Portland and global warming part II
Leslie Carlson
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes today about the success of the City of Portland's 12-year strategy to combat global warming, which has resulted in a reduction of carbon emissions below 1990 levels, the level specified by the Kyoto Protocol:
Newly released data show that Portland, America's environmental laboratory, has achieved stunning reductions in carbon emissions. It has reduced emissions below the levels of 1990, the benchmark for the Kyoto accord, while booming economically.
Kristof seems particularly impressed by the fact that we have reduced emissions without hurting our economy:
What's more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide.
Read the rest of the article here.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 3, '05
NYT: What's more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide.
You can download the original report at:
http://www.sustainableportland.org/osd_pubs_global_warming_report_6-2005.pdf
Read it and see if the above quote is true.
thanks JK
3:33 p.m.
Jul 3, '05
My suspicion is that few on the right will be convinced by Kristof's argument that our greening hasn't hurt the city. In fact, take a trip through the pages of Brainstorm NW, and you're likely to find that all of the city's ills are blamed on greenies and liberals.
I think it's quite the opposite, though. Portland hasn't begun to capitalize economically on its rep as a green city. It would be wonderful to see a more concerted effort to turn what was once the silicon forest into the wind forest (or nitrogen or fuel cell or biodiesel or ...). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the future isn't in oil. The city that capitalizes on the next generation of energy production will be poised to reap HUGE benefit.
Jul 3, '05
Here is Randal O'Toole's take on this report:
Portland claims it has reduced greenhouse gas emissions and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof believes it. But a close look at Portland's report raises some questions.
Though Portland's press release -- and Kristof's article -- emphasizes Portland's streetcar and light-rail system, the report shows that these have not reduced greenhouse gas emissions at all. Instead, all of the decrease is in the industrial sector. Moreover, no transportation-air pollution model yet devised accurately accounts for the effects of the huge increase in congestion that Portland has suffered on pollution emissions.
An even bigger problem with Portland's claims is that they only apply to Multnomah County, not any of the other three counties in the Portland area. Portland's industrial base has shifted from Multnomah County to Washington County, so the huge decline in industrial emissions is pretty meaningless.
Creative accounting, not the success of Portland's transit system, allows Portland to claim a reduction in greenhouse gases.
from: http://americandreamcoalition.org/adcnews.html
(Randal re-inforces my guess from looking at the report - more snake oil form the Portland crowd.)
Thanks JK
11:31 p.m.
Jul 3, '05
The American Dream Coalition is just another cog in the radical right-wing politicking machine. Surely they have no incentive to tilt the numbers their way, right?
Jul 4, '05
Posted by: Cody | July 3, 2005 11:31 PM
The American Dream Coalition is just another cog in the radical right-wing politicking machine. Surely they have no incentive to tilt the numbers their way, right?
JK: Cody, why don't you look at the report and see if it looks reasonable and see if it does or does not support Randal's thoughts? Or are you just a blind believer in everything that Portland tells you?
BTW, do you have a last name? Or are you hiding something?
Try thinking for yourself. JK
9:35 a.m.
Jul 4, '05
BTW, do you have a last name? Or are you hiding something?
Hey, JK, there's nothing like throwing in a little random paranoid commentary to increase a person's credibility. Good job.
You have made one excellent point. This is clearly a regional issue and the metro region would provide much more useful numbers than Multnomah County alone.
The most interesting thing I see in the numbers is the large increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the "commercial" category.
Anyone care to venture an explanation of what that's about?
Jul 4, '05
"More convenient transportation"? I don't think so. Low income residents of this city have been left out of the transportation system and what we have is a high cost system that will eventually prove to cost too much to maintain. A bus sytem that get 4.8 miles per gallon isn't the best in the world and a light rail system that uses electricity produced somewhere else, polluting someone else's community is certainly not the most honest thing to brag about. There are a host of solutions out there and the first one is to open the market to other ideas by bringing in some much needed competition.
Portland does have a real good public relations team, but can we honestly say that people have not been hurt in this drive. Home ownership is lower than the national average. In town there are few places for children to play in their neighborhoods. High mortgage rates mean that money is transfered out of the community that ordinarily would stay here. Cramming houses so close together that we have little room for the runoff from rain to trickle down into the ground, but instead it rushes down the street to the river and then there are those nice heat islands that exist because everything is so crammed together. M.
Jul 4, '05
My first name is "dis" and my last name is "possessed." I admire anyone with the daring to place their real name on a website, but I got burned years back. Don't do that no mo.
Aside from that, I appreciate your contributions here, Mr. Karlock. Kristof's column seemed to me a full-throated swallow of that party line. I am a huge supporter of public transit, and have lived most of my life without a car. No public transit is cheap. Portland's rail is spectacularly expensive and of limited service area and value. The streetcar is pure (also unaffordable) silliness. The tram may prove to be the most vainglorious yet.
11:44 a.m.
Jul 4, '05
"More convenient transportation"? I don't think so.
Portland is 3rd in the nation in per capita public transportation utilization and is well below other western cities in terms of commute times, distances travelled to work for people who do not use public transportation.
Home ownership is lower than the national average.
Home ownership in urban centers is typically lower than the national average because of the high cost of land and lower SES of urban populations compared to suburban areas. An apples-to-apples comparison is to compare home ownership in Portland versus other cities.
At 63 percent home ownership, Portland ranks 33rd among all metropolitan regions with populations of greater than 100,000. Not exactly the top-of-the-stack, but among the top 1/3rd in America and well above San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and other more sprawled coastal cities.
Contrary to some poorly done, ideologically-driven, studies by the Cascade Policy Institute, the cost of home ownership is lower in Portland than in most cities, and, as of June 2005, is rising at slower rate than in more sprawled cities across America.
Cramming houses so close together that we have little room for the runoff from rain to trickle down into the ground, but instead it rushes down the street to the river and then there are those nice heat islands that exist because everything is so crammed together.
Generally speaking, high population densities are much better than sprawl when it comes to environmental damage and resource utilization. As population density increases, transportation options multiply and auto dependence lessens -- all of which means a cleaner, greener city.
Jul 4, '05
Salvador writes:
Michael replies: From what I read on the U.S. Census Bureau website the home ownership rate in Portland is 55.8% and in the state it is 64.3%
8:33 p.m.
Jul 4, '05
From what I read on the U.S. Census Bureau website the home ownership rate in Portland is 55.8% and in the state it is 64.3%
I just double checked, the data that I gave on home ownership was dated, 1998. Current data from the census puts Portland home ownership (as of 2004) at 66.9 percent.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual04/ann04t14.html
Not sure where you got the 55.8 percent figure.
Jul 4, '05
Salvador | July 4, 2005 08:33 PM: I just double checked, the data that I gave on home ownership was dated, 1998. Current data from the census puts Portland home ownership (as of 2004) at 66.9 percent.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual04/ann04t14.html
JK: Here is what that chart actually is. Particularly note the “**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8” that means it is NOT PORTLAND, but IS the WHOLE CENSUS REGION. See foot notes on that page.
Table 14. Homeownership Rates for the 75 Largest Metropolitan Areas: 1986 to 2004 - Contin
**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8........ 65.2 65.4 64.9 64.0 66.5 67.1
**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8........ 62.4 59.2 58.8 57.3 60.3 61.5
**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8........ 61.1 62.7 60.9 62.1 65.3 65.9
**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8................. 65.9 66.1 66.9
** Boundaries changed as a result of the 1990 Decennial Census of Population and Housing; one or more county/counties added or deleted.
Thanks JK
1:03 a.m.
Jul 5, '05
Here is what that chart actually is. Particularly note the “**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8” that means it is NOT PORTLAND, but IS the WHOLE CENSUS REGION.
True enough. But in this case, it doesn't really matter since PDX comes out in more or less the same position relative to other metro regions whether you do an apples-to-apples comparison based on the city-proper or the entire metropolitan region. You'll also note that I explicitly referred to the metropolitan region and not the city proper in my original post.
In any case, the commentary that you quoted is still wrong on at least two of the three key points that you mentioned:
Though Portland's press release -- and Kristof's article -- emphasizes Portland's streetcar and light-rail system, the report shows that these have not reduced greenhouse gas emissions at all. Instead, all of the decrease is in the industrial sector.
Portland (proper) has reduced greenhouse gas emissions from transportation since 1990 (3,731,000 metric tons in 2004 versus 3,793,000 in 1990), a reduction of nearly 1 metric ton per capita. This is especially significant given that transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions in the United States increased by 18 percent from 1990 - 2000.
Moreover, no transportation-air pollution model yet devised accurately accounts for the effects of the huge increase in congestion that Portland has suffered on pollution emissions.
Average commute times in PDX(metro) have increased only slightly -- 2.3 minutes per day in a 24 minute commute -- since 1980. (PSU - ITSL, March 2005).
Also, there was no substantiation of the comment about a decline or shift in industry away from Multnomah county. It may be true that new industries are locating in Washington County, but this in no way implies a decline in Multnomah industries. If you want to pursue that assertion, please offer some hard data to back it up.
My take on all of this is that these libertarian think tanks and dittoheads like Randal are reaching pretty deep to rationalize their many false assertions about smart-growth planning and the efficacy of public transportation.
Jul 5, '05
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM: Also, there was no substantiation of the comment about a decline or shift in industry away from Multnomah county. It may be true that new industries are locating in Washington County, but this in no way implies a decline in Multnomah industries. If you want to pursue that assertion, please offer some hard data to back it up.
JK: Why don't you offer the hard data? As far as I can tell, all you have are asserions by the some class of Portland beaurcrats as those that count one daily commuter on the transit system as 2-8 riders (one for each time that that they step on a vehicle: 2 for round trip, 4 for round trip with one transfer in each direction and 6 if they transfer twice going and coming, etc.)
Beware of Portland "data".
Why not look at population growth in the various cities. One source that I received puts Portland at 0.7% while most regional cities were around 10% for the last 5 years. (I am not supplying this data due the the lack of easily checked sources for it. however, it still should be more reliable than what comes out of Portland's spinmisters.)
Lack of growth will go a long ways towards cutting carbon. Having the highest unemploymnet in the country also will help reduce carbon. Is this what you want?
Thanks JK
8:13 a.m.
Jul 5, '05
JK: Why don't you offer the hard data? As far as I can tell, all you have are asserions by the some class of Portland beaurcrats ...
I've given data from the Census Bureau, Money Magazine, ITSL labs at PSU. None of them, so far as I know are "Portland bureaucrats." The only use of "Portland bureaucrat" data simply showed that the blogger you referenced earlier in the discussion was dead wrong in his analysis of their data (i.e, the data he referenced shows a 17 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in PDX in addition to an overall reduction from transportation -- not "no change" as he asserted).
Anyway, I can see that you are not one to let little things like the facts get in the way of an irrationally-held, quasi-religious belief that Portland = bad.
Jul 6, '05
Posted by: salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM (Quoting JK): Here is what that chart actually is. Particularly note the “**Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA\8” that means it is NOT PORTLAND, but IS the WHOLE CENSUS REGION.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM True enough. But in this case, it doesn't really matter since PDX comes out in more or less the same position relative to other metro regions whether you do an apples-to-apples comparison based on the city-proper or the entire metropolitan region. You'll also note that I explicitly referred to the metropolitan region and not the city proper in my original post.
JK: You miss the point. The report is about Portland, not the whole region and one possibility is that the industrial sector reductions were due to industry MOVING to other cities in the same region. That would make the report literally true, but as deceptive as TriMet releasing boardings and calling them riders.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM In any case, the commentary that you quoted is still wrong on at least two of the three key points that you mentioned:
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM (Quoting O’Toole) Though Portland's press release -- and Kristof's article -- emphasizes Portland's streetcar and light-rail system, the report shows that these have not reduced greenhouse gas emissions at all. Instead, all of the decrease is in the industrial sector.
JK: What is your problem with this? The “Means Of Travel To Work” from the US census bureau shows that workers in Portland Region increased from 861,141 to 1,105,133 (1990 to 2000) while the % using transit went from 4.6% to 5.1%, a mere ½ point increase. (at that rate they will have 10% of commuters using transit in only 100 years). See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm Exhibit 4.10 and Exhibit 4.11.
JK: Are you claiming that a mere ½ point increase in transit market share while the number of drive alone workers increased by 172,330 in the region somehow is consistent with the claim that increased transit usage reduced CO2? That claim DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. (Calculate thusly: 172,330 = (861,141x.738= 635,522) - (1,105,133x.731= 807,852) ) (Sorry I do not have Portland only data)
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM Portland (proper) has reduced greenhouse gas emissions from transportation since 1990 (3,731,000 metric tons in 2004 versus 3,793,000 in 1990), a reduction of nearly 1 metric ton per capita.
JK: I hope you are quoting someone, because they don’t even have their arithmetic right: 3,793,000 - 3,731,000 = 62,000, or did Portland’s population suddenly drop to only 62,000.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM This is especially significant given that transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions in the United States increased by 18 percent from 1990 - 2000.
JK: And it probably did in Portland too, if they got their numbers right.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM (Quoting O’Toole) Moreover, no transportation-air pollution model yet devised accurately accounts for the effects of the huge increase in congestion that Portland has suffered on pollution emissions.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM Average commute times in PDX(metro) have increased only slightly -- 2.3 minutes per day in a 24 minute commute -- since 1980. (PSU - ITSL, March 2005).
JK: What is your source for this- give a link to a credible document and page #. This differs from the May 5005 TTI report which states that Portland’s annual hours of delay per traveler increased by 32 hours since 1982. (32 hours is, of course 7.68 minutes per day, more than three times what your source claims.) When you put it in minutes per day, it seems small, but it is almost the same a whole extra week of vacation. Or an extra week’s pay if that wasted time were spent being at work. Or would you like to piss away a week’s pay stuck in traffic? See page 18 of http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005_wappx.pdf
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM Also, there was no substantiation of the comment about a decline or shift in industry away from Multnomah county. It may be true that new industries are locating in Washington County, but this in no way implies a decline in Multnomah industries. If you want to pursue that assertion, please offer some hard data to back it up.
JK: Why don’t you offer up some data to refute the frequent newspaper stories about lost industries and jobs in Portland. I’ll start with Columbia sportswear, Willamette Industries, Wierhouser. Heck, even Tektronix left Portland.
salvador | July 5, 2005 01:03 AM My take on all of this is that these libertarian think tanks and dittoheads like Randal are reaching pretty deep to rationalize their many false assertions about smart-growth planning and the efficacy of public transportation.
JK: And my take is that if you bothered to look at real data, you would realize that you are being lied to by the smart growth crowd.
JK: Your use of the term dittoheads is suggestive of Rush. I can assure that Randal has deep differences with Rush as Randal believes in freedom for all including, but not limited to, recreational drug users, while Rush thinks government policy should force his religion on everyone. Maybe I should give you a short introduction to libertarian philosophy: The government ought to have a goddam good reason (and data) to limit anyone’s freedom. Do you disagree with this?
JK: BTW, salvador, do you have a last name (or first name?) What are you hiding? Perhaps you work for the city or Metro?
Thanks JK
Jul 6, '05
Posted by: Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM (quoting JK): Why don't you offer the hard data? As far as I can tell, all you have are assertions by the some class of Portland bureaucrats ...
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: I've given data from the Census Bureau, Money Magazine, ITSL labs at PSU.
JK: How about some links and page numbers?
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: None of them, so far as I know are "Portland bureaucrats." The only use of "Portland bureaucrat" data simply showed that the blogger you referenced earlier in the discussion was dead wrong in his analysis of their data (i.e, the data he referenced shows a 17 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in PDX in addition to an overall reduction from transportation -- not "no change" as he asserted).
JK: Perhaps you could provide a link to this data he referenced?
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: Anyway, I can see that you are not one to let little things like the facts get in the way of an irrationally-held, quasi-religious belief that Portland = bad.
JK: I have kept this on an intellectual level to now. In response to the above, I say you need to quit trying to shove your green religion down our throats. That is as obnoxious an Bush’s shoving his religion on us. As to facts, you should learn to recognize them and where they come from. Hint: not a press release from Portland bureaucrats.
Also: you should give up your irrationally-held, quasi-religious belief that Portland = good.
In fact Portland used to be far more livable than it is now. It is getting worse day be day as smart growth is turning us into Los Angeles as per Metro’s plan: “. .with respect to density and road per capita mileage it (Los Angeles) displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate. See Metro publication, Metro Measured, page 7 (available from Metro or from http://209.210.229.130/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF)
Thanks JK
1:56 p.m.
Jul 6, '05
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM (quoting JK): Why don't you offer the hard data? As far as I can tell, all you have are assertions by the some class of Portland bureaucrats ...
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: I've given data from the Census Bureau, Money Magazine, ITSL labs at PSU.
JK: How about some links and page numbers?
I've already posted the census data link. Here are the other 2:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/12/real_estate/re2005_100markets_0506/ http://www.its.pdx.edu/pdf/commutetime.pdf
What is your source for this- give a link to a credible document and page #. This differs from the May 5005 TTI report which states that Portland’s annual hours of delay per traveler increased by 32 hours since 1982.
The U.S. Census, on which the ITSL based its report, linked above. The dataset for 2000 can be found here:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/housing/001123.html
The TTI study you reference does deal with actual commute times, as the census and ITSL study do. TTI gives an estimate of travel time lost during peak commutes based on a congestion index that is derived from a fairly complicated model that calculates population against miles of road and a set of assumptions about how fast cars can travel given the level of congestion.
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: None of them, so far as I know are "Portland bureaucrats." The only use of "Portland bureaucrat" data simply showed that the blogger you referenced earlier in the discussion was dead wrong in his analysis of their data (i.e, the data he referenced shows a 17 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in PDX in addition to an overall reduction from transportation -- not "no change" as he asserted).
JK: Perhaps you could provide a link to this data he (the libertarian blogger cited by JK earlier) referenced?
http://www.sustainableportland.org/osd_pubs_global_warming_report_6-2005.pdf
JK: ...As to facts, you should learn to recognize them and where they come from. Hint: not a press release from Portland bureaucrats.
Again, I have not used any "facts put out by Portland bureaucrats" with the exception of the one case where I pointed out that the blogger you cited who referenced them was dead wrong when he said that the study showed "no reduction in of CO2 emissions from cars" in PDX.
I feel constrained to warn you against swallowing, wholesale, press releases from the Cascade Policy Institute and their dittohead bloggers, especially when they choose not to substantiate their claims. On your model, it would seem, hard data = bad. Anecdotal data and unsupported assertions = good. Thanks for clarifying.
Maybe I should give you a short introduction to libertarian philosophy: The government ought to have a goddam good reason (and data) to limit anyone’s freedom. Do you disagree with this?
Libertarianism is a failed ideology that gave rise to the 19th century robber barons and the Great Depression. Even its most venerable institution, the Hoover Institution, takes its name from the most spectacular failure in the history of the American Presidency. It has been resurrected A philosophy through large financial grants by large corporate that care nothing about individual rights nor democracy, and foisted off on the gullible and often greedy individualists as a way to return to us to the days before we had a 40-hour work week, child labor laws, a minimum wage, environmental regulations, and all of the other reforms that "evil liberals" promoted through the popular struggles and which helped to create the American middle class.
Jul 8, '05
(I tried to clean up some of your unclear labeling)
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM (quoting JK): Why don't you offer the hard data? As far as I can tell, all you have are assertions by the some class of Portland bureaucrats ...
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: I've given data from the Census Bureau, Money Magazine, ITSL labs at PSU.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: JK: How about some links and page numbers?
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: I've already posted the census data link. Here are the other 2:
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/12/real_estate/re2005_100markets_0506/ Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: http://www.its.pdx.edu/pdf/commutetime.pdf
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM (quoting JK): What is your source for this- give a link to a credible document and page #. This differs from the May 5005 TTI report which states that Portland’s annual hours of delay per traveler increased by 32 hours since 1982.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: The U.S. Census, on which the ITSL based its report, linked above. The dataset for 2000 can be found here: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/housing/001123.html
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: The TTI study you reference does deal with actual commute times, as the census and ITSL study do. TTI gives an estimate of travel time lost during peak commutes based on a congestion index that is derived from a fairly complicated model that calculates population against miles of road and a set of assumptions about how fast cars can travel given the level of congestion.
JK: OK, lets agree to use your source. I read the graph as commute times in Portland increased from 21 min to 26 min based in the graph’s title: “Census Commute to Work Travel Times, 1980-2000" This is 5 min per commute. Multiply that by 250 work days and you get 20 hours per year - ½ a weeks pay wasted in congestion. But your source specifically says “to Work”, so I can assume (feel free to correct me here) that a similar ½ week per year is lost on the commute FROM WORK for a total waste of 1 week per year. This is equal to ½ of most people’s vacation time. And is worth around $800 for a $40,000 income earner. Double that for two income household. That is even enough to pay the Vera/Diane tax.
Salvador | July 5, 2005 08:13 AM: None of them, so far as I know are "Portland bureaucrats." The only use of "Portland bureaucrat" data simply showed that the blogger you referenced earlier in the discussion was dead wrong in his analysis of their data (i.e, the data he referenced shows a 17 percent reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in PDX in addition to an overall reduction from transportation -- not "no change" as he asserted).
JK: Look at the report (this is not a per capita goal, it is city wide goal, so your change of subject to per capita is a red herring):
JK: The city report shows 7 data points from 1990 to 2004: 1990-3,793,717 1995-3,732,528 2000-3,725,763 2001-3,691,624 2003-3,960,296 2004-3,925,043 2005-3,731,390
JK: The “no change in emissions” interpretation depends on how you look at the data. Note that there is indeed no change from 1995 to 2005. Hardly a major victory for smart growth.
JK: Note that from 1995 to 2003 there is an increase in emissions from 3,732,528 to 3,960,296 an increase of 6%. Only in the recession years of 2004-2005 is a reduction to the 1995 levels seen.
JK: If you look at the US Census “means of travel to work” (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm#4) for Portland MSA, you will see that driving increased: In 1990, 73.1% of 861,141= 629,494 workers drove to work. In 2000, 73.1% of 1,105,133 = 807,852 workers drove to work. This is an increase of 178,358, or 28%. Are you supporting this report’s claim that while driving increased by 28%, somehow transit gave us a decrease in emissions? This is simply NOT BELIEVABLE. That report does not pass the smell test. (Unfortunately the report is for the Portland MSA, not the city of Portland, but of course so is TriMet, except Vancouver)
JK: What is believable is the decrease in industrial emission - Portland’s smart growth policies have been steadily losing industry and their family wage jobs.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM (quoting JK): JK: Perhaps you could provide a link to this data he (the libertarian blogger cited by JK earlier) referenced?
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: http://www.sustainableportland.org/osd_pubs_global_warming_report_6-2005.pdf
JK: Huh? We both knew that.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM (quoting JK): JK: ...As to facts, you should learn to recognize them and where they come from. Hint: not a press release from Portland bureaucrats.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: Again, I have not used any "facts put out by Portland bureaucrats" with the exception of the one case where I pointed out that the blogger you cited who referenced them was dead wrong when he said that the study showed "no reduction in of CO2 emissions from cars" in PDX.
JK: Dead wrong. He was criticizing the Portland report that you were praising. That report is the “facts put out by Portland bureaucrats” that you say you didn’t use.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: I feel constrained to warn you against swallowing, wholesale, press releases from the Cascade Policy Institute and their dittohead bloggers, especially when they choose not to substantiate their claims. On your model, it would seem, hard data = bad. Anecdotal data and unsupported assertions = good. Thanks for clarifying.
JK: Wrong again. You are the one arguing that the subject press release is data. Also Cascade is not a Rush Limbough ditto head and you know it. Further they substantiate their claims better than the Portland bureaucrats that you defend. You are the one defending soft (Portland bureaucrat) data by defending the subject report.
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM (quoting JK): Maybe I should give you a short introduction to libertarian philosophy: The government ought to have a goddam good reason (and data) to limit anyone’s freedom. Do you disagree with this?
Salvador | July 6, 2005 01:56 PM: Libertarianism is a failed ideology that gave rise to the 19th century robber barons and the Great Depression. Even its most venerable institution, the Hoover Institution, takes its name from the most spectacular failure in the history of the American Presidency. It has been resurrected A philosophy through large financial grants by large corporate that care nothing about individual rights nor democracy, and foisted off on the gullible and often greedy individualists as a way to return to us to the days before we had a 40-hour work week, child labor laws, a minimum wage, environmental regulations, and all of the other reforms that "evil liberals" promoted through the popular struggles and which helped to create the American middle class.
JK: So are you suggesting the government should be able to tell you what you can put in your body - like marijuana (medical or not)? Or that the Feds should be able to stop Oregon’s death with dignity law? Perhaps you think it just that government can take you house and give it to Wal Mart? And, of course, you agree that the Feds can justly tell you what food you can grow in your private garden (BTW Justice Thomas argued against this outrage and against Wal Mart taking your house.)
JK: If you DO NOT agree with ALL of the above, you have at least a little Libertarian in you. And you might even agree with Justice Thomas.
JK: PS: Some think that Roosevelt’s policies prolonged the depression and that Hitler and Tojo are what pulled us out of it, not Roosevelt’s failed policies which turned an ordinary downturn into a major depression. (I am not taking a position on this, only relating that there is another viewpoint out there.)
Thanks JK
Jul 8, '05
Randal O'Toole doesn't like trains. I think he may have been badly scared by one as a child.
Jul 8, '05
Tom Civiletti | July 8, 2005 04:40 PM: Randal O'Toole doesn't like trains. I think he may have been badly scared by one as a child.
JK: Gee, Tom, you are making untrue statments again. In fact Randal likes trains so much that he is one the train buffs working on restoring historic locomotives. One of his first jobs was restoring a street car for the first spagetti factory right here in Portland.
JK: He just looked at the facts and determined that light rail as a means of mass transit: 1. Costs too much and does too little. 2. Is more dangerous than buses (as in kills more people per passenger mile) 3. Does nothing to rtelieve congestion. (have you noticed the corelation between cities that built light rail and the cities that had the worst increases in traffic congestion?
He does, however, recognoize that it is a nice toy for tourists to look at.
Thanks JK