What does 350 world look like?

Bill Fulton asks: So what’s the Carbon-Free Futurama? Can you really create a compelling alternative vision for the future that’s about walking and bicycling and golf cart type vehicles and so forth.

In Global Cooling from the Urban Land Institute the answer is compact development. More below.

But doesn't Bill McKibben's most important number on the planet gives us a hint? Its us in 1960. Kennedy on the campaign trail. The planets population at 3B. And consumption rates staying at the nutty levels of the 1950s after being amortized over the planet's population. Houses were a 900 sq ft with large families and people were just beginning to build 1200-1600 sq ft monster homes for the nuclear family.

But it this isn't as bad as it sounds at least for 1950. The cold war and resource predation was just round the corner. People lived in sustainable villages in the third world that were the preferred destination of Americans. Then came the resource wars between communist and capitalist proxies that drove these lifestyles out of existence and by the 70's connected them up with the new roads that symbolized development. That's not an eden we can go back to now.

But high gas prices are forcing a new relationship to the road and the role of cities. People are resourceful and adaptive. The Venezuelans and Saudis must see the benefit of forcing the established power structures to adapt to really high gas prices, $20-$50/- per gallon, so that people can use their resources to better ends. Compact development where all services are located within an 1/8 of a mile or a 1/4 mile are a type of city that used to exist on the Peninsula and were connected by the UP train now Caltrain. We need to move beyond resource consumption because the economics are taking us to a new level.

How resource intensive are we now? Californians consumed: 15.67 billion gallons of gasoline last year, about 1 percent less than in 2006. Demand during 2006 dropped to 15.83 billion gallons from 15.94 billion in 2005, the first decline in 14 years. Diesel fuel use fell 7.8 percent in April from a year earlier, the agency said. Consumption was down 4.7 percent from March.
The decrease "reflects both the impacts of higher diesel prices and the slowing economy, which is associated with less freight movement on California roads and highways," the agency said. California drivers used 1.257 billion gallons of gasoline in April, down 2.2 percent from a year earlier and the lowest for the month since 2001, California State Board of Equalization said. Consumption was down 52 million gallons, or 4 percent, from March.

Phillip Lagdon writes: Defenders of sprawl — and they have been legion — failed to see what was coming. Sprawl’s defenders insisted that no matter how many flaws might be ascribed to dispersed, low-density development, a large number of Americans like it, so it will just keep on growing. James Howard Kunstler was much more prescient. He repeatedly said and wrote, in his thundering cadence, that it doesn’t matter if people like it. If you can’t afford it any more, the energy-intensive style of life doesn’t have a future.

Read more >> Options >>

Compact development versus high flow users

We know compact development is sustainable versus the resource intensive development we have today that has resulted in peak everything. When we look at high flow users what models can we demonstrate. Garbage and water and good places to start.

There are four houses on my east west running considerably sloped street-block. On the south side are me and an elderly neighbor. Four in our household one in hers. We both put out twenty gallon garbage cans that are mostly empty. Today was only garbage day. Next week on an alternating schedule is recycling day.

Across the street on the north side there are two houses also. The westerly house has six, four small children and the parents, and use the 32 gallon trash can. The easterly house has two residents both retired and use a 20 gallon trash can.

The trash company sends out a huge biodiesel powered garbage truck. The truck has powered arms shaped like a fork which can pick up and empty a 32 gallon can. The two operators know the street and pick up the trash from the upslope or westerly side. They split the job. One guy has a 64 gallon can on wheels which he walks down the hill. He picks up the two 20 gallons and toss them into his 64 then crosses the street and gets the 20 gallon of the retires. His 64 gallon can is still not full so he continues onto the next block.

The other operator runs the truck and picks up the 32 gallon trash can across the streets. After he unloads the can he gets back in the truck and drives off after his partner. I assume they empty the walking can out after five or six houses.

I suppose in our lower rates for 20 gallon or ten gallon cans its possible to see a benefit from the efficiencies that a walking infrastructure offers the garbage company. However we don't live in a compact development for obvious reasons- one in four residents requires a big massive truck. That truck requires a big massive road which requires resurfacing every ten years and a big massive public works department. And as you add up the associated needs in water and sewer and power and food and its eventual demise in the garbage truck and sewer its possible to see that the infrastructure needs for the few large "wealthy" high flow users determine the public cost amortized over everyone. Charging for garbage by weight and sewer by volume and adjusting the costs for the increased infrastructure can reduce consumption.

Requirements for compact developments and great neighborhoods could put surcharges to ensure compliance with a compact infrastructure designed on sustainable costs.

Next week I'll take a video and show it at the city council.

Eye on the prize

Eduardo Galeano in Upside Down lays out the case for the rapacious consumption of resources by they corporations and politics which brings to the unsustainable state of peak everything with a planet where life itself is imperiled. But politics won't address peak anything even when the benefits are clear.

Higher gas prices have reduced revenue for road widening, reduced VMT, reduced gas consumption, lowered fatalities, raised public transit usage, reduced pollution, etc. For years public officials were trying to raise public transit usage - now the buses and trains are running full and capacity is an issue. The Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance reported at the Belmont Green Advisory Committee that all their last mile shuttles are running full. When will policy makers stop moaning and start cheering a ladder for $20/gallon along with some minor TDM strategies?

The GAC has asked for a 20 mph city that would enable NEV- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, they max out at 25 mph, reduce pollution, enable hybrids to run on their electric motor, make the environment safe for walking and bicycling the two sustainable transport modes, and reduce danger to children, seniors, and pets/wild animals. Most streets today are 25 mph or less so that change the speed environment much. The few arterials like Ralston (25-40 but with schools and neighborhoods needing 20 -25), El Camino (35), and Alameda (25) within the city would show marginal changes. However teh difference for walkers and bicyclists would be immense. And the attitude of drivers on side streets like Monserat and Folger which could use 15mph are posted at 25 and get speeds in excess would be the main benefit.

Building local distributed power for water, sewer, and electricity with solar panels would also significantly the infrastructure load of cities. Wind can then be used to fill reservoirs near citeis which can run hydro at night when the wind is not blowing and recharge the NEVs.

Alternate thinking for significant resource consumption declines face daunting tasks as wind demonstrates. Coal and nuclear lures despite clear liability in pollution, waste, and liability and continue to enjoy subsidies which lower the cost of power delivery because the problems are exported to poorer areas (also documented in Upside Down.) The only bright line is that rising prices cause subsidies to exert a bigger force on the market in reduced subsidy or taxed areas.

Ignorant development of water, timber and land have lead to this unsustainable consumption state. Some universities are working to correct this with programs that involve a new approach to day-to-day living, and the reappraisal of the existing infrastructure to achieve genuine change and keep sight of where we need to go.

325? What global new deal?

McKibben says 350 Hansen says 325. Where do we stand?

We stand on the edge driven by the winds of climate change, resource depletion/peak everything, and the particular- at present beneficial- forces of one peaking resource- oil. Climate Change really doesn’t capture the problem- acidification of the oceans destroying marine life, rising sea levels, the instability of climate systems that disrupt the food supply and our ability to feed our cars while starving our people and soil.

Tom Athanasiou said a crash program was necessary and that today's defining silence about this overarching challenge is inconsistent with any true crash program.

He followed up by pointing to the groundswell from people like McKibben and Gore and saying that: The situation is in rapid flux. Peering forward into the fog, the question is how to prepare for the political and institutional transition that's so clearly necessary, and to do so while at the same time winning the ground war. So please, the fight in Bali -- a fight to lay down a negotiating timeline that will lead to a meaningful successor agreement to Kyoto -- is not a "surreal waste of time," as I heard it called just this morning. Keep your eye, instead, on the ball -- the successor agreement.

Politically the stalemate remains one of virtue versus action. Non profits and individual home owners are motivated to purchasing panels or bike, driven by sense of responsibility for the environment. Government, business, and the more general public however are used to consuming cheap dirty power, free of pollution cost, and will have questions related the costs of producing from PV or the time lost on a bike commute or with bike infrastructure gumming up the driving systems. Belmont may wish for a 20 mph town but getting there with irate drivers toasting the planet is a depressing goal. Or is it? We may not have been having this conversation two years ago. Until a price is established for pollution local governments have the option of solving exiting needs around pollution and safety in their communities.

At the state level there is considerable prodding. CARB announced a carbon credit trading system in June and CA proposed joining a large market with other western states and British Columbia, which is weak on transportation and home energy use. This is an area where most of the new business' are being established such as Terra Pass in Menlo Park. Twenty years ago these guys would have been non profits. PG&E has its own system which has been criticized for having very little oversight. The USP in this area will be on transparency. Kyoto and Europe are in the process of revamping their market and I can't see India and China being left out again. At a minimum a price on carbon in imports would change things overnight there. In a related area note how California adapted to the court order on diesel engines with Low Sulphur Fuel For Ships. The Sierra Club teams up with Cool It to offer offsets that go into wind power installations.

Last year the Governor vetoed an attempt by PG&E to take over the carbon credits from home PV installations. He said they were essential to growing the market. In response Carbon Retirement was formed to try and preserve the atmosphere by retiring the credits in effect creating a higher price for carbon.

The way to offset transportation costs is to enable a walkable city with low speeds and then selectively allow electric cars filled up by solar PV. The market for cars that can go 300 miles on a fillup at 100 mph is not there and may never get there in our lifetime. Tesla is pushing the technology but not the cost and there are pollution issues with their batteries. What does exist are what are called NEVs- Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (fancy name for a golf cart) that go 30 miles on a fillup at a max speed of 25 mph. Cities should be talking about setting a speed cap in the urban area of 20 mph (faster speed would only be permitted on large connecting arterials,) and there is not much change here from existing policy except for the big changes needed in parking policies similar to the '70s to advantage smaller vehicles, and developing denser more walkable transit oriented neighborhoods. The Urban Land Institute, has weighed in with an influential document called Growing Cooler which articulates policy changes to make the proposals a reality.

As Tom said the situation is fluid, and for now, either goal post works.

Solve resource depletion with a pollution penalty

The challenge for the future is 350 ppm of CO2. How do we get there?

CO2 is produced from consumption of fossil fuels. Consumption of fossil fuels need to be reduced to the absorbtive capacity of the biosphere. Resource depletion has lead to peak everything. The challenge is not only to live within the capacity of the biosphere but to provide resources for the needs of future generations.

However no government or mainstream newspaper is looking at the future and laying out a plan of how to get there. Many non profits have worked out the strategies like a shift to renewables. The Sierra Club has a plan with the American Solar Energy Society to get there with 2% reductions per year. Others talk about a massive shift to photovoltaics. The Urban Land Institute calls for using landuse tools to reduce the impact from transportation.

But problem solvers are having a difficult time getting traction in the mainstream. Cheney-Bush-think of problem solvers as a person virtue is still the mainstream as to how government is organized and subsidies dispersed. Why isn't this different from business as usual? Because Gore and McKibben have elevated the public conversation. Instead of being a bunch of crooks in govenment looking to hand public resources to their friends today we can see some of the carbon footprint that results from resource usage. This visibility inturn leads to a discussion of why Belmont signed a single stream garbage contract instead of more resource protective dual stream contract. Or why we want to raise fees on low flow users of the sewer system to pay for the infrastructure cost incurred because of high flow users. Now we can ask questions like a set aside fee for future infrastructure costs that can be tiered, i.e. a placeholder in the budget of how the fee will be used instead of the present practice of subsidizing high flow users.

The overall result is that government continues to toast the planet because that is where the big money is invested. Greenpeace and NRDC have called unsuccessfully for a moratorium on coal plant building currently responsible for more than 40% of green house gases, to no avail, as the price of energy continues to make the old way of investment with massive government subsidies and no pollution penalty viable; while now options like solar are either regulated into non competitiveness (with varying state regulations that coal or nuclear don't have to contend with) or have subsidies eliminated in the middle of growth years (like the sunsetting 30% federal investment tax credit.) Even nuclear, despite its public face of horror and death, remains competitive without solving its waste, cost, and implementable timetable issues in the face of massive write downs on insurance and power purchase agreements. Like GM the business model is do what you know until you run the company into the ground even when the future is staring you in the face.

How can we get to a pollution penalty? How can the virtue of resource conservation change to an economic incentive? Non profits would like to change the tide. Pope of the Sierra Club says "One of the reactions it's very easy to have when you read a report like this (ASES) is, it's too good to be true. If all these things were possible, why aren't they already being done? And the unfortunate answer to that question is they are not being done because we have massive examples of policy failure and market failure in our energy sector."

Pope cited a number of problems, like building codes that don't allow white, reflective roofs to reduce summertime cooling loads, grid regulations that limit solar and wind production, and builders who have no incentive to build energy efficient buildings because they don't have to pay the energy bills. Pope vowed that the Sierra Club would aggressively pursue solutions to these problems. He promised that "This is not a report that will be sitting on a shelf."

Problems to overcome in pedestrianizing landuse

We can build efficient pedestrianized uses by localizing housing in low infrastructure cost zones.

Writing in the Chronicle Lynn Vannucci notes, "High-density, mixed-use communities make more efficient use of resources for heating, and electrical and water-delivery systems than low-density suburbs." She points to the problems with pedestrianizing a space, "causing the pedestrian to feel that rather than strolling in a cozy village square he's wandered into the countryside - except that from its far border the vista is of the local Chevron station."

Dan Burden notes "quality of life is the level of access we have to the things we value most - jobs, safe streets, affordable transportation and housing, and quality health care, schools and civic spaces such as parks and other gathering places. The ability to walk to many of these places from our homes or places of employment generally raises that quality-of-life index. When researchers look for places where people are happiest, it's often in communities where they can live near where they work, walk their children to school and shop at stores within walking or biking distance."

Reducing the stress of commuting over long distances with pedestrianized mixed use development is key to a sustainable future. The problem of peak resource consumption has come about from us spending trillions of dollars. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae own half of the $12T mortgage market. The federal government since the depression has spent trillions to make home ownership possible outside the transit linked downtowns in the process consuming farmland and open space and creating the problems of pollution, stressed consumers, and resource wars like Iraq. An unafordable driving infrastructure is our inheritance from 100 years of policy based on the false promise of cheap oil.

By building in open space we deplete environmental services raising the cost of emergency services and health care through lost disease sequestration.

Hard infrastructure include roads, sewer systems, septics, etc. Soft infrastructure is risk, a financial infrastructure like bonds, that links currency and commodities. Another Chronicle write (July 12th page A5: Costly Fuel Prevents Car Crash deaths) up notes that a 10 % rise in fuel costs leads to 2.3% decrease in crash fatalities from Vehicle Miles Traveled irrespective of improved driving behavior or law enforcement. Presently infrastructure like health care is amortized over everyone and the rules are made up in Congress and the state legislature. Without the state's subsidies, resources like Tejon Ranch are not financially feasible to exploit.

There is clearly a much higher cost to
- delivering water, sewer, power, health care, security, and roads at Tejon versus El Camino, the biggest difference being eyes on the street (able to call in a broken main or a mugging.)
- risk of not maintain the environmental services of Tejon in water purification, groundwater seepage (prevent overloading stormwater facilities,) air quality management, healthy streams, floodwater plains, disease sequestration, and wildfire control.

These costs need to be priced in and passed on. As the Federal government discusses the bailout of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac, Smith Barney, etc with socialized risk and privatized profits we need to ask for localizing housing in low infrastructure cost zones like Belmont Station.

Car-free mixed use development is the key environmental challenge of our time. Development in a transit nexus affords opportunity to wean people of cars. By restricting car free development to TOD we can reclaim our cities of old while directly influencing less than 1% of the city scape.

For a pedestrianized square downtown Belmont we need
- the Transit Agency, Samtrans, to benefit from, or control, the landuse decisions within 1/8th of a mile radius (650 ft) of the TOD (zonal permit parking.)
- Floor Area Ratio Leniency directed toward demographic trends.
- Accommodating trip demand with a walking infrastructure by reusing existing infrastructure.

Politics is allocation of resources

Politics is the allocation of resources, the process by which we allow for the exploitation of open space, water, and timber. Politics allows for the construction of infrastructure. Risk allocation is a financial infrastructure like bonds that links currency and commodities. Hard infrastructures include roads, sewer systems, septics, etc. Policy balances infrastructure against the needs of the exploiter, exploited, and those caught in between.

Writing for the Associated Press Sue Major Homes points out that the western fire season is longer because we are building in fire prone areas like wilderness. So instead of fixing the problem and not insuring, building or charging more for roads and water and sewer to wilderness "Officials predict a longer fire season."

Check out the levels of allocation that occur with the fire season in Homes' AP writeup:

"What's at risk determines who gets what resources.

Top priority goes to fires with the potential to harm human life, Nieto said. Second, fire managers need to keep enough reserves home to tackle new fires and get them out before they grow. Lastly, they consider the possibility a fire could destroy such things as major power lines, critical communication sites, cultural resources or special habitat.

The priorities sometimes prompt federal land managers to fight a smaller fire and send fewer resources to a larger one."

Worse as mentioned earlier with the sewer rate in Belmont, we tend to build for the largest users and charge the smaller users to implement a public bad. Because of political graft we end up having resource access wars instead of solutions.

The challenge before the GAC

Belmont convened a green committee after cities around the bay like Palo Alto had formed task forces and written a green charter. The green response around the bay and the world has been to peak everything- salmon, clean air, water, fire, oceans, oil, climate: going green was a way of forestalling the rapacious consumption that is threatening to destroy our home.

In 350 dot org Bill McKibben is trying to get people to understand that 350 ppm of CO2 is the carbon budget of the planet that we need to GET BACK TO! We are currently at 384.

Kunstler, of The Long Emergency, says we can't get there by driving. All the faith in technology is delusional, resource draining (at a peak everything period no less!) and exacerbating the problem. We need to be building walking and biking cities now.

James Hansen said two years ago that we had ten years to change Business As Usual based on present rates of the increase in CO2 of about 1 ppm per year.

Geroge Monbiot has a slew of proposals in Heat but still says we in the US need a 96% reduction in what we currently produce of CO2 by 1930 to be able to GLOBALLY manage the problems of a two degree rise in planet temperature.

Kohlberg recalls Carlson about a town that lived in harmony with its surroundings and that fell silent while writing on a the disaster in the making.

We need to dust off and implement our pre-50s technology when we lived in houses that required 90% less heat and cooling because they were smaller breeze houses that fit more people, consumed 90% less because we had an ethic of resource limits from the war and depression, ate 90% more nutrient and 100% more tasty food because we grew more of what we consumed and knew the farmer next door, drove 90% less because we owned fewer cars and life was relatively expensive versus earnings, and spent 90% more time with our community and family because we earned less and had more time since the post war ethic was to keep mom at home because of fewer jobs and because speeds were slower, closer to 20 mph on our roads built for horse and buggy and not yet expanded by Eisenhower to fight the Russians in a nuclear war on our streets. 20 mph streets can accommodate golf carts, an early 1900s technology still in use for and by people who understand the good life!

We know today how to build zero energy homes and low utility cost homes that we don't have to go to work for. We have built our unsustainable life styles on stress that has lead to chronic diseases from heart to cancer, literally abandoned our families by driving away, and lived couped up like the chickens we consume, gaining weight on a slew of drugs that destroy more that just us, while waiting for the shoe to drop (what Pollan said was a move from denial to despair without a stop in between.)