New group prepares for high gas prices / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

January 21, 2009

There’s a group of Lawrence residents who definitely aren’t betting on cheap gasoline prices being around for long.

The city’s new Peak Oil Task Force met for the first time Tuesday with discussions of how the future may include the need for more food to be grown locally and more jobs to be closer to home because fuel prices will be at new highs.

“The price is going to go up again,” said Michael Almon, a member of the city-appointed task force. “What we really need to address as a community is how we can mitigate against those rising prices that will come back again. We need to figure out as a community how we can reduce our dependency on oil.”

Several members on the group talked about the real possibility of gasoline topping $5 per gallon in the foreseeable future and how that may particularly have serious effects for Lawrence.

“This is an unusual community in that about 30 percent of the population commutes outside the city for work,” said new Chamber of Commerce President Tom Kern, who also is a member of the task force. “When gas becomes $5 per gallon, which I’m sure is in our future, how many of those people will move?”

The new task force wasn’t providing any answers at its first meeting. Instead, the 13-member task force only agreed to begin the process of gathering information on the Peak Oil issue. The group also said it plans to develop a report that would include several recommendations on how the city can reduce its dependency on oil and be prepared to respond to higher fuel prices.

A handful of other cities across the country have started similar task forces. Portland, Ore., generally is considered to have the most detailed report on the subject. That report came up with recommendations that contemplated a variety of incentives and taxes to reduce the community’s reliance on automobile travel and food and goods that are transported from far distances.

Peak Oil is a phrase that generally describes the day when worldwide demand for oil outpaces the growth in supply of oil. The term sometimes sparks debate because there are disagreements over how quickly the world will reach a Peak Oil status.

City Commissioner Rob Chestnut, who chairs the task force, said he doesn’t want the group to get bogged down in that discussion. Instead, he just wants the community to recognize that oil is a finite resource and Lawrence will face an oil crunch someday unless changes are made.

“I think we need to ask the basic question of what happens if there is not enough oil available or it becomes astronomically priced,” Chestnut said.

Members of the group are: Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy; Almon, a local environmental and energy activist; Rex Buchanan, Kansas Geological Survey; Chestnut; Paul Dietz; Kern; Joe King, an architect; Dean Palos, a professional planner; Dan Wildcat, Haskell Indian Nations University; Scott Zaremba, Zarco 66; Charles Marsh, Kansas University; Paula Phillips, Kansas Emergency Management and Homeland Security; and Nancy Thellman, Douglas County commissioner.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

21 January 2009
at 7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

appleaday (Anonymous) says…

I always wonder about those who spend more time figuring out who to blame than they do figuring out ways to solve the problems.
21 January 2009
at 8 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

“The price is going to go up again,” said Michael Almon, a member of the city-appointed task force.”Great, I am sure that isn't a waste of tax dollars. As the price goes up the city will do what everyone always does, use less. The real question is why is the City of Lawrence wasting its time and money with a “Peak Oil” task force? Do we have a taxpayer funded “Killer Asteroid” task force on what the city will do if the earth is hit with an asteroid or an “Mars Attacks” task force in the case of a alien invasion?
21 January 2009
at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJ…
21 January 2009
at 8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…

The Chamber should focus on getting local employeers to pay better rather than worrying about the price of a commodity that they can't control.
21 January 2009
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Gas prices won't go up again until Soros has a reason to manipulate the futures market.
21 January 2009
at 9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

madameX (Anonymous) says…

In all seriousness, I hope they're including a look at the possibility of useful, practical mass transit to connect the Topeka-Lawrence-KC metro areas. We commuters (or at least I) would be grateful.
21 January 2009
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

madameX (Anonymous) says… “In all seriousness, I hope they're including a look at the possibility of useful, practical mass transit to connect the Topeka-Lawrence-KC metro areas. We commuters (or at least I) would be grateful.”I was serious and have you tried car pooling?

21 January 2009
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksarmychick (Anonymous) says…

Obama's not going to pay for my gas? What?!?!?! I thought he was going to fix it and make it all better? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
21 January 2009
at 9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…

Maybe we should use unsued space to develop sustainable businesses which will benefit the community in a gas crunch like a biodeseil plant in the old Farmland area. 1. you are recycling ( a Lawrence tradition)2. You are creating specialty jobs (not a Lawrence tradition)3. Creating a taxable commodity on a blight that only that form of industrial could clean up and utilize without it being realted to art, homeless or other entity that does not bring in any taxable revenue (not a Lawrence tradition)4. If the City gets involved there are tax credits and grant funds availble to convert a percentage of city vehicles to bio being enviro friendly.
21 January 2009
at 10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says… “Maybe we should use unsued space to develop sustainable businesses which will benefit the community in a gas crunch like a biodeseil plant in the old Farmland area.”Biodiesel and ethanol plants are going broke so why in the world would we want to invest in one right outside Lawrence? It would be like tearing down the coal fired electric plant outside of Lawrence and build a wind farm. It makes no sense and It is simply moronic.
21 January 2009
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

>>> Peak Oil is a phrase that generally describes the day when worldwide demand for oil outpaces the growth in supply of oil. The term sometimes sparks debate because there are disagreements over how quickly the world will reach a Peak Oil status.>>> City Commissioner Rob Chestnut, who chairs the task force, said he doesn’t want the group to get bogged down in that discussion.Or, to rephrase, “We aren't going to bother looking into whether it is a problem or when it might become one, we're just going to appoint a commission to come up with a plan for something that might happen sometime.”Ya' know, it's amusing. Whenever something like a voter-ID law comes up for discussion, the liberals scream that there's no concrete evidence that voter fraud from illegals is happening, and we shouldn't take action to address a problem we aren't absolutely sure exists. So these plans to deal with the effects of anthropogenic global warming or peak oil are different how, again?
21 January 2009
at 11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Sig,You did hear of the task force dedicated to the detection, prevention and removal of cosmic dust didn't you?They're proposing to spend $500,000 for a study, have received recommendations for a 1.3 mill canopy laser-grid vaporization unit, and will offer tax breaks for homeowners attending “Multi-Surface Decontamination” classes. Arguments have been made on the over-all cost of the project, but enthusiasts claim, “No price is too high for cleaniness”. Local supporters include members of the local “Clean Homes, Clean Hearts”, who plan a spring parade with marchers sporting the traditional uniform of solidarity, white gloves.Random attacks should be reported to the same phone number as graffiti violations, however they do emphasize that the city is “not responsible for local clean-up, contaminent containment or disposal”. Universal containment units are available at local hardware store for about $29.95.
21 January 2009
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheOriginalCA (Anonymous) says…

bring on the illegal immigrants to Lawrence to harvest these locally grown foods.
21 January 2009
at 12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Who knows whether this committee will produce anything useful or not, but I don't see anywhere any mention that any money is being spent on it.
21 January 2009
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

I would think, just_another_bozo, that the committee itself will be no- or low-cost. It's when we get to those 'recommendations' …

21 January 2009
at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

madameX (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund:Yes, I have tried carpooling and it's better than nothing, but would still like to see someone (and this task force appears to be just as good as any) take a good hard look at the possibility of linking all three metro areas. With enough ridership (likely ridership being one of the factors that would need to be examined) I think it could be even more energy efficient than carpooling, and could possible serve those for whom carpooling is not practical. I'm not saying that a system absolutely must be implemented, I'm saying that as long as they've got a group looking at saving gas this is one of the things that should be considered. Personally, if it was there and affordable and went where I needed it to go I would ride it, if only to avoid the aggravation of sharing the road with bad drivers.
21 January 2009
at 2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

madameX (Anonymous) says…”With enough ridership (likely ridership being one of the factors that would need to be examined) I think it could be even more energy efficient than carpooling, and could possible serve those for whom carpooling is not practical.”Hardly.If it's impractical to carpool, it's because your schedule isn't consistent enough to match someone else's schedule, or for one reason or another you need to have your vehicle with you at work, or similar reasons. Those same reasons make commuting by train equally (or more) impractical.”…if it was there and affordable and went where I needed it to go I would ride it…”…and the drinks were free and they offered massages and satelite TV and…Just kidding. But in all seriousness you need to add 'when you need it to go' and probably some other qualifiers to your list. And none of those hurdles are likely to be overcome.
21 January 2009
at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says…

What a massive waste of time. Here's an idea: if the city was less anti-business, perhaps more industry would locate in Lawrence. Private industry will create jobs. Lawrence based jobs will reduce the number of people driving out of the city. Lawrence has spent too much time listening to the anti-growth Hecklerians that want to drive business out of town and now it is reaping the economic downside.
21 January 2009
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says… “Here's an idea: if the city was less anti-business, perhaps more industry would locate in Lawrence. Private industry will create jobs. Lawrence based jobs will reduce the number of people driving out of the city.”I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts that will *not* be one of the committee's recommendations.
21 January 2009
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

madameX (Anonymous) says…

Oh for pity's sake, did you read this part:”“I'm not saying that a system absolutely must be implemented, I'm saying that as long as they've got a group looking at saving gas this is one of the things that should be considered.”“If this task force is going to exist in the first place I would like to see the idea among those examined. I would like there to be some surveys done among commuters to see if people would use it, where they would likely need it to go, what times would work, etc. I would like to know how much gas per passenger a bus with whatever the likely number of riders uses v. having the number of cars those riders would likely be in on the road. I stated my willingness to use mass transit between KC and Lawrence because one of the arguments against mass transit has been (if I remember the T debate accurately) that no one uses it. I am not saying it should be there just for me to use, I am saying that it should not immediately be assumed that not enough people would use to justify it. And yes, I realize I might be the only one, but my point is you don't know that any better than I do because it has not been looked into. Ditto the energy used per passenger and the what kind of schedule and destinations would be needed. I have a car an have no trouble affording my commute. but just because the status quo is working okay does not mean that there's not a better way to do things.
21 January 2009
at 4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

okay,first, we must find out this:*how many task force members are also members of organizations which *will bring “peak oil” on quicker?that is, how many have an oar in the water with groups fighting exploration, new drilling, petrolium from innovative sources like those rocks in Wyo/Mont? how many of these people are actually fighting against our supplying ourselves with petrolium? how many are profitting from that because of their “earth friendly fuels” fill-'em-up? Chad, do a followup please.***Sigmund, there already is a city task force facing the issue of alien invasion:the coalition on homeless concerns. plus, they're already equipped to deal with said invasion, rocks, newspapers, open shelter…aliens can stay at the open shelter, no questions asked! and, I think the killer asteroid problem is already a public works issue…we just need to find a big enough pothole to catch it in. so, that's public works. ***How about a task force to hunt down Bigfoot?we already know who bigfoot is: Bigfoot and Bill Clinton have never appeared publicly at the same time.
21 January 2009
at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

How about, drill, baby, drill?
21 January 2009
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

Looks like that committee is pretty well stacked with left-leaning, tree-hugging environmentalists, so I will not be surprised in the least when the 'recommendations' that are issued have a definite bias toward the extreme left!

21 January 2009
at 6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I have no idea what we are doing now a days isnt change on the way??? Who in a right mind would be posting an article about gas going to 5 bucks? Isnt that what we had to do a few months ago
21 January 2009
at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I was leaked a preliminary copy of the task force's Peak Oil report. Apparently raising more taxes is the solution. That same source tells me that a “Planning to Plan” meeting will be held by a new Lawrence task force who is worried that Lawrence is lacking enough planning and they recommend more planning.Seriously, do we have all of our immediate problems solved that we have plenty of time, energy, and money to begin planning for something that likely won't happen in anyone's lifetime? I guess our current city commission believes that if they face problems that are too hard today they will have better luck solving problems that don't yet exist. Of course Chad Lawhorn is right there to tout the effort. Here is the strategy. Evaluate alternatives for cost effectiveness, if they exist switch, elseif buy the cheaper oil. Cut unnecessary oil uses and then cut in other areas to pay for necessary oil uses. Rinse repeat.
21 January 2009
at 7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

The solution is to shut down the School of Public Administration at KU. That should reduce the number of frustrated planners in Lawrence.
21 January 2009
at 8 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Hey man! Just spend your way out of this mess. The heck with the car payment, house payment, cell bill and cable bills, etc. So what if you get foreclosed on. Just go to the bank and borrow more money and spend, spend and spend. That is what the new Surrender-in-Chief wants to do and like the check that is in the mail, he is from the Federal Government and here to help you.
21 January 2009
at 8 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Admittedly, I do not know if there is a School of Public Administration, but KU sure seems to produce an over-abundance of the Public Administration types.
21 January 2009
at 10:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

madameX (Anonymous) says… “If this task force is going to exist in the first place I would like to see the idea among those examined. I would like there to be some surveys done among commuters to see if people would use it, where they would likely need it to go, what times would work, etc.”I understand the desire that you and many others have for looking into the possibilities. But to take your questions somewhat out of order:1) As for where they need to go, that's academic. It can only go where the rail goes.2) To an extent, the times they can travel are also locked in. Commuter trains have to share the tracks with a lot of freight traffic, and the number of 'windows' for a commuter train to use is pretty small - hence the ridiculous schedule for Amtrak service in and out of Lawrence.Now, both of those problems would be solved by building new rail lines. This is ungodly expensive. The tiny starter line they were trying to get voter approval for in Kansas City was going to cost between 700M and a billion dollars. Imagine the cost of a whole new rail line between Topeka and KC. The 30% of the Lawrence population that commutes, even less of whom commute to one of those two destinations, and even less of whom work on a schedule that fits the train's, can not justify such an expense.So, for all intent and purposes, adding additional service beyond what Amtrak already runs on the current rails isn't feasible, and their schedule is hopelessly inadequate for commuting. The only workable solution would be adding new rails. Which brings us to:3) A survey about how many people would use it is, to say the least, problematic. Polls show that most people are in favor of funding Amtrak, but almost none of them ride it. If I'm not mistaken, the people of Kansas City were in favor of light rail in principle, but when it came to the billion-dollar price tag for just the starter line, they balked. Also, the lead-time involved for planning, property acquisition, delays from the inevitable lawsuits from people along the path who would be losing their property or seeing it devalued, etc, and the construction itself, is closer to decades than years. A survey used to justify taking action is likely to be completely outdated and meaningless by the time they start selling tickets. (I work in eastern Jackson County MO, but I have no intention of being there 10 years from now.)I'm not saying the idea isn't worth consideration. But how long do you have to consider a plan that would cost billions and benefit a couple of thousand people?
21 January 2009
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

When the stimulus bubble pops and the dollar is worth ZERO, I wonder how the task force will react to the hyperinflation that will follow? How about $100,000 a gallon? It is a real possibility.
21 January 2009
at 11:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune - By George, I think you got it.

22 January 2009
at 6:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dswanson2609 (Anonymous) says…

I am a bit shocked that so many people on this blog don't seem to understand the scope of the crisis that we are facing. I just hope that the next time that the economy starts to rebound, and oil goes straight to $350 you will start to educate yourself about our energy system. Mr Obama disgusts me with his empty rhetoric but I will not try to blame him for our failing energy system, Even when he becomes and easy target.http://www.energystrain.com
22 January 2009
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

dswanson2609 (Anonymous) says… “I am a bit shocked that so many people on this blog don't seem to understand the scope of the crisis that we are facing. I just hope that the next time that the economy starts to rebound, and oil goes straight to $350 you will start to educate yourself about our energy system.”I'll make you a deal. I'll start educating myself about the energy system when you start educating yourself about economics.The market will bring alternatives into place, just as it always has. Both of my cars, one of which is as full-sized as you can get, are capable of highway mileage in excess of 30 mpg. When I started driving, that was unthinkable, let alone 40 or 50 mpg. Electric vehicles were things from sci-fi movies; now we have things like this:http://www.teslamotors.com/When the price of gas goes up again (which it will), people will use less and investigate alternatives more (like they did before). When the demand falls off sufficiently, the price will fall and they will start using more again (like now). It's called supply and demand, and it's a pretty easy to understand concept if you try.I haven't seen one post in this thread (or similar ones) where anyone's claiming oil will last for ever and stay cheap. But unlike the chicken-littles, most of us realize that the 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles in this country aren't going to be sitting rusting in their garages by next year. The point of most of the posts I've read is that the city government probably has more pressing issues to worry their collective head about than peak oil.
22 January 2009
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TopJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

I suggested a Top. Law. KC. light rail system over a yr ago. Even got Bozo to agree with me. I would expand it to go from FT Riley to east of KC. Run it by all the sporting venues, this would include KSU, KU, the Sprint Center, and the Sports Complex. and into Johnson Co, and then downtown. It could be fed by buses on arterial feeder routes. Have trains about every ten-fifteen minutes, and have a “club car” on each for your morning Latte' and bagel, and Happy hour in the eve for a “wee dram of the single malt.”It'll cost a fortune, but so are our gas bills. And if you amaturize it out over say 50 yrs, and raise the rates to park in downtown areas with the increase being a tax to subsidise it, it is doable.
22 January 2009
at 1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

dswanson2609 (Anonymous) says… “I am a bit shocked that so many people on this blog don't seem to understand the scope of the crisis that we are facing. I just hope that the next time that the economy starts to rebound, and oil goes straight to $350 you will start to educate yourself about our energy system.”I am a bit shocked that the Peal Oil supporters do not understand that when oil is $30/barrel, oil companies only spend so much their limited time, money and resources looking for oil; but when oil rises to $150/barrel or $350/barrel they spend more much of their time, money, and resources looking exploring for oil. Peak oil theory is flawed not because it assumes a finite amount of oil, but all the oil found has been found when it is worth $30/barrel is all the oil that can there is. The more something is worth the harder we look harder and surprise you find more. And this fact isn't limited to oil, but all 'finite' resources. You might want to look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich entered in a famous wager in 1980, betting on a mutually agreed upon measure of resource scarcity. Ehrlich was the author of a popular book, The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon, a libertarian, was highly skeptical of such claims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
22 January 2009
at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Clickker (Anonymous) says…

Gas prices will go up, but maybe not for a while. If the commission is so concerned with the price going thru the roof, perhaps they should lock in to prices right now ( but that would lead to all kinds of second guessing if they go down further)Of course, Chestnut could continue to tool around town in his Hummer, and personally increase gas prices $.10/gallon all on his own!
25 January 2009
at 9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tribalzendancer (Tim Hjersted) says…

wow, still plenty of ignorant people commenting on this site, and yes, I mean specifically Sigmund..www.whatispeakoil.comdo some research. Do you have to take your reflexive and unthinking political biases into every conversation you have? It's for this reason these moderate thinkers are on the Task Force and not 12 year old adolescents.. like cough** sigmund.. cough**