More Sustainlane: U.S. Cities' Preparedness for an Oil Crisis
Posted by Prof. Goose on April 4, 2006 - 1:16am
Not just the top 10 best prepared as we discussed yesterday, but now from sustainlane, a measurement scheme ranking the 50 biggest US cities' preparedness for an oil crisis. Here's some snippets:
This is a Tale of Two Types of Cities. One type of city has a dense, walkable center with cultural attractions, jobs, farmers markets, and residential neighborhoods easily accessible by foot, bike, or public transit. The other type has lower density, a poorly or undefined center, separate centers of business and residential life, and is generally only accessible by car.We compared these two fundamental types of cities' underlying infrastructure, food and mobility as part of an economic competitiveness analysis. With gas prices on the rise and $3 or $4 a gallon gas on the horizon, SustainLane.com took a close look at the 50 largest U.S. cities to see which are most prepared and which are most vulnerable to an extended gas price shock in the $3 to $8 dollar a gallon range. Those cities that can reduce or stabilize their spending on gasoline will keep substantially more money in their state's economy, rather than siphoning it overseas.
Lucky for New England, though, is the fact that most of these cities/suburbs have old city centers that could be converted to what they need to be post peak-oil pretty quickly and without massive investment.
The Asian trade route has been pushing miniaturization for decades, just because cost has been determined in part by how many units you can stick in a shipping container.
... this is not the only story as transportation prices get higher, but it is certainly one of the stories ....
I don't think tech demand will go down. Ability to MEET that demand might, though. (Don't forget credit.. cause the consumer won't, and demand for that will be WAY up..) It will be tech solutions that will allow a consumer to find more Energy-Saving solutions to rising rates. Microwave Ovens, (the most energy efficient way to heat food, next to Solar) Laptops and other low-power computing and entertainment solutions, like the above-mentioned Ipods.. phones, radios, LED and CF lighting.. Inverters and charge controllers, electric transp.
I mean, in this case we're talking about remotely grown food being too expensive for the average person but computer sales are going to stay strong?
Our Farming won't be some PBS special on "Colonial House", either. We're not just jumping back to 1613 and tossing out Radios, Electric Motors and Generators, Fiberglass, Pneumatics, Chemistry, Flight, Calculators... or Literacy..
But even if they were to get those things right, they are of course generalizations across entire cities ;-). There are walkable neighborhoods in each, I'm sure. And there are some jobs that will be better to have than others, in each city.
Case in point ... in the 70's fuel crisis and aerospace crash there were lots of lay-offs in California. My family was insulated from that because my dad worked for LA city schools. Nothing like a steady government job in economic upheaval.
As somebody else posted, the study is very shallow. Oakland, Ca. prepared for Peak Oil? Oakland has BART, which I absolutely love but they also have MAJOR as in MAJOR gang problems that are spreading into the working class and middle class parts of town. There are big timeproblems with the police, just google "oakland riders trial, and now there areAK-47 attacks taking place in the "nice" areas of town. I could go on but you get the point: parts are already slipping into "Mad Max" and things haven't gotten bad yet.
Also, please note: I lived in the heart of one of the worst parts of San Francisoc (the Tenderloin) and worked a the Public Defenders office so it's not like I'm some wilting flower afraid of poor people or some closeted racist afraid of other races.
Best,
Matt
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/22/BAG33HS4EJ1.DTL
Best,
Matt
But I didn't want my first post on OD to be a political one. As a resident of the city which is #45 on the list, Columbus Ohio (or really Dublin, a burb thereof), I wanted to throw a few words in. Sure, if there is a place where minivans, SUVs and Hummers go to die, central Ohio must be it. We have the most minimal of public transport, and sprawl is a polite way to describe our suburban 'planning'. A gasoline shortage would certainly cause problems here.
But to discount the value of other factors, like plentiful coal and nuke generated electric power (the area is served by AEP, 81% non-petro generation), and the assumption that big collective farm markets are somehow more valuable than small local farm and rural markets (of which we have dozens in the area), while other shortcomings are given a free pass (If Boston has no fuel oil for heating, they're ok?)... it all seems like more of a call to reurbanization than an honest evaluation of who suffers in an oil crisis. And what does public wireless networking have to do with telecommuting? Columbus is wired to the gills, and everyone I know has high-speed internet sufficient for working from home. (But then I'm in IT).
Maybe the item which irks me most is the "dearth of local produce" one. We don't have the long growing season that the Sun Belt locations do, so we'd be short of green veggies and tomatoes for 4 months of the year. Tough. Going on our local strengths, we'd still have grain, meat, cheese and beer, which would not only get us through the winter but make for one heck of a oil-shortage tailgate party.
We could also look at climate and available wind, solar and water power to judge livability of different areas. Some areas of the country would come out ahead on that. The problem is that most of the country will not and the populace not in a favorable area will move to the favorable areas swamping the local resources there.
We've already seen similar migrations from the north and east to the south and west. However, due to the benefits of cheap oil the choice of destination has been skewed. People moved to FL and AZ and made those places livable with cheap air conditioning.
When prices go up a lot and are forecast to go higher there will be panic.
It clearly states that it did not take into consideration heating or electricity. So, we have here a study about urban survivability during an oil crisis, and it doesn't even take into consideration heating and electricity. And we're supposed to take this study seriously?
How difficult would it have been to get data on per capita oil and gas and electricity consumption? And how difficult would it have been to get data on how much of a city's electricity is generated by coal, vs NG, vs nukes?
During an oil/gas crisis it would appear that cities in severe cold-weather regions, such as Minneapolis, Chicago, or Denver, would earn some very bad marks for survivability. Ditto for cities in regions with severe hot/humid weather regions, such as Houston, Miami, or New Orleans, but with regard to electricity. (Though not as bad as the former, as one can usually survive without air conditioning in Houston but can literally freeze to death Minneapolis.) In this regard, cities located in the most moderate climates such as San Francisco would get high marks.
In my view, any study that doesn't take such a basic and obvious factor into consideration is worthless. No, worse than worthless, because it gives the illusion of a scientific inquiry when it is just number wanking.
Las Vegas is ranked Higher than Omaha.
This is FLAT IMPOSSIBLE.
Omaha has multiple rail lines linking it to the rest of the country, freight and passenger. It has the Missouri river running through it and the Platte river close. Freight can come from the ocean to Omaha direct by water. Within 20 miles of downtown in any direction there is some of the most fertile farmland in the country. Meat animals can be maintained year round outside if needed. Omaha gets plenty of rain to raise crops without irrigation. Winters are cold but easily survivable for both humans and animals and summers are mild. Omaha can be a manufacturing hub, food hub or business hub.
Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert. Almost nothing grows without irrigation and water is scarce. All food must be brought in year round. Summer conditions are life threatening without climate control and lots of water.
Ranking a desert city above Omaha makes no logical sense in an energy scarce world. Just because a lot of people prefer Las Vegas over Omaha now, doesn't mean it is a better city to be in after peak oil, when food and survivability quality of life will be more important than entertainment quality of life.
Best,
Matt
Bob
Let's say we've two cities of equal size, both of which depend on people flying massive distances to partake in gambling, prositution, and organized crime in the middle of the desert. (I would say we could use Vegas and D.C. but D.C. ain't in the desert.) If one of those cities has access to the Hoover Dam and the other city doesn't, the first city has the advantage.
However, whatever benefit the Hoover dam confers upon Vegas ain't too much to get excited about when you look at what their economy is dependent on.
Best,
Matt
I would just have to add that at Least Vegas (Might be a good name for the Ghost Town.. or LostVegas) and it's permanent residents at least have the power available to them to power the changeover to other industries, etc.. and ways of making a living. I don't know what DC would do to Tighten its Beltway..
Of course, the other elephant in the room for Nevada is precisely the water that runs that Dam and fills the Hottubs of Vegas, which has been to the detriment of anyone who wants to use it on their farms to FEED these people.
Bob
But you're general point about industries of ill repute such as gambling, drinking, drugs, etc. doing well in times of societal breakdown is one I generally agree with. It's also why I'm looking into opening a local brothel.
Best,
Matt
I'm not sure what the Platte has to do with anything here. It's certainly not navigable, has limited value to Omaha for drinking water (the Missouri is much more convenient), and its real value for irrigation is farther west in the state where there's less rain. While the Missouri is navigable as far north as Sioux City, it requires constant Corps of Engineers maintenance. If you've ever watched the channelized Missouri whip by Omaha, you understand why the energy costs for barge traffic on this stretch of the Missouri are much higher than for the upper Mississippi. So much so, in fact, that river barges make up a very small fraction of the bulk cargo transported in and out. If the Corps decides to hold back water at the big upstream dams for later-season irrigation, the Missouri is not always navigable that far upstream.
Given that almost all of the electricity in the state is coal-fired or nuclear, and that there's lots of potential for wind power, Omaha may be quite well off if some of the new technologies make all-electric personal transportation feasible.
But it does emphasize the importance of harbor cities vs. landlocked ones. There is a major difference between them that will have long lasting effects in an energy constrainted future IMHO. If I had to invest some money here in NYC, it would be building a network of port shipping facilities across the extensive NYC waterfront to allow the transfer from truck based delivery to water based delivery.
In the olden days, if you wanted to be a writer or an agent or a book publisher, living in NYC was a huge advantage; it still is somewhat of an advantage but much less so than only twenty years ago. Similarly, face-to-face contact used to be far more important in financial markets than it is today. Give the high rents and high taxes in NYC, I think it will fair poorly in any future recession or depression brought about by increasing oil costs. Just how poorly in comparison to other cities is hard to say, but my WAG is that Chicago, for example, will do better than NYC as energy prices in general and oil prices in particular increase.
As ice melts, debate over Northwest Passage heats
The good news is that the melting icecaps mean we'll be able to use the Northwest passage to ship Alaskan oil to the northeast. The bad news is that there may be a wee bit of demand destruction if New York and Boston are underwater. ;-)
Not all coast locations are bad but the mega cities have serious problems.
It appears the authors of the report want to substitute money for energy. It is assumed that if you are in an area that is currently a banking or financial powerhouse that money will solve all energy problems in the future.
I must be a bad Capitalist. I just can't get my head around the concept that in an energy scarce world money will still be the solution to problems. I forsee those that live most efficiently, with respect to energy, having the best lifestyle post peak.
I have researched the ability to use solar, wind, etc as grid tie systems for reducing my energy costs at home. All alternative energy plans start with reducing energy and then substituting renewable energy capture after usage is low enough. The point is that consuming less goes a long way to getting a renewable system that can meet your needs. The problem is that most older structures and appliances are inneficient and consume too much energy and can't be fixed easily or at all.
I think people that list large cities as good havens, post peak, assume energy prices will be very high but energy still available. I see energy supply not being reliable at any price post peak and that influences my priorities. I still remember the gas shortages (artificial or not) of the 1970's. I don't care how much money you had there was no gas for sale that day. I see a return to those conditions.
I have this little fantasy ..... sort of an allegory, if you will. There is a major natural or man-made crisis, and Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and Warren Buffett find themselves trapped somewhere down in the bowels of the NYC subway system. Trains aren't running, there's chaos and mayhem up at ground level, the only light is provided by steadily weakening emergency batteries. It's been several days now, and people are getting desperate.
Well, Bill, Sam, and Warren are standing around a snack vending machine along with a whole bunch of other stranded subway riders. Through the window of the vending machine they can plainly see that there is but one rather stale-looking bag of Cheez Doodles left.
One of the subway riders inserts a coin and takes out the last bag. Immediately, Bill Gates goes up to him and says, "Sir, I will give you $100 for that bag of Cheez Doodles! " Then Sam Walton chimes in and says, "Don't take his offer, I will offer you $1,000 for your Cheez Doodles!" Finally, Warren Buffet yells, "I'm getting real hungry, and I'll offer you $1 million for those Cheez Doodles!" Well, the owner of the bag of Cheez Doodles, even though he hasn't eaten in three days, thinks this is an offer he can't possibly refuse and is about to sell the Cheeze Doodles to Warren Buffet.
Just then, some ghetto youth with a cheap gun appears, grabs the bag of Cheez Doodles, gobbles them down and says, "Excuse me, gentlemen, but under the circumstances your economic paradigm is not operative and the coin of the realm is worthless, but this one IS!" as he grins and flashes his gun in their faces.
Oil crisis does not necesarily mean an energy crisis (let's just say the main oil refinery is blown up in Suadi Arabia with 7% of world's supply, which it almost was a month ago), so electricity (which comes from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro) availability is not apples to apples with an oil shortage.
Someone said Oklahoma City was the most prepared. 85 percent of people drive to work alone (versus 24 percnt in NYC) in OK city. How will they pay for all this gas? What will they do in that region when all that money goes overseas? They will have little left for any other kind of spending, no matter how cheap housing is.
And for local food, is it really grown and accessible near OK City? Most is probably from trucks rolling in from California, Florida or Mexico.
So yes, NY, SF, Philly, etc. do look a lot better than most sprawled and landlocked cities in being prepared, not to say that they are prepared, just relatively speaking.
OECD unleaded gas taxes (2004)
USA 20.9%
Canada 39.4%
Mexico 13.0%
Australia 51.1%
New Zealand 47.5%
Poland 63.4%
Czech Republic 64.8%
Greece 53.3%
Japan 56.0%
Spain 62.6%
Slovak Republic 62.4%
Switzerland 63.4%
Luxembourg 62.6%
Austria 64.7%
Ireland 66.7%
Hungary 64.1%
Portugal 69.9%
France 74.7%
Sweden 70.2%
Turkey 71.3%
Italy 69.2%
Finland 72.3%
Germany 74.2%
Belgium 66.8%
Norway 69.4%
Denmark 69.0%
UK 76.4%
Netherlands 70.6%
Gas tax in USA is the second smallest after in Mexico among OECD nations. This small gas tax has shaped the structure of cities in USA, especially the ones that have grown so fast in the last forty years. The impact of high oil price is the most severe among nations with low gas taxes. Since Mexico is an oil exporter, USA is probably the one who will be hit the hardest among OECD nations.
20% of 10000 is more than 70% of 100.
Electricity is totally integrated. Oil is by far the greatest
source of AC. Don't have the figures at hand.
If one thing has been shown lately vis a vis the Russia Ukraine Europe NG Crunch, it's that the source will guarantee
it's supplies first, transit will get it's share second and what's left will be delivered.
Example OK transits oil via it's Cushing Hub. Who to deliver to-well, whacha got in return?
Definitely more local less national.
James
One can often (case by case) extend an existing rail line another mile or two in a year or two. All the rest (railyards, labor force) is in place. Add extra cars, and capacity on rail jumps to accomadate extra riders. Many in older cities could ride rail but chose not to. But when the Islamic Republic of Arabia replaces Saudi Arabia, they can ride instead of drive.
OKC employment centers are "spread out" AFAIK. Makes carpooling to work problematic. Perhaps you can join with neighbors to carpool to grocery store (I can walk to 5 different grocery stores within 6 blocks) and WalMart.
Bus sytem is weak in OKC. Higher oil will run their costs up. They may need to cut back operations when diesel gets to $4.50/gallon.