All posts in the topic Peak Oil and implications for Christchurch (Short link)
Summary
- There are 19 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by 'Just Blair' Anderson at Aug 26 15:12 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| John Veitch | jsveitch.vcf | 2007 Jun 12 02:41 UTC |
| John Veitch | jsveitch.vcf | 2007 Jun 13 05:08 UTC |
Hi Bob, Thanks for your introduction, and for your participation here. My major concerns for the city over the next few years are the risks posed by Peak Oil and how we can mitigate them (for those of you who don't know anything about it, just Google for "peak oil", or visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil for a good overview). Very briefly, Peak Oil is the point where we've used up half of the worlds available oil, and the easily accessible half at that - the second half will be a *lot* more expensive and difficult to obtain. There is considerable debate about when this will happen, but one thing I can say about it is that most credible experts have for the last few years been estimating between 2005 and 2010. Most of the less credible estimates have been between never and 2050, but in the time I've been watching (the last four years), the later estimates have been tracking consistently backwards towards the more credible estimates. So, it's going to happen pretty soon, if it hasn't already. Arguably the biggest risk that Christchurch politicians could take in the coming years is to buy in to the assumption that our motoring habits will continue to grow at the current rate for the forseeable future, and that we need to allow for a continual increase in the roading infrastructure to cater for it at a substantial cost to Christchurch ratepayers. So, Bob, how do you feel about taking this risk on behalf of the city ? If it turns out that, the day after you're elected Mayor, a worldwide consensus is reached that Peak Oil is here and now, our easy motoring ways of the past are coming to an end, and something needs to be done about it urgently, what would that something for Christchurch be ? Cheers, Andrew.
Andrew Groom wrote: > My major concerns for the city over the next few years are the risks > posed by Peak Oil and how we can mitigate them. Some simple maths to focus the mind. # Dr Albert A Bartlett is a remarkable man. In a video that lasts almost an hour he explains in words everyone can understand why the USA will quite quickly run into decline and why the rapid development of China will also change course. The video is called "Arithmetic, Population and Energy." There is a transcript here: http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645 And a video stream here: http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram However Dr Bartlett only has part of the story. He neglects the effect of free markets on the picture. Oil is not going to "run out" it's simply going to get so expensive that most of us will choose not to use it. That is likely to happen more quickly that we want it too. What will that do to the economy? It will cause huge hardship in every part of the economy that is heavily oil dependent, and severe dislocation everywhere. Incomes will fall, and there will be an increase in the death rate. Real estate prices will fall, but not in a uniform way. It will be unpleasant but most of us will survive IF we are blessed by good GOVERNANCE. Which brings us back to Christchurch. Prior to WWII public transport was both cheap and effective. Since then we have allowed our city to spread and we've built it to accommodate the widespread use of cars. We now need to backtrack, probably returning to trams or perhaps on the northern route light rail. Land use planning should be looking toward that type of future. The simple maths of Dr Bartlett tell us that when we build assets (eg houses) that will last more than 20 years, the latter part of that asset's life will most likely be in a very different world. House and land values for properties that are hard to service by public transport on the outside of the urban area might be difficult to sustain. On the other hand inner city flats and apartments might be in high demand. Prior to WWII most people kept a garden and grew many of their own vegetables. Where people have access to land, that means of saving some money might return to a substantial degree. Many of our sections, having been subdivided no longer allow such a luxury.
The following file was added to this topic:
Andrew,
I haven't read anything abut "peak oil" from the references you have set
down on your email - but let's get this straight!
If you want to see oil consumption visit Dubai. No one in Dubai is planning
for "peak oil" shortages there in the next five years!
Dubai has the largest indoor skiing slope in the world - and that is only
one of many, many oil-consuming extravagances in the place.
In the 1970's I remember completing a survey about the future. We were
running out of oil back in the '70's - if you can recall.... The prediction
was that we'd be sucking up the last drops about 1997 - not that we would
have an oil glut. (Which in 1997 we did have. Oil became so cheap it was no
longer worthwhile to invest in new refineries. The lack of refining capacity
led to oil shortages and higher prices... which led to greater refining
investment.....)
Next, if "peak oil" were true, certainly there would be price increase. But
that would not affect well-paid city council employees and other office
wallahs for years! Nope, they'd all have jobs sorting out planning issues to
do with climate change and "peak oil".
In fact, most of our exports are freighted by sea. Virtually all cargo
vessels are oil-powered. The stuff we import and export would start to cost
a few extra bob. We would therefore lose a few exports - and quite a few
imports. The exports - milky stuff - would still be OK though - because
other milk producers have to get their product to market too. They will have
to use oil-powered transport too. Therefore NZ will probably still be price
competitive - for that sort of product.
If "peak oil" disappears down the plug hole like the doomsayers keep
predicting. That is, it suddenly stops being available before any price
signals indicate a problem then there won't be any boats shipping our
product - and their won't be any trucks getting the product to the wharves
to be shipped. So, if that happens, worrying about inner city v outer suburb
living is going to be immaterial. Public transport will be a waste of time -
as no-one will have jobs to commute to!
Meanwhile - hop off your bicycle.... Little ol' NZ telling the rest of the
world how to save"peak oil" will be totally ineffective. Just stop worrying
about it - burn the stuff as much as you like - the rest of the world isn't
going to put the oil you don't use into a special savings account for a
rainy day!
Meanwhile - build more roads so we can export more milky stuff and so we can
"grow" - so we have the wealth to cope should any oil crisis develop.
Cheers,
Tim Kerr
Hi Tim.
Well we must begin with the assumption - our resources are finite. It doesn't
matter where they are being used because if you look at that verb its 'used'
which means we are taking it out of the ground not to be replaced, unless you
can think of a way to replace organisms which have been decaying for millions
of years. If you can, please feel free to share how. I'm sure various
presidents would become your guranteed friend.
Back to your points, especially your concluding point. Okay.. so if we go ahead
with your idea, build roads increase our exports, because of course exporting
is the best thing we can do which will give us money right? So we would have
this money and apparently loads of it, but what will happen when the finite
resource oil is depleted? Well we can rub our money together or take a bath in
it. Woo hoo. Maybe all these cows and all that milky stuff will help us, we
could all just have a dairy diet eh? Because it looks like we'll be relying on
that as our top resource.
I'm sure the distribution of wealth and resources would be completely fair.
Doubt it. It's not 'fair' now so i don't see that changing. There is a rather
large gap between rich and poor in New Zealand.
New Zealand can be a strong advocate in change. Resources are finite, their
depletion for our consumer driven ways, which can't be sustained are
unjustifiable. I'll hop on my bike thanks.
I hope you can realise that our resources are not never-ending. We all live in
this world and we can all do things that make it a better place. We can be a
role-model for change. We need more than the milky stuff to sustain our lives
and the lives of future generations - have you even thought about them? - so
get on a bike and really just pull your head out of the sand mate.
Andrew wrote: We were running out of oil back in the '70's
As I've always understood - having lived through 'carless days' and the 70s
- wasn't it more that OPEC pulled the chain of virtually the whole world and
the prices hiked ? They knew there was more oil elsewhere in world to be
found, but wanted to keep their own supply viable for as long as possible
and capped their production as a result. Now discovery of most of the
other cheaply accessible oil has happened, there is only the very
expensively accessible stuff left, and whats left in the Middle East,
Russia, Venezuela ?
And you seriously think everyone should continue consuming it full speed
ahead - for now, and how long exactly ?
I am interested in the psychology of peak oil. Its not even whether peak oil is
real or not... its the perception that it is thats important. This effects
markets and price, and eventually us.
When you have to many people on a planet then its 'peak' just about anything,
and I am concerned that this peak oil business - speculative yet possible.
The United Nations conservatively estimates even with austere population
measures that population will approach 10billion by 2050. The alternative
technologies for energy distribution include biofuels which immediately impact
upon carbohydrate food stock demand.You need carbs to feed an extra 4billion
people.
Global warming is seen as terrible. Why? My understanding is that some
countries get warmer and others get colder. It is generally accepted that
warner conditions are more conducive to supporting higher harvested yields. As
Europe is predicted to increase in temperature at the expense of a few other
areas like pakastan, which may get cooler ... the infrastructure is in place to
support increased crop production.
God help us in a climate where we have ten billion people to feed, and we are a
few degrees colder!!!
So maybe the best move is to abuse our oil stocks for the next 50 years, heat
the earth a bit and hope its enough to feed the starving hoards?
Personally I think the location I am (Murchison) is getting cooler in summer
and warmer in winter. I was talking to a 65 year old farmer been here his whole
life... never in his knowledge has there been such strong grass growth through
the entire autumn. Yet never have we had such dry and cool summers here. I live
on a block of land that 20 years ago was a freezer at this time... we have not
even had a frost yet!
So I think this global warming stuff is crap...crap because its completley
dependant upon where you live and not necessarily a bad thing. temperature goes
up and down up and down ...bla bla bla ... when people start to worry about
their american beauty of a life being impacted - then what interests me is why
arent they a bit harder, a bit more capable of living in a less air conditioned
world.
Lets say we all stop consuming petroleum products right now... what will
happen.
Oil will reduce in price and get swallowed up at twice the rate by developing
second world economies. All you are doing is getting out of the queue. Your
still gonna have to deal with all the crap that comes down (if any at all) when
it runs out ... but you will be comfortable in the knowledge that you at least
are the righteous one, you who became a petroleum hermit, and sat on your tower
starving yourself for a higher good ... while the teaming hungry billions
wanting a piece of american pie reinvent the six cylinder gas guzzler all over
a gain.
nah... live and let live...feed, eat and make sure you have a way to avoid the
draft when the food wars start.
Hi, Tim is funny to post: > Meanwhile - build more roads so we can export more milky stuff and so we can "grow" - so we have the wealth to cope should any oil crisis develop. More roads would PREVENT the export of more milky stuff as cows are not cars. More roads would NOT lead to an increase of exports as none of the NZ roads go abroad. Ta. Mark Rauterkus <email obscured> http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com http://Elect.Rauterkus.com http://Platform.For-Pgh.org 412 298 3432 = cell
Just to return the local response aspect, Christchurch has not exactly been leading the world in the local response to Peak Oil but some other local authorities worldwide have been making real progress: http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=ecije http://www.energybulletin.net/11464.html There's some excellent resources in here that could help in the development of a Christchurch plan for Peak Oil, and this would be a great opportunity for the new Council to be proactive. I should also stress that many people dismiss the concept of Peak Oil as just "doom and gloom". However, the above initiatives are positive moves towards a better future for everyone, not just a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Cheers, Andrew.
I think you miss the point.
It is a waste of time riding a bicycle to forestall "peak oil". The amount
of oil you save (minuscule that it may be) will only be used by someone
using their airconditioner in Dubai - for about 5 minutes....
Everyone is arguing to cut back on road expenditure because we should all be
saving the environment by riding bicycles or riding trains. In fact, better
roads increase productivity by allowing our products more efficient access
to markets. I am not referring to your morning commuter traffic jams, I am
referring to roads (and other infrastructure development) to increase
productivity.
Does that make sense?
P. S. I haven't noticed any morning commuter traffic jams in Christchurch at
0600 Hrs.... only between 0830 and 0900 Hrs..... Maybe the poor workers are
already riding bicycles!
Andrew Groom wrote: > Christchurch has not exactly > been leading the world in the local response to Peak Oil but some other > local authorities worldwide have been making real progress: > > http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=ecije > http://www.energybulletin.net/11464.html Those links are very interesting Andrew. There has been a "Peak Oil" group meeting regularly in Nelson for at least 12 months. They have had some contact with local body politicians but I understand there is not too much interest. Carl Horn, ex Christchurch, ex Labour Party, now a Green Party member, Toastmaster, now resident of Nelson is one of the organisers. I'll try to get him into this forum. As a secondary matter, a local issues forum in the Tasman District is a potential project. If you have friends in the area, you might test the water. 5-6 interested people is all we need.
The following file was added to this topic:
Hi Tim,
I think the point about changing our habits in response to Peak Oil is
not to save oil for someone else's benefit, but to manage with less and
less of it to our benefit. Trying to conserve a non-renewable resource
(that is consumed in the process of using it) is a fools errand, unless
it is part of an overall strategy to create a future less dependent on
that resource.
Cheers, Andrew.
Huh? All I'm trying to point out is that "peak oil" is probably more in
someone's imagination than in actuality. That if "peak oil" was truly
peaking - then how come Dubai is using it up like there is no tomorrow?
Secondly, if people who spend all day sitting on their backsides in front of
a computer screen bleat on about saving the world be using less oil in
little old Christchurch then fine.... But it would be more efficient to
combat so-called "peak oil" (and climate change for that matter) by
improving our infrastructure and productivity.
If oil prices go ballistic then we will still be exporting milky products -
because farmers in Poland and Turkey still won't be able to meet NZ's
transport costs - because (hopefully) our systems are working whilst they
still drive round in ancient Mercedes trucks....
That is, our roads and ports are at peak efficiency because we have invested
in them.
Meanwhile, riding your bicycle to forestall "peak oil" is a waste of time
because any saving you make will only be taken up by someone in Dubai
turning up the air conditioner another notch. Ride your bicycle by all
means - it will keep you fit for the time when oil does run out - next
century or whenever.... But, making bike riding or enforced public transport
investment an issue related to "peak oil" is a waste of resources - that
should be invested in productive efficiency.
As for "leading the world by example...". Who cares? Certainly not people
who are at last improving their material standards - currently something
like a third of the world's population!
Cheers,
Tim Kerr.
Since we have Sally Buck here for the week, I'd like to say firstly "Welcome to the forum, Sally!" and secondly to ask you what you think about the issue of Peak Oil, the potential risks for Christchurch and the measures you would support as a Councillor to mitigate those risks. Background discussion on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4cYOM0GlXpQrfpeMxF4Ebs Cheers, Andrew.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you very much for your postings and website links on this topic. I
am very happy to respond to this topic as I feel very strongly about it
and believe that we will reach peak oil within the next 10 years. You
make a very good point when you say, "that the point about changing our
habits in response to Peak Oil is not to save oil for someone else's
benefit, but to manage with less of it to our benefit."
The biggest impact of peak oil will be transportation of people and
freight.
For moving people around we need to make sure that public transport is
fast, efficient and cost effective for the user. I have been advocating
for bus priority lanes and park and ride systems for several years now
and we are now finally seeing the start of this with the Hills Rd bus
priority system.
These of course could become "notional tramlines" or "movement
corridors" which could at a later stage be converted to rail and the
UDS is looking at this idea. However in terms of peak oil I don't
believe the UDS goes far enough - it should include more specific
strategic promotion of land use patterns that reduce transportation
needs and promote use of public transport and walking/cycling. We should
also be preserving farmland close to the city and encourage food
production on this. This is not helped by the UDS allowing 60% green
field development.
The distribution of freight raises other issues as the cost of this
rises as NZ relies heavily on road transport systems for distribution of
food and goods. Food is now being grow further away from the centres of
population and more of it is being imported. Food prices will rise as
will all goods - household budgets will be stretched thus increasing the
gap between rich and poor.
The United Nations conservatively estimates that population will
approach 10 billion by 2050. The US are looking replacing crude oil with
biofuels from maize,beet etc however the land needed to produce enough
of this would directly impact on the carbohydrate food stock demand.You
need carbohydrates to feed an extra four billion people.
Actually I believe that the topic should be called 'peak oil/energy' as
oil is one source of energy and there are studies that show we are not
just running out of oil we will be facing shortages of other forms of
energy in NZ within the next 10 years. In NZ peak oil will mostly affect
transport but industry mostly relies on thermal energy and electricity.
Generation of both of these will need to increase hugely just to cope
with demand in the next 10 years.
I am hoping that the sustainability group that I have initiated will be
a vehicle for our Council to be able to develop a Christchurch strategy
for peak oil/energy. I will certainly be raising this issue under the
energy strategy.
Buck, Sally wrote:
> The biggest impact of peak oil will be transportation of people and
> freight.
> For moving people around we need to make sure that public transport is
> fast, efficient and cost effective for the user. I have been advocating
> for bus priority lanes and park and ride systems for several years now
> and we are now finally seeing the start of this with the Hills Rd bus
> priority system.
> These of course could become "notional tramlines" or "movement
> corridors" which could at a later stage be converted to rail and the
> UDS is looking at this idea. However in terms of peak oil I don't
> believe the UDS goes far enough - it should include more specific
> strategic promotion of land use patterns that reduce transportation
> needs and promote use of public transport and walking/cycling. We should
> also be preserving farmland close to the city and encourage food
> production on this. This is not helped by the UDS allowing 60% green
> field development.
Thanks for your reply, Sally. It's particularly encouraging to hear your
views on preserving farmland as this is exactly the sort of enlightened
thinking we're going to need in the coming years. I personally would be
delighted to help in any process to formulate a Christchurch /
Canterbury response to Peak Oil. Also, as a member of Sustainable
Otautahi Christchurh (www.sustainablechristchurh.org.nz), the
preparedness of the city for Peak Oil is one of our major concerns and
we will be happy to help in any way we can.
The UDS was a well-meaning but fundamentally flawed attempt to manage
the assumed growth of the city based on simplistic assumptions about
continued levels of energy usage, population growth, resource
availability, etc. Inasmuch as the strategy is an evolving one, it would
still be the ideal vehicle for planning the future development of the
region, but it *must* challenge these fundamental assumptions about our
future, assumptions that are looking shakier day by day.
Cheers, Andrew.
Hello Everyone and in particular Sally,
I'm Wendy Everingham and this is the first time I have posted to the
list. Based in Lyttelton and actively involved in Project Port Lyttelton
a grass roots community organisation, our community is actively
exploring and experimenting to obtain sustainable solutions for our
township..
Fabulous Sally that you are initiating a Sustainability Group in council
and even better that you have heard of our organisation and would like
us involved in the process. I think we have lots to offer.
Lyttelton community is actively working towards future proofing our
township for the energy shortfall that looms. Our biggest success to
date has been creating a local Farmers Market where we are all able to
buy locally sourced food whilst meeting our neighbours. A new project at
Seven Oaks in Opawa will see our organisation creating an organic market
garden. This garden will supply our local restaurants with organic
produce plus offer another alternative food supply at the Farmers Market.
Whilst I share your concern about loosing available farm land for food
production and the UDS not pushing the boundaries enough, it is amazing
what land sources you can find when you look in any city. We already
have many households offering their back yards for food production in
Lyttelton if we need it!
Making Christchurch more sustainable will be about people getting to
know each other and working collectively together. For that reason I
think Community Development and Engagement will be the two most
important factors to be enhanced so that the sustainable outcomes we
seek can be achieved.
Anyway if anyone would like to know more about the work PPL does, see
our web site www.lyttelton.net.nz We think of our community group as a
catalyst for sustainable outcomes. Our group goes from strength to
strength and everyday we have more people who actively support the work
we are doing. It's a really exciting time in Lyttelton and amazing to
see what is possible when people actively want change.
Regards,
Wendy Everingham.
Wendy Everingham
Community Facilitator
Ph 328 8359
FYI, regarding the possibility of a peak in global oil production and whether or not we should be preparing for it, it looks like we've hit it already: http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_the_view_from_oils_peak Of particular interest is the graph about 1/3 of the way down the article showing world crude oil production since 2003: "According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a division of the US Department of Energy, the monthly average for daily world production rates for crude oil achieved 74.2 Mb/d (AG: Mb/d = millions of barrels per day) in May 2005; that figure has not been equaled since." Cheers, Andrew.
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:42 +1200, Kevyn Miller wrote: > Here is the latest government study on preparing for peak oil in urban areas. > http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/research/reports/357.pdf Thanks for that, Kevin. Really encouraging to see some serious thought being put into this at a Central govt level at last. My initial thoughts: 1. Really encouraging to see that they recognise the important of urban planning in minimising transport energy. Do we dare hold our breath while we wait for our CCC elected members to comment on this ? :-) 2. The report takes a very cautious approach towards the fact that we seem to be having some oil supply problems of late. The official thinking in the exec. summary seems to be that we simply aren't pumping oil out of existing reserves fast enough, but to be fair they do go into it in more detail later in the report. 3. Of note is the following para in the exec. summary: "Particularly important is the assumption that economic growth, workforce participation, vehicle ownership and disposable income are not related to oil prices. This means that aside from the direct fuel prices impacts, oil prices are not considered to impact on economic performance; an assumption that is likely to overestimate actual travel demands." ... But I'm being picky. It's an excellent step in the right direction, and I would be *extremely* disappointed to see this go unobserved by our elected members.
At the HRC 'Diversity Forum' on Sunday evening in Auckland I heard some
excellent insight into 'the greatest threat to harmony' in New Zealand -
'energy policy failure'.
The panelist was a professor.
Food for thought.