John Kerry's New Book
Jenson Hagen
John Kerry has a new book out entitled This moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.
Mr. Kerry praises Portland's urban planning in his book. He starts off by saying how Portland was the first major city to adopt a plan to reduce greenhouse gases back in 1993. He dedicates 7 pages to covering our local efforts. While the national emissions have risen 1% per capita, Portland's have fallen 11%. Guess what Portland. It's still a drop in the bucket.
- You can hang most clothes to dry.
- Pick one day a week to bike to work.
- Carpool.
- Stop working if you need to and live with mom.
- Turn off those lights.
- Be inconvenienced!
You can buy John Kerry's new book online at Powells.com
Mar 28, '07
Portland's has fallen 11%? I'll be called a troll trying to ruin a discussion, but the truth is all it takes. No yelling or slogans needed. Just the truth. The Portland emissions claim is pure fabrication existing only in the minds of several public agencies who have no integrity. With Blue folks forever touting that facts form your opinions I'm sure you'll demand validation for this absurd Portland claim. Or not so much since it fits your comfort zone.
Mar 28, '07
Does anyone think John Kerry will do any of these things:
You know, I really can't stand people with multiple mansions and yachts telling ME how I can save energy.
Ok, let the name calling begin...
Mar 28, '07
We will soon see gasoline at $5 per gallon or more due to the impending war against Iran. I predict we will bomb Iran at 4:00am, April 6th.
Mar 28, '07
a focus on population would be useful at this point. we grow at 75 million people a year. all of the light turning-off won't do us a bit of good as we add add add
small families increased access to contraception worldwide more funding for reproductive health care fund the UNFPA sex education at all levels - medically accurate get rid of abstinence only education funding, worldwide stop giving tax credits for families that have lots of kids celebrate those who choose not to procreate
10:11 a.m.
Mar 28, '07
Seriously?
Stop working if you need to and live with mom.
Yeah, that'll happen.
Mar 28, '07
"Stop working if you need to and live with mom."
Who are you addressing with that suggestion? Young people, college students? The notion that foregoing independence to mooch off of your parents will do much to save the earth is silly. What kind of society do we want to foster? You might as well take it a step farther and say "stop enjoying yorself" or "stop doing anything that uses energy."
Mar 28, '07
a little more on population and global warming that just came through my in-box...
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release
LEADERS URGED TO BE “BRAVE” ON POPULATION GROWTH
The extra human population forecast for the planet in 2050 will have an effect on climate change equivalent to nearly two more Americas, the Optimum Population Trust said today (Tuesday, March 13).
Commenting on the new population projections released by the UN in New York today, which show global population rising by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050*, OPT co-chair Valerie Stevens said: “The world needs to wake up to the devastating effects the growth in numbers of our own species is having on the climate, on planetary ecosystems and on human survival prospects.
“Year after year population figures are released that must spell increasing crisis for all of us and yet they are met with a deafening silence. Everything we manage to achieve for the natural environment is being wiped out by the nearly 80 million extra people each year who need to use up space and resources.
“We know that population is a sensitive issue but it really is time that political and environmental leaders stopped worrying about causing ‘offence’ to people or about a backlash from public opinion, took their courage in their hands and began alerting everyone to the need to rein back human numbers, humanely and democratically, for the sake of the planet.”
Since humans and their activities are the source of rising carbon dioxide emissions, each increment in the world’s population makes it correspondingly harder to tackle climate change, Valerie Stevens pointed out. In 2050, according to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “medium-low” scenario, average world per capita emissions of carbon will be 1.2 tonnes (4.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide). An extra 2.5 billion people will thus generate, conservatively estimated, about 3 billion tonnes of carbon. This is nearly twice the emissions of the US, which are roughly 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon a year (2004 figures, Energy Information Administration), and 40 per cent of total global emissions (7.4 billion tonnes, 2004, EIA).
However, all living systems are at risk from human population growth. Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientist, told a hearing of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Population, Development and Reproductive Health on July 3 2006: “It is self-evident that the massive growth in the human population through the 20th century has had more impact on biodiversity than any other single factor.” (Quoted in Return of the Population Growth Factor - Its impact upon the millennium development goals, APPG, January 31, 2007).
The APPG’s main report also concluded: “The evidence is overwhelming: the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals] are difficult or impossible to achieve with the current levels of population growth in the least developed countries and regions.”
Valerie Stevens added: “It surely isn’t asking too much of our leaders, not only politicians but the people heading up environmental and development organisations, to make the facts about population and the environment clear to the public. Some politicians have started being ‘braver’ about climate change. They should go one step further now and tell us the truth about the damage human population growth is doing to the planet.”
NOTES
*The newly released 2006 Revision of the official United Nations population estimates and projections says the world’s population will reach 6.7 billion in July this year. By then world population will have risen by 547 million since 2000, a gain of 78 million persons annually.
The 2.5 billion rise expected by 2050 is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950. The 9.2 billion forecast for 2050 is 0.1 billion higher than projected in the previous Revision in 2004. However, limiting the increase to 2.5 billion depends on fertility in less developed countries dropping from 2.75 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050. To achieve such reductions, the UN says it is essential that access to family planning expands in the poorest countries. If fertility remained at 2000-2005 levels, world population in 2050 would be nearly 12 billion.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Telephone 07976 370221 or see www.optimumpopulation.org
Or contact the following:
Valerie Stevens, OPT co-chair: 01509 843109 / 07711 616243 (mobile
Mar 28, '07
I can't find any source for the 11% figure.
Here's what I found on < a href="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:tjVqB_zzNzIJ:www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm%3Fid%3D112117+portland+reduction+in+emissions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a">Portland Online:
No primary source cited, but if it's right, there certainly has not been a 11% decrease. There may have actually been an overall increase, due to population growth.
Doesn't look like the 2010 deadline will be met.
Mar 28, '07
Since there is not and has not been a valid measurement of Portland emissions any claims of reducing them is completely concocted.
Let's all remember the criticism of Global Warming deniers not using any peer reviewed studies or science in their opposition and and apply that to the Portland claims. If it aint documented is doesn't exist. What Portland did with help from various agencies is put together a self-sustaining report with assumptions of emissions based upon fuel sales in the CoP. At best that's sloppy science. At worst it's deliberate manipulation to justify efforts and programs the agencies support and rely upon for jobs.
7%? 11%? per capita? absolute reduction?
Absolute nonsense.
Mar 28, '07
I would think the measurement of pollutants in the air above Portland on any given day would depend, quite literally, on which way the wind was blowing.
Mar 28, '07
Just what was missing from my life, yet another failed presidential candidate hopping the “I’m socially conscious” bandwagon as a way to rake in the $$, pay off campaign debts and rehab his tarnished image while living the good life in Hyanasport.
At least he’s not lecturing us from the Oval Office.
Mar 28, '07
I might have to agree with Janice on this one.
As much as I want Portland to have been successful in reducing its carbon emissions, or total emissions, or emissions per capita...
...if it has NOT been successful, I think it's pretty important that we know that, too. In fact, even more important, because it means that there is much more work to be done.
So, anybody with better knowledge of this subject than I, please speak up:
Has a peer-reviewed study yet been conducted to determine if, and to what degree, emissions may have been reduced in Portland since 1990, per capita, in total, or at all?
If the answer is no, isn't it about time for somebody to conduct a study, or at least announce their intent to do so?
Mar 28, '07
When it comes to the issue of emissions do we count those at the Boardman electrical generating plant, which is claimed by some to one of the dirtiest in the nation, as part of Portland's since Portland get much of its electrical power from there? MW
Mar 28, '07
On living with Mom:
Actually, there's no reason to assume this means 20- or 30-somethings with no lives. Look at it as you, your chosen adult partner and your kids living with your mother. Grandma, who's retired, doesn't have to keep her own car just for groceries and doctors' appointments (and trips to see you). You're fueling and furnishing one home instead of two. And with you there, she won't face the choice between resource-intensive assisted living or living alone.
Or, if you're a two-kid family in one of those 3,000-5,000 sq. ft places in the suburbs or exurbs, move Mom in with you, and your brother's family, too, and maybe Great-Aunt Tilly. All those extra hands can help you pay the mortgage and hang the laundry (no, you don't have to invite your no-good deadbeat freeloading cousins). There's no question that a shocking number of Oregonians have more house than human beings need, and if they could be persuaded to get cozy, we'd also go a long way toward addressing the need for housing.
Yes, probably once you get all those people in a building, one of the adults may have to give up outside work and become an unpaid household manager. At that point, you can probably do without the extra wage.
<hr/>On Powells.com:
Fine choice for folks in Larger Oregon.
If you're in the metro area, however, bus/streetcar service is excellent to most of the Powells outlets, and getting out among your fellow human beings is widely recognized as a civic good. Spare the Earth the manufacture of all the cardboard and plastic needed to package a book, as well as sending a heavy delivery vehicle to make a special trip out to your home.
(Shocking, isn't it, how prodigal we can be when we let habit take over? Even Jenson.)
Mar 28, '07
Buckman Res:
All proceeds from the book will go to environmental causes, so it is not to rake in money or pay off campaign debts. Secondly, as John Kerry organized the first Earth Day in Mass. in 1970 and Teresa Heinz Kerry has advocated for the environment for years with her philanthropy (the two actually met at an Earth Day rally in 1990 and again in 1992 at the Earth Day Summit), it is rather preposterous to think that the Kerrys' presidential loss suddenly made them more "socially conscious" about something they have cared about their entire adult lives.
Mar 28, '07
Garlyn, Yo will get nothing but silence because there is no science, no study and certainly no "peer review" showing or validating Portland reducing emissions. And not one agency has any intention of conducting any study. The reason is simple. If they DID a study it would contradict the falsehoods they have been touting. They can't have that.
Here's the zinger,,, It's too important to perpetuate the policies they claimed reduced emisssons even if they don't truly reduce emissions. Isn't that something. No science or peer review needed? And look how successful they have been at preptrating the Portland emissions myth they fabricated. It's been in the O, in the NY Times and here in a thread quoting how it found it's way into John Kerry's book. Just imagine how much this myth has been repeated. Where's all of the "science", "facts" and "peer review" proponents on this? Being good little quiet robots.
Mar 28, '07
and you can buy a gas guzzling SUV and claim its your wife's so you don't appear to be a hypocrite too, just like Kerry!
Mar 28, '07
Wasn't John Kerry, presidential candidate in favor of all these things before he was against them? Or against them before he was in favor? Whatever....
Mar 29, '07
I agree that it would be infinitely more satisfying to hear about Portland's great successes with some footnoting to identify their sources. It's really astonishing how many times I've heard it with different numbers but without a single suggestion of actual measurement.
Mar 29, '07
Just as I predicted, a deafening silence from ALL of the champions of "science", "facts" and "peer review". When it comes to Portland's bogus emissions reduction claims that stuff is optional. Let's remember this next time a thread touts the need for science, facts and peer review. In the mean time, move along now, no sense further exposing anything.
Mar 29, '07
Janice said:
Well, you might have a point, except for one little detail: If a peer-reviewed study were to show that Portland's emissions have not dropped as much as people think they have, then the obvious solution would be this:
A more draconian response to cut emissions.
More limits on driving.
Complete ban on 2-stroke engines.
More transit.
More bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
More tree plantings.
Because all of these things do, indeed, reduce emissions. If they're not reducing emissions enough, then we just need more of them. The per-capita rate needs to climb.
Sorry to break the news to you, but that's how it works.
cheers, ~Garlynn
Mar 29, '07
This is just too special. There it is. It doesn't matter if they made up the emissions reduction claim.
Aren't you forgetting one little detail? It is quite possible that the policies are increasing emissions. More light rail and bicycle/pedestrian facilities while ignoring traffic growth needs causes congestion to worsen and emissions increase.
You're assuming there actually is a net emissions reduction occuring from the policies you listed.
That's easy to do without any science, study or peer review now isn't it? Who needs science when you can assume. Doesn't it bother you at all that tax dollars and public agencies would be used to compile a bogus report? Or is that MO only an outrage when Bush does it?
Mar 29, '07
Sure, I'd be upset about spending taxes on a bogus report. I haven't seen any report though, valid or not. Have you?
And really, Janice, if you want to talk about scientific validity, the method you're using:
Holler that you want to see some evidence,
Pause briefly,
Announce that the fact that none of the people who happened to hear you holler happened to have both the evidence in their pockets and the time to show it to you proves that the evidence doesn't exist.
Well, sorry, but that's not gonna get you through a fifth-grade science fair at any decent school.
Mar 29, '07
Susan, I've already seen the report. Like many who visit BlueOregon. There was an entire BlueOregon thread dedicated to the report.
So there's no need to play games. The Portland Office of sustainable development with help from Metro and others cooked up this report. These government agencies need to go through a 5th grade science fair along with some ethics training. Here's the earlier discussion. http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/07/portland_and_gl.html
There is no science, study, or peer review to validate the emissions reduction claims. That's why no one offers up any links to any substantiating science , study or peer review. It doesn't exist and everyone knows the POSD report claims are baseless. But the truth is optional when it aligns with a preferable agenda. The bigger trouble is, this same brand of integrity permeates the global warming agenda.
Mar 29, '07
Janice:
You're right; there was a "report" associated with that thread in 2005. Appendix 1 contains relevant data, but doesn't have the context necessary for a reader to use the data. (For instance, on what evidence did the city decide that "ICLEI’s Clean Air & Climate Protection software, version 1.0" was valid? These are presumably not direct measurements of emissions; what was measured, and what assumptions were made to calculate these quantities from those measurements?)
I read that "report" then and I reread it now that you brought it up, and I still say I haven't seen a report, valid or not. What OSD produced is a position paper, relying on scientific hearsay as much as all the talk that's referred to it since.
But really, no matter how often you claim that the fact nobody's given you a report proves that no such report exists, I'm not going to believe you. In fact, it makes it hard for me to believe that you'd recognize scientifically valid reasoning if you saw it.
Mar 29, '07
Susan, Position paper?, report?, call it whatever you want. The point is the claims of emissions reductions was fabricated. The methodology used to "measure" emissions was laughable at best and down right fraudulent at worst. This is the best critiquing of the bogus "position paper" I have found. http://www.cascadepolicy.org/globalreport2005.doc
I have as much science behind my thesis that the policies around here are actually increasing emissions than does the OSD for their "position paper". Emissions are increasing because transportation planning has resulted in congestion getting worse. It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility. There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs. Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos. And the emissions to go with it.
But don't believe me.
This is from the head of Metro in 2000, 7 years ago.
"Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse. It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility. There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs. Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos." from Metro head, Mike Burton's State of the Region Speech, 2000