research by Rachel Armitage
supports this, suggesting that ‘Closed’ cul-de-sacs are at lower risk of victimisation.
8.17 The principle reason that cul-de-sacs offer high levels of security falls back to the
principle of ‘defensible space’. Criminals benefi t from anonymity, they do not like
being seen or standing out, and for a stranger to walk into a cul-de-sac for no other
purpose than to look around and walk back out again makes them highly
conspicuous and considerably increases the risk of detection. They also impede the
offenders search behaviour and restrict the options for escape.
8.18 These benefi ts will be compromised by the introduction of a pedestrian thoroughfare
into the design, creating a ‘leaking’ cul-de-sac. Every effort should be made to ensure
that the cul-de-sacs are ‘closed’ without other pedestrian connections. (Bold added)
John Tumelty, Community Safety Design Offi cer,
http://www.cardiffcommunitysafety.co.uk/docs/As%20Safe%20As%20Houses.%20Final.pdf
Thanks
JK
As a college student 50 years ago we were taught we had a 10 year supply of oil left. Now it is 40 to 100 years. What will it be 50 years from now???
RE: Realclimate.org
Gee, G.K., if it wasn’t for the “greenhouse effect” per se, this would be the “Ice Planet Hoth” or worse, e.g., like in The Empire Strikes Back..
Unlike the Ignoramus With Attitude ™ who cherrypicks his facts and ignores everything else that contradicts his economic/religious beliefs, I actually have read through most of the basic material on http://www.realclimate.org.
Here is what that they are currently saying about another standard fallback of the anthropogenic warming deniers:
Friday roundup
Filed under:
* Climate Science
 group @ 2:36 pm
An eclectic round-up of the week’s climate science happenings (and an effort to keep specific threads clear of clutter).
It’s the sun! (not)
As regular readers here will know, the big problem for blaming the sun for the recent global warming is that there hasn’t been a trend in any index of solar activity since about 1960, and that includes direct measurements of solar output by satellites since 1979. Well, another paper, has come out saying exactly the same thing. This is notable because the lead author Mike Lockwood has worked extensively on solar physics and effects on climate and certainly can’t be credibly accused of wanting to minimise the role of solar forcing for nefarious pro-CO2 reasons!
Stefan was quoted in Nature as saying this is the ‘last nail in the coffin’ for solar enthusiasts, but a better rejoinder is a statement from Ray P: “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
TGGWS Redux
The still-excruciating ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ got another outing in Australia this week. The heavily edited ‘new’ version dumped some of the obviously fake stuff that was used the first time around, and edited out the misleading segment with Carl Wunsch. There is some amusing feedback in the post-show discussion panel and interview (via DeSmogBlog).
http://www.realclimate.org.
msetty said: RE: Realclimate.org
Gee, G.K., if it wasn’t for the “greenhouse effect†per se, this would be the “Ice Planet Hoth†or worse, e.g., like in The Empire Strikes Back..
JK: Well, Duh – you just learning that?
Now learn about the H2O cooling cycle and how it is, in effect, a temperature regulator that sets a loose upper limit on the Earth’s temperature. Makes man caused warming via CO2 look ridiculous.
msetty said: Unlike the Ignoramus With Attitude â„¢ who cherrypicks his facts and ignores everything else that contradicts his economic/religious beliefs
JK: Ah, another ad hominem – a sure sign you are out of rational arguments.
msetty said: , I actually have read through most of the basic material on http://www.realclimate.org.
JK: Now I’ll engage in a little ad-webium:
1. Did you know that realclimate.org. is run for Dr. Mann, Al Gore’s “science†adviser, and creator of the hockey stick?
2. Did realclimate.org. tell you that Mann didn’t even get the name right of the statistical method he used in his paper in which he created the hockey stick? (Wegman report)
3. Did realclimate.org. tell you that the National Acadamy of Sciences report confirmed that if one removes bristle cone pines, which were well known to be unreliable temperature indicators (so why were thy used in the first place?), his famous hockey stick dissolves into random noise? (NAS Report)
4. Did realclimate.org. tell you that if Mann had used proper statistical techniques, the hockey stick would disappear? (Wegman report/NAS Report)
5. Did realclimate.org. tell you that the fundamental accusations made by climateaudit.org were substantiated by the NAS report and the Wegman report. (Did you bother to brouse climateaudit.org?)
In short, it appears that, you have been taken by a fraud.
You probably just spent a little time reading Al Gore Garbage and decided it sounded right, so it must be true. That is typical of planners. What you need to do is use these web sites for links to good quality journals and be sure to check opposing papers – something you probably didn’t bother to do.
Did realclimate.org tell you that:
* Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods. (NAS report)
I’ll translate the above for you: We cannot know if today’s temperatures are unusual because we simply don’t know much about temperature more that 1100 years back (a few seconds on a geological scale)
I’ll leave you with a few quotes, starting with one from that poor persecuted Hansen:
1. Jim Hansen
He wrote this at Natural Science, Can we defuse the global warming time bomb?
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.
( from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added)
In other words it is ok to lie to get your attention, but I am telling the truth now. GIVE ME A BREAK!!
2. Al Gore:
Grist: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
AlGore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
(From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)
3. Stephen Schneider:
Of course he is right at home with the editor of the journal “Climate Changeâ€Â:
Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. This `double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47
Refrences:
The NAS report is at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
The Wegman report is at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/Wegman.pdf
(Be sure th check Wegman’s bio – he was president of the NAS statistical group.)
Additional links: climateaudit.org junkscience.com co2science.org
Thanks
JK
BTW “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is really good, rings true and along with the NAS & Wegman reports, is probably the beginning of the end of Al Gore’s climate swindle.
Thanks
JK
I almost forget to mention Lockwood:
It appears that he got the 11 year and 22 year cycles of the sun mucked up and was thus confused by a reversal of effect that wasn’t really there.
So his fundamental conclusion is fatally flawed, otherwise he spins a good tale.
Thanks
JK
JK: Oh, look what just came in – Global cooling has begun – time to start making more CO2(if you believe that crap)!!!:
Rare Snow in Buenos Aires, Argentina
* Large Images: Terra MODIS, 10:55 a.m. (13:55 UTC) (4.37 MB JPG)
* Aqua MODIS, 3:10 p.m. (18:10 UTC) (4.67 MB JPG)
For the first time since 1918, snow fell in Buenos Aires, Argentina, late on July 9, 2007, reported the Associated Press. The snow was still there the next morning when the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) flew over on NASA’s Terra satellite at 10:55 a.m. local time. This false-color image, made with a combination of infrared and visible light, reveals the snow beneath the clouds that still hang over the coast. In this image, snow is pale turquoise blue, while clouds are lighter blue and white. Not only does the snow blanket Buenos Aires, but it also covers a broad section of the highlands to the west.
See: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=14370
Thanks
JK
G.K., here’s three questions for you to test your real knowledge and objectivity on global warming and science in general.
The so-called “Gaia” theory was brought forward and developed by British scientist James Lovelock in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
1. Is “Gaia” a theory or religion?
2. What does Lovelock currently believe about “Gaia”?
3. What does Lovelock believe might be an essential solution to the global warming problem, which he says he also strongly fears that it may already be “too late” to do anything about?
Boy if there’s a better representation of how much better off we are than Europe than that “square feet” per person graph, I’d like to see it!
rotten said
Boy if there’s a better representation of how much better off we are than Europe than that “square feet†per person graph, I’d like to see it!
JK: What graph? I’d love to include it at debunkingportland.com
Thanks
JK
msetty said:
G.K., here’s three questions for you to test your real knowledge and objectivity on global warming and science in general.
The so-called “Gaia†theory was brought forward and developed by British scientist James Lovelock in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
1. Is “Gaia†a theory or religion?
JK: Neither, it is a hypophysis. The difference is that there is a large body of evidence to support a theory.
msetty said: 2. What does Lovelock currently believe about “Gaia�
JK: That question makes it sound like a religion with screwy beliefs
msetty said: 3. What does Lovelock believe might be an essential solution to the global warming problem, which he says he also strongly fears that it may already be “too late†to do anything about?
JK: Now he reveals himself as a fool who has been listening to Al Gore too much.
Maybe you don’t realize how foolish you sound in view of some known facts:
1) We have no proof that recent times are the warmest in history.
2) Climate is very variable historically.
3) We are relying on surface temperature records that are of dubious reliability.
4) Antarctic ice is growing (not shrinking like Al Gore lied.)
5) Surface temperature has leveled out in the last few years. CO2 has not, casting doubt on the link.
6) CO2 is well known to FOLLOW, NOT LEAD temperature rise in the antarctic ice cores. (Contrary to AL Gore’s lie)
7) There is excellent correlation between solar activity and earth’s temperature.
Why don’t you try answering these questions. Then you can quit worrying about global warming:
What is the most significant greenhouse gas (in terms of warming effect)?
How much of the total greenhouse effect is due to CO2?
How much of the total annual CO2 emission is man caused?
According to the Anaretic ice cores, which comes first: rise in temperature or rise in CO2?
When will the ice finally uncover all of those medieval Viking farms that are still buried under ice on Greenland
Get back to me when the ice uncovers all of those Viking farms in Greenland.
Thanks
JK
G.K.
You flunk. Just as I expected. I don’t need to answer your pointless trivia questions because real scientists like Dr. Mann already have, and in spades. So save your cut and paste typing and give up on your stupid questioning.
You obviously know nothing substantive about the Gaia theory and I guess have never read anything beyond untrustworthy websites and their a priori ideological viewpoints.
For the record, James Lovelock believes (1) that his theory, not hypothesis, has been hijacked and provides a basis for wacky religions, for example, the likes of the weirdos (“Church of Deep Ecology”) I referenced in my latest comment on Randal’s previous post.
And (2) Lovelock thinks a crash program for nuclear power may be one of the only things that save us from “The Revenge of Gaia” (e.g., the planet adapting to the pollution and other garbage the human species has thrown at it in the last two centuries), but he’s also afraid that it may already be too late to save ourselves from the natural corrections that are coming, e.g., sudden sea level rise, sudden catastrophic climatic shifts in rainfall patterns, more intense storms, and a host of other impacts.
I certainly hope that Lovelock is wrong in his fears, but I’m willing to take his word as a bonified scientists over the ravings of a “too certain” ideologically-motivated “true believer” like you.
What proof of”Viking farms under the Greenland icecap” do YOU have? URL, please, or better yet, a verifiable, credible scientific source. Oh, I forgot, no one can tell the Viking farms are there, because they’re under the icecap!
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/.
Hey, Ignaramus With Attitude â„¢, it was the “Farm Under the SAND†NOT the “Farm Under the Icecap!â€Â
Sheeeezzz….
Some background on James Lovelock here.
msetty said: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/.
JK: As I said before, and you ignored as planners tend to do:
Get back to me when the ice uncovers those viking farms and perhaps that forrest at the bottom of the glacier. The we can talk about whether today’s weather is unusual.
Thanks
JK
Mike:
The EPA sez to regulate GHGs, states are regulating GHGs, CAFE standards are enacted, green buildings are being built, solar tiles are being deployed, CFLs and LEDs are accepted, wind, etc are accepted and implemented and invested in by society.
Non-lunatic fringe society is already acting. Debating man-made climate change with the denialist fringe is like arguing whether it rained whether it rained yesterday. The ship has sailed and few are ‘debating’ these things any more and those that do are simply left behind. Save your breath, Mike.
DS
Dan:
Here is the pithy aphorism at the end of my email
.sig:
He that wrestles with us strengthens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
— Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Sport, my friend, sport. Wrestling with G.K. simply is practice against a walking, talking object lesson in the most common logical fallacies. Besides, when he pops his cork online, Jim is very entertaining, as is argument with UFO enthusiasts, Scientologists, Larouchies, as well as garden variety Libertarians and die-hard neo-conservative Republicans. Randal is a tough opponent, but not nearly as entertaining as G.K.
As for the cheap shot on the other thread that Randal’s posts at times gather a lot of comments, well, he’s a well-known figure in the planning and transportation fields, thus a lightening rod. The other point is that generating traffic on a blog means keeping it updated and topical, which is a lot harder than some people apparently think, particularly when one has to make a living and has suffered from computer crashes and logistical problems in rebuilding the stuff that was wiped out on the earlier, better version of http://www.publictransit.us.
Michael:
sometimes you see the well-meaning try repeatedly to convince the nutters. + there’s the inadvertent problem I outlined in #14. But there’s a lot to be said for amusement value.
Regards,
DS
“Non-lunatic fringe society is already acting. Debating man-made climate change with the denialist fringe is like arguing whether it rained whether it rained yesterday. The ship has sailed and few are ‘debating’ these things any more and those that do are simply left behind. Save your breath”
Is this in some kind of left-wing talking points? It seems like one of those lies that if told enough times will be taken as the truth.
Are you claiming, johng, that most first-world governments and many developing countries are not acting?
That is, acting despite the small% of denialists who claim nothing is wrong? If this is your claim (that governments [i.e. societies] are not acting), how do you explain the myriad of adaptation-mitigation-trading programs? If this is not your claim, what is your point?
DS
Pingback: Adolfo Rufener