Peak Oil in Rural Oregon
The Ashland Daily Tidings has an interesting (though brief) article exploring what, exactly, might happen in their corner of southern Oregon if oil prices keep going up. To me, it's good to see people thinking more about this. Not just because it will help people prepare for the adjustments that will be needed should oil become progressively dearer -- but also because it might help shift people's thinking about what kinds of transitions might be possible, or even desirable, even if oil prices flatten out or decline.
But I do think that a word of caution is in order -- if energy prices do continue to trend upwards, we're going to have to take a cold and steely-eyed look at our proposed solutions to help people cope. Some of them, however well-intentioned, just might not cut it.
Toxic Cocktails
Two interesting -- and a bit disturbing -- pieces of toxics news today.
First, several news outlets are reporting on a new study, coming out of UC Berkeley, showing that mixtures of several environmental contaminants (in this case, pesticides) can be far more potent than higher concentrations of a single compound. The problem is especially bad for frog populations -- which, as frog-watchers everywhere will tell you, are in particularly bad shape.
Second, there's this new report, put together by two breast cancer groups:
As many as half of all new breast cancers may be foisted upon woman by pollutants in the environment, triggered by such items as bisphenol-A lining tin cans or radiation from early mammograms, according to a review of recent science by two breast cancer groups.
No comments here, except that, perhaps--just perhaps--the former study might help explain the latter.
Survey Says...Huh?
Some snippets from an opinion survey of Puget Sound residents, conducted last year by Washington's transportation department, yield a bit of a conundrum:
- When asked whether there's "enough", "not enough", or "too much" money going into the state's general -purpose roads and highways, 51 percent of respondents say "not enough," and only 9 percent say "too much." That is, the majority of respondents want to spend more money on roads.
- When asked the same question about transit, 45 percent say "not enough" and 16 percent say "too much."
Comparing transit and roads, the figures are fairly close -- but still, it seems that survey respondents think that road spending deserves a boost more than transit does.
But...the very next question in the survey asks respondents to choose between two statements:
- "We've got enough roads and highways. We need to expand our transit system with more buses, light rail, and other transportation choices to give commuters choices for their commute."
- "We've got plenty of transit. We need to maintain the roads we have, expand existing roads and highways, and build new roads to make faster connections for people in our region."
The result -- 51 percent of survey respondents in the Puget Sound agreed with the former statement; 38 percent with the latter. That is, survey respondents support new transit over new roads, and by a fairly wide margin.
What gives? How can public opinion tilt towards more funding for roads, when a majority believe we already have enough?
Slim City
New studies of King County, Washington find that sprawl is linked to dirtier air and bigger bellies. Walkable neighborhoods (those places with higher residential density, more street connections, and nearby to shops, schools, and parks) appear to be healthier for residents and less damaging to air quality--even when taking into account age, income, education and ethnicity.
A few key findings (liberally excerpted from the full coverage in the Seattle Times):
- On average the Body Mass Index -- a measure of height and weight -- of residents of the more walkable neighborhoods was lower, and they were more likely to get 30 minutes of daily exercise.
- People who lived and worked in more walkable neighborhoods produced fewer pollutants associated with smog.
- A 5 percent increase in a neighborhood's walkability index was associated with a 0.23-point drop in Body Mass Index. Bigger changes in a neighborhood's walkability would be expected to produce greater differences in weight.
