> The task force's biggest
> recommendation is a 50
> percent total reduction
> in oil consumption in the
> city over the next 25 years.

This simply isn't going to happen, no way, no how. People do not want to ride around on mass transit like a bunch of dependent weinies. This is, after all, why they buy cars. Mass transit takes far too long, when I can be to the store and back in 25 minutes. I'm not waiting for no bus.

Given: we will burn all the available oil, no doubt about it.

Also a given: those who have predicted resource scarcity have had extremely bad track records. (See: Paul Ehrlich.) Indeed, have they EVER been right? There have been about five predictions of a peak in oil production since the first wells in Pennsylvania, and none of them have come true.

So why should I believe a bunch of nerds in Portland, who don't even work in the oil business?

All they are able to do is regurtitate what they've read in a couple of Peal Oil books (Defreyes, Heinberg, etc.).

I mean, what special insights does this group of Portland people have?

None.

I believe Scott specifically said to "get your plump booty out of your SUV and onto a bike" not a bus. And using your own naturally produced energy is a hundred times less dependent than driving a vehicle.

Wanna bet Carl's ass is so big it has its own city council?

I'm all for driving less and biking more, but big changes can be enacted on a municipal level as well. Even if people like Carl refuse to get their enormous asses out of their SUVs, good land-use planning will ensure they won't have to drive so far to the Super Wal Mart.

I believe that's the crux of their push--urban planning that keeps services and stores in neighborhoods will make it so that it's easier to walk or bike than drive.

As a bicyclist, I never feel more like a "dependent weinie" than when I have to rely on a car to get me anywhere. Using my own legs and the simple mechanics of a bicycle is about as independent as I can imagine.

"those who have predicted resource scarcity have had extremely bad track records. (See: Paul Ehrlich.) Indeed, have they EVER been right?"

Actually, Marion King Hubbert, the fellow who predicted the peaking of United States oil production to happen in the early 1970's--and was widely ridiculed, until it turned out he was exactly right--predicted the global peak would happen sometime near... right about now. Many petroleum companies are already turning to less-profitable and harder-to-extract sources for oil, why would they do that if the easily-pumped stuff were not running out? Much of England didn't have heating fuel last winter, when it turned out that fuel they were going to buy from Russia was needed for Russia itself which backed out of the arrangement.

Paul Ehrlich's prediction about population growth and starvation may have been correct if not for two major factors that have changed since: intensive farming techniques (which over the long term ruin the soil) and a sharp reduction in fertility rates in many countries.

I know people (in general) are searching for a way to rationalize sticking with their familiar lifestyles, but those are either going to change due to proactively changing habits or they're going to be forced to change due to scarcity. Either way, they're going to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

http://www.energybulletin.net/

Even if there was no peak oil issues, I believe the recommended changes would result in a better world. Tighter communities, more green space, walking to work sounds pretty nice. Riding the bus does not have to be an insult. Not spending money on gasoline may be like getting a raise.

If you don't believe "a bunch of nerds" about peak oil, then you should at least believe Matthew Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Company International, an energy investment firm. Simmons has been a key advisor to the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations.

And he is a firm believer in peak oil.

In fact, he's said it may happen in five to ten years.

The task force realized that a 50% reduction is actually more when taking population growth into consideration. But it's do-able and critically important. If we don't focus on the root cause, our oil consumption, the other recommendations won't make enough of a difference to prepare Portland for the upcoming challenge of peak oil.

The Mercury's readers will be dealing with Peak Oil, no matter what twee-pop tit for tat words are exchanged here. All the hipsters in Portland that shop at the Red Light will realize second had will be the only availability anyway.

And for every sushi sucking wandering star thatmade their way to Portland from "my home town sucks, USA" had better learn to cook for themselves.

Sad, weird realities like the fact that girls poop will no longer be avoided. I-pod or not, tuned in or tuned out, it will effect us all.

Beware the ides of March, a cold wind blows in the Niddle East. And yes, watch some mad-max and old episodes of Macgyver for pointers.