Lenny, you said,

"Unless we want Portland, Eugene and Ashland to become ocean front cities.."

Good one. I held my side laughing when I read that.

You may want to forward your comments to all of the peope buying beachfront real-estate in liberal controlled Canon Beach (to the tune of $2.0 million per home). They must not have gotten the word they're throwing their money away unless they convert their new purchase to a sub-oceanic getaway.

Lenny Dee It would arrest growth by 2010; 10% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020; and 50% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Unless we want Portland, Eugene and Ashland to become ocean front cities the goals have to be much more than the usual good intentions. JK Tell us what price low income people are going to have to pay for this. How will they get to work if driving becomes more expensive? (It is NOT POSSIBLE for mass transit to serve trips from any place to any other places in reasonable time) Are low income people to give up their cars and hence have to take a lower paying job that is transit accessible? (You do realize that only a tiny minority of jobs are in downtown anymore?) * Are they going to have even more trouble paying for food?

As to mass transit, please give me a credible, numbers based case, that mass transit saves energy compared to modern hybrid cars and then plug in hybrid cars. Only after that exercise, should you suggest that people turn their lives up side down and switch to transit.

As to ocean front cities, it looks like you are getting suckered by Al Gore's lie: Question: 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?

Al Gore: 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. (bold added) From: grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/

I like your goals and vision. I think it is going to be very hard to bring our public along from where we are now to where we need to be, given the housing and work patterns we have built out already. I view with interest China's effort to build from scratch a green city, called Dongtan, of 500,000 outside Shanghai. A Wired magazine article says "If Dongtan lives up to expectations, it will serve as a model for cities across China and the rest of the developing world — cities that, given new tools, might leapfrog the environmental and public health costs that have always come with economic progress, a relationship Gutierrez calls "the nightmare of the 20th century."

It is going to be hard for Oregon to lead with efforts like Dongtan, but such efforts may inspire our public to move along more rapidly.

Wow! I am stunned by this post. And I thought some of my undergrad professors were alarmists.

Question #1: Where is the evidence for a statement that Ashland, Eugene and Portland will become oceanfront cities?

Question #2: Who is talking about 10 to 12 lanes across the Columbia?

Question #3: What is your background that qualifies you for talking like an expert on global climate change? Do you have at least a Master's with work experience and research experience as a global climate scientist? If not, then where does your credibility come from other than being a political lobbyist (No experience at all in my opinion)?

Just an FYI for people: 48% of energy produced in the United States goes towards heating, lighting, and cooling buildings. Only about 25% goes towards both transportation and industry, which are about equal.

Over the past 100 years, building technologies have become vastly more inefficient, as has transportation, while industry has remained level with energy use over the past 50 years.

If everyone would - at a minimum - just switch to compact fluorescent bulbs, we would save a lot of energy.

Natural daylighting techniques in homes can reduce your energy consumptio neasily by 50% a year - by no more than making sure your windows are on the SOUTH side, NOT the NORTH! In new construction, this is a freebie.

Lastly, there are studies predicting that we are on track to build something like 800 new coal-fired power plants in the USA between now and 2020. China could also build something like 1,800. These are predictions however, and certainly not set in stone.

If we actually designed buildings correctly, we would need ZERO new power plants.

What every citizen in America - as well as the other industrialized nations - should be doing is to evaluate what the most efficient systems for your home are. What saves the most money? Big, insulated windows, passive solar water heaters and so on actually provide a high rate of return on investment... and certainly fresh sunlight in a dark home can brighten your mood: studies have shown people with more sunlight have lower rates of depression, and people who work are more productive - just ask someone who lives in a basement or an office with no window what it's like.

As for the sea level rise, I think people are mistaking the Portland, Maine studies that threaten its downtown, as Portland is much higher in sea level... correct me if I'm wrong.

torridjoe You gotta love JK:

* Are low income people to give up their cars and hence have to take a lower paying job that is transit accessible? (You do realize that only a tiny minority of jobs are in downtown anymore?)

Uh, low income people often don't have cars to give up in the first place. JK: You gotta love Torridjoe as he ignores the fact that even more often the low income do have cars, just not as high a percentage as higher income people.

He somehow missed the emerging research that is showing that one of the most important things that can be done to help low income people increase their income is to get them a car. That broadens their job choices, as they can travel to a much wider area in a given commute time. And we all know how important improving choices is.

torridjoe Transit is the only thing keeping them employed, in many cases. JK: Actually transit LIMITS people’s job choices, since transit service is poor to non-existent to many jobs areas. (Family wage jobs, not the crappy coffee shop jobs in downtown) And transit usually takes longer to get to any particular point than driving. The importance of that detail is that commute times to jobs far away becomes too long for transit, but OK by car. That is one way that a car increases job options and thus income (on average)

torridjoe In any case, one out of every 10 people in the entire area works within the downtown loop--no tiny minority at all, given the small geographic area we're talking about. JK: That’s what I said - a tiny minority (10%) of jobs are downtown and most of those remaining are either overpaid government slackers or underpaid service jobs. Most real family wage jobs have long since been driven out of town.

But Joe is doing a splendid job of spewing the city line on growth from his cushy government job.

Thanks JK

Once again, can someone please explain to me why liberals are bidding up beachfront real estate to nosebleed prices, unless...............

hmmmm.......

maybe they don't actually beleive the seas will rise due to global warming?

Ya, that must be it. Only the ingorant liberals buy beachfront property. You know, the ones that were smart enough in their business and careers to come up with $1.5 million for a second home, but too stupid to understand that man-made Global Warming is a terrifying reality.

Before any new taxes (such as a proposed carbon tax) can even be considered or discussed, tax equity must be established. That means directly taxing those freeloading bicyclists to pay the entire price tag for bicycle infrastructure, and requiring bus, Max and streetcar riders to pay the entire price tag for building those systems, the cost of vehicles and the operational expenditures for what are now only downtown centric transit systems.