"Inherent within the challenges of peak oil and climate change is an extraordinary opportunity to reinvent, rethink, and rebuild the world around us." - Rob Hopkins, The Transition Handbook. 
The mission of TransitionPDX is to inspire, to encourage, to network, to support and train the communities and neighborhoods of the Portland metro area as they consider, adopt, adapt and implement the transition model in order to establish Transition Initiatives.
Starting in July 2008, Transition PDX is made up of a growing network of volunteers working to bring the the Transition model to Portland, Oregon.
In this section of The Dirt! you will find information on how you can join us in helping to create a more resilient city, ready to respond to the challenges and opportunities of Peak Oil and Climate Change.
- How would such city look? Fostering a resilient community is about developing a community that can thrive despite the challenges brought to it by changing climate conditions and the consequences of depleting energy resources.
One of the notable things about the Transition Initiative is the hope that it brings to people. Despite the very real challenges that the future is likely to bring, the enthusiasm in the room at gatherings and meetings can be quite palpable.
Transition PDX is sponsored in part by St. Francis of Assisi Parish.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The mission of TransitionPDX is to inspire, to encourage, to network, to support and train the communities and neighborhoods of the Portland metro area as they consider, adopt, adapt and implement the transition model in order to establish Transition Initiatives. The transition model emboldens communities to look peak oil and climate change squarely in the eye and unleash the collective genius of their own people to find the answers to this big question of how they can transform their communities to cope with these challenges and produce thriving neighborhoods.
We support the Permaculture ethics of:
These are the principles that guide the way TPDX works. These continue to develop and evolve:
There are also some specific principles that deal with the organizational structure:
There are also some specific principles on fundraising for projects:
And finally, a principle on how we evolve the principles:
We make changes to these Principles where necessary, but only with a high level of consensus.
To raise public awareness of the issues associated with climate change and the peaking of global oil supplies, encouraging communities in the Portland metro area to adopt the Transition Model in order to unleash the collective genius of the local community to answer the following question:
To inspire communities to consider the Transition Model through talks, film screenings, DVDs, books, websites, blogs, publications, PR, radio, television, and the arts.
To encourage communities to adopt and adapt the Transition Model as their response to climate change and peak oil by providing advice, guidance, training and consulting.
To support Transition Initiatives by:
To train communities and individuals in all aspects of the Transition concept
A list of the groups and neighbourhoods that are coming together to explore how the Transition Initiative can be applied in Portland, Oregon.
Groups
So far four groups have formed to help in establishing TransitionPDX in Portland.
This will initially be just about Portland but as more information as it becomes available for other cities or counties.
1. Go to www.portlandmaps.com and type in your address…
If you need any assistance in locating your neighborhood association you can call the ONI office at 503-823-4519 or our City/County Information and Referral Line at 503-823-4000.
Searchable Database of Neighborhood Associations, Neighborhood Business Associations, District Neighborhood Coalitions & Neighborhood Offices, and ONI staff. Advanced Searches - find contacts across Neighborhood Associations and Business Associations, such as finding Land Use Chairs for all of the Neighborhood Associations. We also have MS Excel spreadsheets of neighborhood and business association officers (i.e. all Presidents or all land use chairs.) Web-based Lists
Specific lists of officers
Printable January 2010 Neighborhood Directory (PDF Document, 1,506kb) PDF version of the current Neighborhood Directory. We post a new PDF every three months. For in-between updates and the most up-to-date contact information, please use the Searchable Database link above.
My Neighborhood
Neighborhood Directory, Toolbox, Events, Maps and More
The following comes from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Portland,_Oregon
There are 95 officially recognized Portland, Oregon neighborhoods. Each is represented by a volunteer-based neighborhood association which serves as a liaison between residents of the neighborhood and the city government, as coordinated by the city's Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI). The city provides funding to this "network of neighborhoods" through seven neighborhood district coalitions, geographical groupings of neighborhood associations.
Each neighborhood association defines its own boundaries, which may include areas outside of Portland city limits and (if mutually agreed) areas that overlap with other neighborhoods. Neighborhoods may span boundaries between the five sections (N, NE, SE, SW, and NW) of the city as well. The segmentation adopted here is based on ONI's district coalition model, under which each neighborhood is part of at most one coalition (though some neighborhoods are not included in any).
These are in Northwest Portland, except Arlington Heights, Goose Hollow, Portland Downtown, and Sylvan-Highlands, which are in Southwest Portland.
All are in Southwest Portland.
Most lie entirely within North Portland. Bridgeton and Hayden Island are split between North and Northeast sections. East Columbia is in Northeast Portland.
Most lie entirely within Northeast Portland. Boise, Eliot, Piedmont and Humboldt include areas in North Portland.
All lie within Northeast Portland.
Argay, Parkrose, Parkrose Heights, Russell, Wilkes, and Woodland Park are in Northeast Portland. Glenfair and Hazelwood are split between Northeast and Southeast sections. Centennial, Lents, Mill Park, Pleasant Valley, and Powellhurst-Gilbert are in Southeast Portland.
All are entirely within Southeast Portland, except Center, Laurelhurst, Kerns, and Montavilla, which are split between Northeast and Southeast sections.
Healy Heights lies within Southwest Portland. The Lloyd District is in Northeast Portland.
Looking at the inner transition that we will also need to look at as we try and cope with the challengers ahead. Also looking at group dynamics and how such things as celebration, ritual and art inform the process of transition and the future that we are looking to create.
In addition to the groups and neighborhoods, we also have shared projects and day long events.
The Transition Initiative in Portland invites you to meet with us to begin planning and organizing an effort to build community resilience in the
face of climate change, rising energy costs and economic decline. Building on work started by many organizations, we will put into action energy descent planning around a variety of aspects; neighborhood organizing; coalition building with partner groups; and a holistic vision of how we can cope with major changes in our lives. In the process we will create stronger communities and more satisfying lives based on sharing and cooperation.
You’re welcome to come whether you are already committed or just curious about the possibilities. If you’re working with a neighborhood or a group with a related mission, we invite you to come and explore how different groups and communities can network and link together in a shared effort to build a lower-carbon future. Also, we urge you to circulate this notice to your group and anyone else you think should be there.
She believes that within each community there lies an enormous pool of power that can be unleashed when people start working together on a common vision, and that education and building strong community coalitions can change the world. Her presentation will include what is unique about the Transition model, Sandpoint’s experience in developing it, and their main challenges and how they came up with solutions. Karen’s talk will be followed by a social in the church dining hall downstairs. $10 donation, no one turned away.

What we choose to focus on is up to you. The Open Space format enables the people who come to create the agenda.
Anyone can suggest a topic to discuss on Saturday based on the theme of creating resilience. If people choose to show up and discuss that topic, and to create an action team, it will become a part of the overall project. Some examples of projects that have emerged in other Transition Towns are
Later Saturday you will have a chance to sign on for any projects you have energy for and begin work toward crafting and implementing Energy Descent Action Plans. There will also be an opportunity to connect with others from your neighborhood.
We are very excited about moving toward a more cooperative and joyful future. The knowledge of what to do already exists; it’s just scattered throughout the community. This is the beginning of our tapping and integrating that knowledge, making it available to everyone, and putting it to work in a plan for resilient communities.
So please pass this on to anyone you think should be there. There’s a lot needing to be done to create a resilient future in our region for ourselves and our children. Please join us and help shape that future.
And thanks to our cosponsors:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Open Space flyer.pdf | 405.26 KB |
Collin - Introduce Community Exchange Network
South African birth – now a global platform
Actually is a system for Tracking IOUs, a LET System for tracking mutual services, a Demand system, a zero-sum game.
The system is based on reputation, trust.
Mutual credit clearing is an entirely new model – not based on scarcity.
Mike: But money is not, in fact, scarce.
Collin: Right. Banks create scarcity because debt in the system (with interest) creates scarcity. In this system with no interest, repayment can be in services.
Kate: How is it used in practice?
A: Daily transactions can be indirect exchanges. Citywide or neighborhood – either base.
Bob: Is other money required – e.g., dollars – to make it work?
A: Yes, Aggregate.
Bob: Could the present system be transformed with dollars [and avoid using alternate currency]?
A: That has been tried. Our system would eliminate the people who make money off
debt. In this system the government can’t create inflation.
I suggest we read Thomas Grecco’s The End of Money, Future of Civilization. This won’t solve all issues, but many.
Kate: two questions:
1. How is true value of a contribution determined?
2. How is trust established in a large community like Portland?
A: Now in PDX the Green Kurrant is tied to the dollar 1:1. Letting it go is under
discussion.
Collin: What ecological system is needed to support and benefit from CEN?
Could form a group.
Bob: Question of keeping up with changes in the dollar’s value.
Michael: [Long answer about] Long Term Hedging.
John: Tying the Kurrant to the dollar – what’s the difference?
A: the model.
John: Functionally – how does it add value?
A: It’s really an educational piece [at this point] – helping people understand money.
Michael: Stop thinking about it like money and start thinking of it as expenditure of
energy. The system as a whole zeroes itself out as a flow of energy. Payback creates work and value in the local community.
Also CEN is proposing a non-profit fundraising model – selling Green Kurrants for
dollars – and association with the Center for the Development of Social Finance..
Q: Where can it be used now?
A: Consumer to consumer only. We are approaching Saturday Market and New Seasons. Collin will be the administrator and keep accounts honest.
LOGISTICS: NEXT STEPS
(Terayani idea)
What: outreach, making art and music
Where: Skidmore Fountain
Who: artists, musicians/homeless
When: Saturday or Wednesday
Why: Create relations with new groups,
invite to Transition.
This group originally had two conveners (Leslee and Liz) and Kathleen’s group joined us shortly. Each convener explained her concept.
TPDX Open Space
September 26, 2009
Liberating Structures TPDX Discussion
Liberating Structures
Processes and methods using minimum structures to liberate maximum innovation
Conveners: Peter and Trudy Johnson-Lenz
Participants:
Marion Sharp
Meg Bowman “transilience”
Will Newman II
Grant Gibson
Nellie Korn
Group reflection:
How did your answers change from one round to the next?
Did anything surprising or interesting happen?
Did any small thing make a big difference for you?
Has your sense of what can happen for you and for us at this event shifted?
Responses:
The focus of my answers got tighter – I could express my answers better.
I learned from listening to what my pair partner hoped for and that influenced my thinking.
Some people like process and some people like content.
We need to define terms, be clear about what we mean. Some of these conversations are the same as we had 8 months ago.
* What is resilience?
Everybody had a strong urge to keep talking to each other and continue the conversation.
Successful experience – lots of energy!
i. A tells B’s story to group
ii. B tells A’s story to group
iii. Repeat until all stories are told.
Common patters from appreciative interview stories:
Question for the rest of the day: How do these stories suggest how we can all pull together to create a resilient Portland?
o How do we collaborate, honor?
o At least minimize calendar?
o How necessary is this? CNRG is close
o Build relationships first. Need to know people and their needs.
o Assessment of needs and resources of people/NA
o Getting to know you
o What if documented and given to other groups?
o All groups involved need to [be] energized by the frame.
o Connecting with people
o Role needs to be defined
o 15% of population even recognized need for transition
o Does transition provide any additional momentum
o Also who has a chainsaw, etc. – privacy issues came up, source of H2O
o How do you live?
o Age 30’s, working folks, too busy to engage
o But also more aware and living differently
Resilience
- Food Security
- In context of Water
- Energy
o (Mortgages, credit cards, food import/export, energy)
o Including community – bring whole community along
o Meaningful work
o Transition is avoiding emergency
o Linking to resources à clearinghouse at neighborhood level
o Clarity of “transition” mission
o “We” – strategic planning – organizational structure to carry forward
o What is the scale?
o What is the frame? – added value? Role? (educator, convener, etc.)
o How to connect with existing organizations (issues) and neighborhoods (geography)
§ Focus on relationships
o Do we create assessments, action plans, and community handbooks?
o Who are they/”we”?
o Is this a coalition structure?
o Transition’s size and success depends on what they/we choose to do.
o Most people don’t know why transition is needed
§ Working against media/propaganda
§ Where will emergency will happen first
· Financial!
· Many people are left behind
· Energy literacy
One Principle: Resource Generation
Question: How do we spread the idea, introduce this to business?
Need a Business Model to Identify Resources to utilize/generate
i. How can we change?
ii. How many of each kind do we need?
iii. How can we decide?
i. A product
ii. A resource
Is it a false assumption that we can assess what is Sustainable?
We may need to allow for a few that are not sustainable but are essential – e.g., computers
Choosing what to preserve from destructive industries
Necessary evils
Can’t destroy what we have without a design
Carrying capacity – Population Growth is greatest world threat, and question is:
How to avoid massive die-off
Compare with life in the Middle Ages – e.g., communications
Stimulating Response – Response limited to early adopters
How do we move businesses into the Sustainability model?
Back to Collaboration –
The business of business should be values – no longer profits in money
- Banks
- Eliminate Toxic ad inappropriate government subsidies for old industries and corporate farms – NOT LOCAL
Social Change
· MONDRAGON EXAMPLE: Industry Cooperatives create a fund to support new businesses, cooperatives.
· Finance: created a bank to advance their kind of enterprise
· Expanding around the world – e.g., China, Brazil, etc.
· YES Magazine article
Investment –
So: How do we support local businesses in this environment?
Suggestion: LEARN FROM SUCCESS – Mondragon, Italian Coops
Neighborhood Business Associations – Alliance of NBAs
Explain how we can help them stay in business
Short pitch
Open Space?
Brainstorming?
PURPOSE FOR THIS GROUP:
Remember the slogan of entrepreneur: WIIFM means What’s In It For Me?
- NEXT STEP: ASSESS WHAT’S OUT THERE AND MAP WHAT’S AVAILABLE
- HUB Meeting October 14th to talk with groups.
Building community resilience for a low carbon future
TransitionPDX.org
In response to your request for comments on the Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP), Transition PDX organized two public forums to discuss the plan, Action Area by Action Area, and to prepare constructive comments. The intent of the CAP Forums was to provide an opportunity for people who are knowledgeable about each Action Area to discuss the proposed Objectives and Actions and contribute their collective wisdom. Our findings are attached.
Our conversations included more than 70 people, representing important environmental organizations and other community groups. We broke into seven groups, one to discuss each Action Area and any related items in Action Area 8, Government Operations. In two sessions, we created a list of suggested changes to strengthen the plan. We subsequently created a list of themes common to many of the group reports. There are ten:
Strengthen the plan and set more measurable targets.
Partner with existing nonprofit and citizen groups, and support and enable decentralized solutions at the neighborhood level.
Engage and educate the community.
Promote justice and social equity.
Lay the foundations for 20-minute neighborhoods.
Remove obstacles to sustainable innovation and practices.
Incentivize and penalize.
Integrate plans for different Action Areas and insist on more interagency cooperation.
Research best practices in municipal carbon reduction used in other countries.
Plan for difficulties that may not be apparent right now.
We certainly support the intentions of the CAP. We are genuinely pleased that our government is mapping responses now to difficulties that many cities are not taking seriously. We are also aware that the draft CAP is the result of many discussions, and we see part of our responsibility as lending strength and courage to leaders of this effort. We hope our report helps improve this Plan for our community’s future in an uncertain and perhaps chaotic world to come.
The attached report includes a Foreword that sets a context, a short Introduction, the Common Themes from our discussions and Highlights from all seven groups, followed by the specific recommendations for each Action Area. We hope this will help our community craft a plan with popular backing that can help us all achieve a resilient future.
Sincerely,
Transition PDX
cap@tpdx.net
While the rest of this document represents and summarizes the input of the participants in the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Forums, in this Foreword we offer a perspective from the Transition PDX team that organized the Forums. All our comments are meant to honor the people who wrote and honed the draft Plan we received as well as to sharpen the draft further and make it more effective. Our common work, after all, is to make a place where our children and their descendents can live happily, even if their material standards of living are affected by climate change and depleting resources. This Plan must be viewed first and foremost as a gift to our children and their children for generations to come. This is the most important gift conceivable: the gift of the possibility of life.
For in this Plan begins the process of adjustment that will determine how well our City and County, and their residents, come through the difficulties that could conceivably characterize this century. If we are to avoid worst case scenarios, we must begin now by envisioning the kind of world we want to have. The resolve of City and County leaders to create and discuss and amend the CAP demonstrates an awareness of the seriousness of our situation. Climate change and, we also anticipate, the end of cheap fuels will affect everything in our lives – food, fuel, water, transportation, trading patterns, credit and finance, construction, businesses small and large, medicine, emergency services, poverty, and potentially the boundaries of community and government.
1. Anticipating multiple, simultaneous changes – and not always comfortable ones
We recognize the paradox that we need to begin planning for both the short term as well as the longer term effects of climate change and generally rising costs of energy. The world likely passed peak oil a year or two ago (global oil production has been on a bumpy plateau since mid-2005). Climate change may well limit the amount of water available to ordinary citizens and farms in the near future, and along with oil depletion may affect everything from food supplies and medical care to our global economy and financial system. In 20 years, highway travel and the need for its infrastructure, for example, may be much lower. Consequently our economic system insofar as it depends on auto manufacturing and sales of automobiles nationally may be unstable. And locally, gas tax revenues as currently configured may be much diminished.
Anticipating responses to a manifold of changes on this scale, which could come slowly or rapidly, planners must be aware that what works for the short- and mid-range benefit of all, may not cover the people’s needs for the long range. At the same time, changes in our housing stock and commercial buildings come slowly, and the automobile fleet lasts some 15 years. While we are fortunate to have considerable land available in the broader region to convert from ornamental production to food crops, the associated changes in techniques and equipment are not so easily or quickly made. Planting trees in the city can be done rapidly, but the benefits take much longer to realize. Even changing our transportation system requires longer than we might like. A bus fleet can be expanded only as quickly as financial resources become available; streetcars and light rail require years to permit, finance, plan, engineer, acquire equipment, and construct. And public opinion, in the absence of what some have called a “Pearl Harbor Event” that would shock everyone into consciousness of our situation, can be expected to shift over a period of years rather than weeks, into acceptance of a new and more vital role for government.
2. More flexibility and more inter-agency coordination – a paradox?
So planning must take all those timeframes into consideration and try to anticipate and create changes that will prepare us for true sustainability in the long term even while advocating incremental modifications to present systems. Many of the comments in the reports that follow reflect these concerns. So the most important innovation in our planning now should be to anticipate an increased capacity for planning itself, for flexibility, for allowing – even enabling – rapid, adaptive and widespread change, social as well as material, in the light of changing circumstances.
The need for flexibility will apply in many areas – in zoning, in building codes, in sanitary laws and regulations, in water uses, etc. Regulations that were once based on sanitation and safety, under conditions prevailing with plentiful and cheap fossil fuels, may not apply if water becomes scarce or if fuel and plastic are expensive or in short supply.
This combination of increased planning capacity and flexibility collides head-on with a condition that came up in our conversations over and over: lack of coordination among government agencies. Coordinating cross agency planning, however, would normally slow down and freeze innovation and action, which would conflict with the need for flexibility and rapid, precise responses to unforeseeable developments. What’s really needed to overcome those conflicting tendencies?
3. Going Local as One Way Forward
We don’t have an answer to that paradox, but we do offer some recommendations for beginning the search in a different place: the citizens in the neighborhoods and nonprofit organizations that already exist. Over and over the different groups independently arrived at similar points: much of the design work and implementation could be done by non-government groups coordinated by a central city or county agent charged with supporting local community development. There was a common thread to our talks, and that was the potential for ending our current stance toward government, that of consumer, and changing it to co-creators of the city in partnership with government.
We expect the results would include more integrated designs, more buy-in from citizens, less cost to government, and more relevant results – focused directly on the needs of local people. Consequently, we recommend setting up a liaison office in the Office of Sustainable Development, charged with fostering direct cooperation with local citizen groups on a myriad of projects. Funds spent on supporting such projects would go much further than those spent on new projects in the present paradigm. By operating on a smaller, local scale, the city decreases the need for long strings of coordination up and down cooperating hierarchies and thereby also decreases the cost of information in the system.
This kind of planning and project management would also make planning more flexible over the long run. This is because local people understand more about changing needs and the costs and benefits of a project than people up the line. So they could propose and execute responses to changing conditions rapidly and effectively, adapting buildings, houses, streets, open spaces and tree cover to local needs by straightforward coordination with citywide plans.
This report contains many ideas on how to accomplish the goals of the CAP, some of them in this new paradigm. Most importantly, let us find ways to continue this conversation as we go forward.
The Transition PDX CAP Forums Team
Liz Bryant, Meg Bowman, Jim Newcomer, and Kelly Reece
The two Climate Action Plan Forums sponsored by Transition PDX were held a week apart, on June 17 and 24, 2009. The purpose of the Forums was to provide an opportunity for citizens to come together around the specific Core Action Areas in the CAP, to exchange information and ideas about the proposed Objectives and Actions, and to come up with recommendations to the City and County to improve the Plan. Participants broke into discussion groups corresponding to the first seven Core Action Areas in the CAP. (Proposals in Action Area 8, Local Government Operations, were assigned to other Action Areas that covered similar subject matter.)
Most of the more than 70 people who attended the first Forum returned for the second and were joined that evening by a number of newcomers. Many participants represented environmental and other community groups, and most had subject matter expertise in the Action Area they attended. In general, participants’ contributions took the form of urging the City and County to go beyond the actions envisioned in the draft and to offer more specific measurements, agency responsibilities and funding commitments. It was felt that the City’s and County’s development of the draft CAP demonstrates local government’s awareness of the gravity of the challenges before us due to climate change. Correspondingly, those citizens who came to the CAP Forums engaged in discussion of a very serious nature.
What follows in this document includes
Those specific ideas are the heart of our contribution. They represent the voices of citizens who are concerned and informed about the actions contemplated, and who have engaged in conversations to clarify their assumptions and mix their experiences into thoughtful recommendations. These proposals are important, we believe, to the work of creating a resilient City and County.
1. Strengthen the Plan and Set More Measurable Targets.
Too many targets are set too low. The Plan needs to be strengthened in numerous ways to get us to 80% emissions reduction by 2050.
Too many Objectives and Actions are lacking in quantitative commitments and measures that would insure accountability for achieving them.
2. Partner and Decentralize.
Partner and coordinate with the many existing nonprofit and citizen groups doing work related to the goals of the CAP. This will be increasingly critical as public funding becomes scarcer. Leverage existing systems to achieve efficiencies and maximize resources.
Establish a system such as an Advisory Council for each Action Area to accomplish the needed coordination and networking among stakeholders, and to oversee that Area’s progress from here out to 2050. Where advisory groups currently exist, consider expanding them to inject fresh ideas into discussions. City/County staff time used to convene and staff such councils should be amply repaid by the resulting efficiencies.
Support and enable decentralized solutions at a neighborhood level, including education efforts (detailed in next theme). Some solutions can be more effectively implemented on a smaller scale, and local implementation will support getting as much of the citizenry as possible engaged in this effort. Plus, encouraging local projects will help increase interdependence among community members and increase community resilience.
Establish a Green Grants program for neighborhood and other community groups to support educational programs and local projects such as neighborhood composting, tool libraries, and other approaches to developing local infrastructure and sharing resources.
Communities must be empowered in a variety of ways to implement the educational and other projects needed to help meet the goals of the CAP. A climate change coordination system must allow for information to pass not only from the City/County but also to the City/County from the public.
3. Engage and Educate the Community.
Recognize publicly that climate change is a life-changing event and even though it lacks the Pearl Harbor type of stimulus for action, it deserves that kind of commitment by citizens and government to our mutual survival. Based on that, take the following steps:
Establish a Community Engagement Coordination Office in the Office of Sustainable Development to network with and support education efforts of community groups, neighborhoods, non-profits, K-12 schools, faith communities and other groups. Make use of existing systems to engage communities.
Integrate carbon reduction education efforts at neighborhood levels and offer grants to local groups for community education. These efforts would illuminate the connections between healthier lifestyles with more walking and biking, enhanced social relationships from sharing resources with neighbors, buying local food (and buying more products in bulk), and less emphasis on shopping and consumption. Community groups are better positioned than government to experiment with more engaging and far-reaching approaches to reach both adults and children.
Brand the campaign. Plant the message strongly with a recognizable logo, but offer a variety of involvement options so that everyone can participate in some way.
Create training modules (including train the trainer) on carbon reduction for households, businesses and other organizations. Inform neighborhoods of carbon reduction priorities based on their energy use, transportation and waste disposal patterns.
Create a “new and improved” Multnomah County Extension Service that takes advantage of the power of the Web to help create a truly sustainable food system, and provides classes on gardening, soil management, animal husbandry, cooking, canning, preserving and other important skills related to the production and use of local food.
Work with other organizations already active in climate change education and mitigation, including but not limited to Transition PDX, Northwest Earth Institute, Oregon Interfaith Power and Light, City Repair, Portland Peak Oil and Bright Neighbor.
Include students at every level in the discussion of how best to promote healthy, low-carbon diets and other aspects of a low carbon lifestyle. Seek their opinions about this City/County Climate Action Plan. Ensure that their views are heard by decision-makers so they feel empowered and optimistic about their future.
4. Promote Justice and Equity.
Prioritize providing resources and educational programs for underserved groups such as those in low-income neighborhoods, renters, apartment dwellers, etc.
Inclusivity and cultural sensitivity are paramount in engaging the public. Seek guidance of community leaders in carrying out the information sharing and education that will lead to behavior change among all groups.
In assessing climate change related vulnerabilities and inherent community strengths, the City/County should engage all constituent populations in the assessment process and as partners in developing plans to prepare for and respond to the impacts of climate change. Be aware that the poor will be hit hardest by climate change as well as any emergency situation.
5. Lay the foundations for 20-minute neighborhoods.
Design a comprehensive transit system on a grid in which no one has to walk more than ¼ mile to reach a bus or rail line.
Integrate new zoning principles with transit lines to provide for denser residential development and for commercial development and small manufacturing at intersections of transit routes.
Support small, local businesses and employment opportunities within neighborhoods, for example in the low-cost financing program for energy performance improvements.
6. Remove Obstacles.
All levels of government need to recognize and eliminate the numerous legal barriers to developing creative local solutions that will fulfill the goals of the Climate Action Plan. The separate group reports give numerous examples.
Review existing ordinances, regulations and codes in the new context posed by climate change and peak oil – which may cause shortages of food and energy – and remove all unnecessary restrictions. Work with Recode Oregon to accomplish this.
Change the basis for zoning in neighborhoods and along transit lines from use-based to size and design-based zoning.
Encourage experimentation by individuals, groups of individuals and entrepreneurs in reducing energy usage. Allow variances if the intent is to reduce carbon emissions.
7. Incentivize and Penalize.
Develop both financial and non-monetary incentives for individuals and organizations whose actions support the Plan’s objectives.
Develop disincentives and penalties for organizations whose actions create barriers to achieving the Plan’s objectives. Create obstacles to any practice that inhibits their achievement (e.g., reduce the amount of coal-generated power the City will buy from PGE; ban toxic chemicals that poison soil; stop using pesticides in public parks).
Tax what we want to discourage. Raise tolls on the CRC to $10 at peak rush hours.
8. Integrate plans and activities for different Action Areas, and ensure interagency cooperation.
Coordinate planning for projects in different Action Areas to ensure that actions do not conflict or compete, and fulfill multiple needs wherever possible. For example, Forestry projects need to be coordinated with those in the Buildings/Energy and the Food/Agriculture Action Areas, so trees planted don’t shade food gardens, and solar and forestry projects are appropriately sited and don’t interfere with each other.
Thus mindsets begin to shift toward considering the entire city (or county) as a permaculture of interlocking, mutually supportive systems.
Insist on better cooperation among bureaus. Examples: Train utility workers to be more aware of preserving tree roots and limbs.
Extend cooperation efforts to Clackamas, Clark and Washington Counties.
9. Research best practices in municipal carbon reduction used not only in other U.S. cities but in other countries, such as Germany, Japan, Brazil and England.
10. Plan for Difficulties.
Educate the public about the potential ramifications of climate change and the likely prospect of rising energy prices.
In adapting to the impacts of climate change, anticipate increased conflict due to change and limited resources. Ensure that free mediation and conflict resolution training are available, and use community resources to help address interpersonal, cultural and ideological barriers to adapting to climate change.
Re-examine the emergency plans at the City, County and state levels to verify the ability to cope with the likelihood of more frequent, highly disruptive storms, large scale disruptions of supply lines or large scale disruptions of liquid fuel supply.
As part of the 20 minute neighborhood model, designate public buildings within a 20 minute walk that can serve as aid, communication and rest stations for volunteer emergency responders. Putting solar panels on these buildings would create islands of electricity for use at the aid/ communication/rest facilities, and would also provide an opportunity to teach people about solar power.
Nine people were in the first discussion and ten in the second with a total of thirteen different participants. In addition to the specific comments below, a number of important themes emerged:
The group felt strongly that the 2030 objectives are set too low and that the Plan needed to be strengthened as set forth below.
Use the creativity of the citizens, both individually and in groups, to solve some of the energy issues by permitting and encouraging citizen experimentation. In some cases, citizens have already experimented and have come up with solutions. Support these efforts by removing obstacles and providing measurement of energy savings
Encourage entrepreneurs to do self-financed experimental energy efficiency projects. As businesses are engaged, it will spread into the rest of the community.
Research other countries’ models. Germany, Denmark, Japan, Brazil and China are a few of the countries that have solved some of these efficiency problems. (Germany has a flywheel battery technology. What if they put a battery in the bottom of the wind turbine?) If you “build the metrics” into the experiments and evaluate, people will adapt them and innovations will happen.
Experiment with pilot programs.
Partner with existing voluntary groups, e.g., ReCode Oregon. By partnering with local groups, we do not necessarily mean providing financial support, although help with publicity, printing costs, etc. can enable these groups to be more effective. Setting up a coordinator or advisory group for each action area would be one way of doing this.
Re-examine the emergency plans at the City, County and state levels to verify the ability to cope with the likelihood of more frequent, highly disruptive storms, large scale disruptions of supply lines and large scale disruptions of liquid fuel supply.
Ensure that plans include how to manage disruption of gas or electricity in the event of a severe earthquake or other emergency.
In the event of a short term supply disruption, we need a plan for prioritization of users of available fuel, and of for potentially rationing any supply beyond what is needed by priority users such as hospitals, ambulances and fire departments.
As part of the 20 minute neighborhood model, designate public buildings within a 20 minute walk that can serve as aid, communication and rest stations, specifically including volunteer emergency responders from the NET and Neighborhood Watch. Solar panels on these buildings would create islands of electricity for use at these facilities, and would also provide an opportunity to teach people about solar power.
In order to meet the emissions targets in this Climate Action Plan, the City/County needs to generate or purchase enough renewable electricity to close the Boardman plant. Pass a resolution that states that we will only buy clean, renewable energy from PGE as of x date, which should be well before 2030. (See Objective 16, Action 5, for details.)
The City should be more active in state climate legislation. There was a bill in the Legislature to send teams out to evaluate energy use and provide a financing mechanism. Portland did not weigh in on this bill, which Sen. Merkley and Rep. Blumenauer are using as a model for federal legislation. In future we would like to see the City Council weigh in on issues like this.
All recommendations were unanimous, except as noted.
2030 Objective 1. Reduce the total energy use of all buildings built before 2010 by 25 percent.
Increase the targets to 50% by 2020 and 80% by 2030.
Conservation should be the first priority.
2012 Action 1. Establish an investment fund with public and private capital to provide easy access to $10 million annually in low-cost financing to residents and businesses for energy performance improvements.
Establish a policy of giving out many small grants rather than a a smaller number of large ones.
Have a policy of preferring small local business within neighborhoods (the 20-minute neighborhood concept) as recipients of City/County funds.
Encourage banks to follow the lead of Umpqua Bank or Shore Bank in financing projects, allowing subsequent property owners to assume the loans.
In considering sources of financing, use local credit unions and co-ops that keep their own paper, e.g., Advantis Credit Union.
Have a policy of incentivizing smart energy use and penalizing heavy energy users, so that the heavy users pay for the programs to reduce energy use.
Invest in “smart grid’ technology.
Partner with citizens and existing not-for-profits to create a clearinghouse of information and consumer feedback on new technologies. If an organization’s mission aligns with one of the City’s or County’s energy goals, they should partner with them. Work with not-for-profits who have existing libraries, resource lists and links, and blogs. Partnering with multiple not-for-profits will result in information on multiple web sites. This would provide transparency and informal auditing of the City/County’s efforts and would build on the credibility of the not-for-profits. Blogs would provide citizen input.
Action 2. Require energy performance ratings and consumption disclosures for all homes so that owners, tenants and prospective buyers can make informed decisions.
The City or County should be responsible for benchmarking energy usage, and goals should be stated in measurable terms so that progress can be monitored.
Employ “smart grid” technology for baseline establishment.
Action 3. Require energy performance benchmarking for all commercial and multi-family buildings.
See comments under Action 2.
Require businesses over a certain size to publish their energy and water usage. Publish successful reductions in energy or water usage for restaurants and other businesses. Citizens may reward low energy users with their patronage.
Action 4. Provide resources and incentives to residents and businesses on energy-reduction actions on existing buildings.
Support the implementation of the Renewable Energy Payment Plan (REP), which involves a feed-in tariff (FIT) for investor-owned utility customers. It requires the utility to purchase from the consumer any solar energy produced and pay enough to cover costs plus a reasonable amount of return on investment.
Because they can get a return from the feed-in tariff, neighbors can then invest together in producing energy, and act as a local improvement district. The Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) uses a feed-in tariff. Consider a pilot program, using the EWEB system as an example, and involve PGE and PPL as well. (Germany recently opened the market for entrepreneurs to produce energy.)
Use geospatial tools such as the LIDAR dataset and Google Earth to determine roof top solar access and vegetable garden placement and to optimize placement of urban trees so they throw shadows in preferred locations (on the south side of a house, not on the garden).
Some people are resisting alternative energy by saying solar panels in higher income neighborhoods will cause low-income residents to pay more. A good place for a demonstration project would be a public housing project.
Incentivize reduced water and electricity usage. Reduce base charges for under-users while penalize heavier users by increasing their rate. Other incentives include recognition, contests, prizes for greenest business, worst violators.
Facilitate revising deeds involved in experimental projects to indicate easements, etc., and issue regulations requiring financing companies to recognize these experimental easements.
Behavior Changes
Emphasize and sponsor programs to educate citizens on lifestyle changes and home energy management.
Support home and business owners in maintaining and repairing existing buildings to make them last.
Many older houses have common heating for the entire house. Zone heating and electric heaters in some rooms can help, as was done with small fireplaces for individual rooms before houses had central heating. Most older houses and some pre-1950’s have passive heat circulation and cooling by use of louvered vents between floors; rooms that can be closed off or opened into larger spaces by pocket doors; window, door and stairway placement that allow heat to escape through attic windows and cool the rest of the house when needed without mechanical means; etc. Education for homeowners could include how to use and maintain these passive design features (not remove them by changing walls, doors, windows, etc.).
Embedded Energy
Buildings contain significant amounts of embedded energy. We need incentives to maintain and adapt existing buildings and disincentives to remove them. When buildings must be removed, there should be mandatory deconstruction. Too many buildings are taken down, not because they are not functioning, but just because of preference.
This was the majority recommendation; a minority opposed interference with removing or destroying unwanted buildings.
Tracking Energy Use
Lyons, Colorado has been doing a tracking and monitoring program, resulting in 16% carbon emissions reduction. Their model is cheaper than using smart meters because it uses people’s energy bills. It is an easier first step than the smart grid. The City/County could do an online tracking process, educating citizens by households or neighborhoods in making simple changes in their house or behavior and in using the online tracking system.
Smart meters work with monitors that can be placed behind any appliance. They even track ghost energy, the power consumed when devices are plugged in but not turned on. It would not be that expensive for the City and County to give or rent to twenty homes enough smart meters for about six devices each. They could make them available to be checked out from the library. Information could be readily used by homeowners to make changes in their house or modify their behavior – e.g., knowing that your coffee maker uses 1200 watts would encourage keeping coffee warm in an insulated carafe.
People need to be aware of the loss in transmission of electricity from a utility versus using natural gas to generate heat onsite. When using electric heat pumps, one-third of the energy used to heat the house comes from the utility and much energy is lost in transmission. It can be more energy efficient to use the gas furnace to supplement heating than suffer the transmission loss.
Time of day rates for utilities should be advertised to make them better known to consumers.
Incentives
Use low-cost positive reinforcement rather than paying citizens to do the right thing, such as social recognition in awards, contests, and publicity that money can’t buy. Neighborhoods could compete to be the ‘greenest neighborhood’.
Action 5. Work with partner organizations to promote improved operation and maintenance practices in all commercial buildings.
The City and County can partner with the business and building owners by removing barriers to new ideas and technologies.
2030 Objective 2. Achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions in all new buildings and homes.
2012 Action 1. Adopt green building incentives for high performance new construction.
Encourage new developments to put in tracking and monitoring systems to determine how much energy will be required for a development and how much will be produced on site. Developments could be made self-sufficient. Include public housing.
Facilitate cross-jurisdictional licensing. Contractors have to have separate licenses to operate in different jurisdictions. A solution may be common business licensing across jurisdictions. In some fields, such as geothermal drilling, there are very few people who will do it and the equipment is expensive. Cross licensing may be a good solution for the short term; but in the long term it would be good to see people work more locally.
Although the City has very high energy efficient building standards, these standards should be raised for new buildings every several years.
The issue of thin film vs. solar panels needs to be addressed. Whereas panels have a track record of durability, newer solar collection systems, e.g., thin film, do not. The newer systems may be cheaper to install but they do not last and are not efficient. Also, their production is less efficient because semiconductors are expensive to produce and use significant amounts of energy. While thin film can be produced in large quantity, it suffers from dust abrasion in city environments as well as from dampness and mold.
Financial Barriers
Finance companies have an interest in most properties. They are reluctant to have any encumbrances put on the deeds without being paid for it, as it requires more paperwork and legal exposure. Regulations should support deed revisions, in particular with regard to adding energy easements.
Action 2. Participate actively in the process to revise the Oregon building code to codify the performance targets of Architecture 2030.
No comment.
Action 3. Accelerate existing efforts to provide green building design assistance, education and technical resources to residents, developers, designers and builders.
Add a section in the building code that addresses experimental projects so people can try grey water systems, etc., with supervision and monitoring by the City or County. The projects would be used as demonstration projects and may be later adopted by the City/County. This is currently being done by ATAC (Alternative Technology Advisory Committee) as part of the permit process through the Bureau of Development Services, where if a citizen has an innovative product or strategy they can submit it to a committee of experts to review it. ATAC should be continued and expanded. An “experimental building permit” may be useful.
Objective 3. Produce 10 percent of the total energy used within Multnomah County from on-site renewable sources and clean district energy systems.
Goal is set too low. Increase the portion of total renewable energy produced within Multnomah County to 50%.
Employing geospatial modeling (where information is gathered on a geo-coordinate system) could provide baseline information, a clearinghouse for projects, and tracking of resources, including food, etc., on an ongoing basis at a greater level than they do currently, for projects at the City or County level and to support neighbors’/ neighborhoods’ systems. Performance modeling would allow evaluation of productivity of each project.
2012 Action 1. Make the investment fund referenced in Objective 1, above, available to finance distributed generation and district energy systems.
No comment.
Action 2. Establish at least one district heating and cooling system.
Instead of limiting projects to individual property owners, it makes sense for government to enable aggregates of neighbors or neighborhoods to act when that scale is the most effective. For example, four properties could share a corner of their lots to install a geothermal heat pump. Drilling deep enough can be too expensive for an individual. The City and County should provide enabling zoning.
At another level of scale, there could be aggregations that are larger than just a few neighbors. Entrepreneurs could be encouraged to take on installing and maintaining the systems as a business. The ability to site in common back yards would make it easy to put in the distribution lines without digging up the public right-of-way, as well as saving costs for households.
Regulations do not support switching or exchanging energy sources. Many hospitals, schools and other large buildings have emergency energy devices. These usually are fueled by natural gas or diesel. It could be cheaper to buy your electricity from one of these co-gen plants at a large facility in your neighborhood when their energy efficiency exceeds that of the utility. While we don’t want to encourage carbon-produced sources, if the utility is generating electricity from a carbon source, get it locally.
Action 3. Facilitate the installation of at least five megawatts of on-site renewable energy, such as solar energy. 0
Support the feed-in tariff and facilitate selling power back to the grid.
Investigate using plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as leveling devices. Plug-in hybrids can help eliminate the need for maintaining a base load of power, which would open the way for renewable energy.
Vacant lands can be inventoried for energy or food production. Cleveland, Ohio did a guidebook that surveyed vacant properties for storm water management and energy production. They have available the information of how much land is needed for a project, and also how to use a property for the benefit of the community.
Related Items from Action Area 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
2030 Objective 16. Reduce carbon emissions from City and County operations 50 percent from 1990 levels.
Goal is set too low. Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2030.
Use smart meters to monitor energy use; employ geospatial modeling to make energy projects more productive; build projects to the most efficient scale; and consider smart grid technology.
2012 Action 1. Issue capital improvement bonds or identify other funding sources to finance energy-efficiency upgrades in City and County facilities.
No comment.
Action 2. Require that all new City and County buildings achieve Architecture 2030 performance targets
No comment.
Action 3. Convert street lighting, water pumps, water treatment and other energy intensive operations to more efficient technologies.
Minimize light pollution in converting street and other lighting. Use shades to aim lighting downward to avoid harming birds' navigation sensors.
Action 4. Adopt and implement green building policies that include third-party certification of energy, water and waste conservation strategies.
No comment.
Action 5. Purchase or generate 100 percent of all electricity required for City and County operations from renewable sources, with at least 15 percent from on-site or district renewable energy sources such as solar and biogas.
The City is the biggest purchaser of power from utilities. It can use its clout with the investor-owned utilities to remove carbon-based fuels from its long-range plan. The City/County needs to generate or purchase enough renewable electricity to close the Boardman plant. The City should use its power and influence as the main purchaser of PGE’s power to demand that they move off of coal-fired power. Pass a resolution that states that we will only buy clean, renewable energy from PGE as of x date, which should be well before 2030. Pass the resolution in the next year and work with PGE to come up with a way to shift the power source so that we can meet the emissions targets laid out in the plan. As long as the City is using power from coal we won’t be able to meet the emissions targets in this Climate Action Plan.
11 people attended the first session. Seven attended the second.
The major theme of our discussion was the inseparability of transit and efficient land use. Without sufficient density, you cannot build a transit system that can compete with cars on timeliness and proximity. Without an effective transit system, you cannot achieve the needed density due to the need to accommodate cars. Transit planning is land use planning. Land use planning is transit planning. Yet we know of no body that incorporates both aspects in our civic planning. TriMet, City and County all operate separately, plan separately, obtain grants from separate sources with separate criteria, and build separately. As far as we know, for example, sewers, water lines and utility lines under the streets are not even considered for maintenance when streetcar tracks are being planned and laid.
We concluded that Portland must build a transit system that is a true alternative to owning a car. We focused on building a grid of frequent (10 minute headways or better) service every half mile or so both east-west and north-south. We also suggested that TriMet observe which lines have greatest ridership, and electrify those lines.
To accomplish this, TriMet's present system is vastly inadequate. To persuade people that transit is a workable alternative to owning a car, service must be frequent, reliable, nearby and integrated with housing and shopping; also integrated must be the various modes of transit – feeder lines, trunk lines and MAX, along with inter-city services. Service must be available 24/7 because people need to get to and from work at all hours of the day and night. They are also unwilling to shape their leisure activities or nighttime working hours to a last bus at 12:30. While late night/ early morning buses may be less frequent, they must run. Since our ability to create vital and viable neighborhoods depends on our transportation system, we suggest that our whole vision of what TriMet should be, do, and hope for should expand and should be brought into the same context as the rest of the city – financially, operationally and culturally.
In order to create neighborhoods dense enough (and safe enough) to support adequate transit, the basis of our zoning must also change. Instead of use-based zoning Portland should adopt other, more flexible, standards. Encourage mixed use, for example, and increased density within a block or two of frequent service transit lines. Build the transit and the density will come. Instead of focusing on a single mode, such as the streetcar, focus on creating a network. Look at Toronto for a good example of an effective network. If there is good service, people will find it. The market will develop. Look at the areas of Portland that have gentrified and become very dynamic neighborhoods: N. Mississippi, Alberta, etc. They all have frequent transit service. We also noted the relationship between the primitive basis for zoning along the East Side MAX line and crime that is endemic on that line.
Finally, sooner or later all four bodies – County, City, TriMet, and Metro -must address head-on the issue of the limitations on uses of the fuel tax, and begin efforts to educate the public to encourage amendment of the Constitution. In the absence of sources for funding, especially if we anticipate a reduction in use of vehicles and therefore of fuel consumption overall, no funding schedule (as mentioned in Objective 5, Action 2) can be reliable.
2030 Objective 4. Create vibrant neighborhoods where 90 percent of Portland residents and 80 percent of Multnomah County residents can easily walk or bicycle to meet all basic daily, non-work needs.
2012 Action 1. Accommodate all population and business growth within the existing Urban Growth Boundary.
Action 2. For each type of urban neighborhood, identify the land use planning changes, infrastructure investments, including public-private partnerships that are needed to achieve a highly walkable neighborhood and develop an implementation action plan.
Action 3. Require evaluations of planning scenarios and individual land use decisions to include estimates of carbon emissions.
Action 4. Adopt a schedule of funding for public investments to make neighborhoods highly walkable. Coordinate complimentary land use developments.
Action 5. Complete the Streetcar Master Plan and fund the next eight miles of streetcar lines.
2030 Objective 5. Reduce per capita daily vehicle miles traveled by 50 percent from 2008 levels.
2012 Action 1. Update the Transportation System Plan to incorporate mode-share goals that will result in a 50 percent reduction in transportation-related emissions by 2030.
Action 2. Together with Metro and TriMet, develop a joint funding schedule for infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks and improved access to destinations beyond a reasonable walking distance.
Consider establishing a bicycle license fee
to provide funding for bike infrastructure, particularly as gas tax revenue declines, and to encourage responsible bicycling behavior.One member of the group felt strongly about this. Others opposed this on the basis of impact on the homeless (how do you register when you have no cash and no address?), and the civil liberties issue of restricting yet another mode of transportation to those who can present the proper papers when demanded by authorities.
Action 3. Allocate transportation expenditures among maintenance and infrastructure projects to improve the target mode shares.
Remove the State Legislature’s control of speed limits on surface streets in Portland. Eliminate the Speed Board, and give local governments control of speed, access and positioning of traffic lights and crosswalks for ALL surface streets within the local jurisdiction. This would include local control of state highways when those they are overlaid on surface streets (i.e., 82nd, Powell Blvd, others).
Action 4. Identify the steps necessary to create a world-class bicycle system throughout Portland and Multnomah County.
Action 5. Fund the first tier of improvements identified in the City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan and adopt a schedule of funding to address subsequent improvements.
Action 6. Expand the Smart Trips program to a county-wide effort to reach each resident at least once every five years.
Action 7. Invest in advanced telecommunications infrastructure to enable widespread e-commerce and telecommuting.
Action 8. Implement appropriate pricing mechanisms on driving such as congestion pricing, tolls and parking pricing and direct these funds to infrastructure for non-automobile transportation modes and programs to promote their use.
Action 9. Protect existing intermodal freight facilities.
2030 Objective 6. Increase the average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles to 40 miles per gallon.
2012 Action 1. Support implementation of state tailpipe emission standards that are more aggressive than federal standards.
Action 2. Provide educational opportunities to residents and businesses to drive the most efficient vehicle that meets their needs.
2030 Objective 7. Reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of transportation fuels by 20 percent.
2012 Action 1. Implement the second phase of the City’s renewable fuels standard to require that diesel fuel sold in Portland include at least 10 percent biodiesel, half of which must be made from sources that can be produced in Oregon.
Action 2. Accelerate the transition to plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles by supporting the installation of a network of electric car charging stations.
Related Items from Action Area 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
2030 Objective 16. Reduce carbon emissions from City and County operations 50 percent from 1990 levels.
2012 Action 6. Require that local government fleets, regulated fleets (e.g., taxis and waste/recycling haulers), and the fleets of local government contractors meet minimum fleet fuel efficiency standards and use low-carbon fuels.
Action 7. Buy electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles for City and County fleets as they become commercially available.
Eight people attended the first session and five attended the second. In addition to the specific comments below, four overall themes emerged:
All recommendations were unanimous.
2030 Objective 8. Reduce total solid waste generated by 25 percent.
2012 Action 1. Encourage businesses and residents to purchase new and reused goods with minimal packaging that are durable, repairable and reusable.
Action 2. Participate actively in the process to develop state and federal product stewardship legislation.
ADD NEW ACTION 3. Establish a zero waste policy or strategy.
2030 Objective 9. Recover 75 percent of all waste generated.
· Target is too weak; it should be 90%.
2012 Action 1. Complete the implementation of mandatory commercial food waste collection in Portland and begin collection of residential food waste.
Action 2. Assist 1,000 businesses per year to improve compliance with Portland’s requirement of paper, metal and glass recycling.
Action 3. Together with Metro create a regional hierarchy of materials disposal to guide decisions on technologies such as commercial composting, digesters, plasmafication and waste-to-energy systems.
Action 4. Regulate solid waste collection for unincorporated Multnomah County.
No comment.
Action 5. Provide technical assistance to contractors and construction firms to meet Portland’s new requirement to recycle 75 percent of construction and demolition debris.
No comment.
ADD NEW ACTION 6. Support local community waste reduction and related education efforts.
2030 Objective 10. Maximize the efficiency of the waste collection system.
2012 Action 1. Provide weekly curbside collection of food waste, other compostable materials and recycling. Shift residential garbage collection to every other week.
Related Items from Action Area 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
2030 Objective 16. Reduce carbon emissions from City and County operations 50 percent from 1990 levels.
ADD NEW ACTION (before Action 8). Reduce total waste produced in City/County operations by 50%.
· This is to correspond with our recommendation under Objective 8 (Reduce total solid waste generated by 50 percent).
2012 Action 8. Recover 85 percent of all waste generated in City and County operations.
· i.e., waste remaining after the reduction recommended in the previous new Action.
2012 Action 9. In City and County purchasing decisions, consider carbon emissions from the production, transportation, use and disposal of goods as a criterion.
· Substitute stronger language: “In City and County purchasing decisions, make an active effort to select suitable products that are the least carbon-intensive in their production, packaging, transportation, use and disposal. Establish thresholds that products must meet to be considered.”
Four people attended the first forum, and four the second.
At the second forum we had a Subject Matter Expert, Scott Fogarty, Executive Director of Friends of Trees. He spoke at length about the work they are doing, work that is addressing the CAP Urban Forestry Objectives, with positive results in carbon sequestering and in other areas such as stormwater runoff reduction, heat island effect reduction, community building, wildlife corridor creation and improvement, increasing home values, minority green jobs creation, and health improvement.
The work being done by Friends of Trees is directly in line with the goals in the CAP, and the group feels that supporting their work is one of the most effective ways to further CAP Urban Forestry and other goals.
It will be advantageous to coordinate planning for Forestry projects with those in the Buildings/Energy and the Food/Agriculture Action Areas to ensure that actions do not conflict or compete, and fulfill multiple needs wherever possible (i.e., planting trees that generate food but don’t shade food gardens, and ensuring that solar projects and forestry projects are appropriately sited and do not compete or interfere with each other). This begins to resemble the permaculture idea of interlocking, mutually supportive systems – i.e., considering the entire city (or county) as a permaculture. See new Action 5 regarding development and use of the LIDAR database, which shows solar potential of areas.
2030 Objective 11. Expand the forest canopy to cover one-third of Portland.
Currently, 26% of Portland/Multnomah County is covered with the Urban Forest, the objective is to increase that to 33%. The baseline should be stated in the plan.
2012 Action 1. Expand public and private programs to encourage planting and preserving trees.
Provide multiple sources for discounted/subsidized prices for trees. Friends of Trees already discounts their trees heavily.
Expand the Urban Forestry Program with expert staff, emphasizing staff that can help citizens better take care of their trees and protect them from the stress of expected climate change, i.e., from insects and disease.
Convert some streets to forest corridors from automobile corridors. This and the following item would have stormwater control benefits as well.
Reclaim streets to make more room for trees, bikes and pedestrians (they are much wider than will be needed when there are fewer automobiles). Fund/support research into effects on present forest of climate change. What types of trees that thrive locally are able to withstand the vicissitudes of climate change? Toronto is planting trees that are more resistant to severe climate events.
Plant fruit and nut trees and thereby fulfill two needs – carbon sequestering AND local food production. Eliminate prohibition against planting them on parking strips.
Identify existing fruit and nut trees in the City and County and create a GIS database accessible to people and groups interested in gleaning from them. Partner with the Portland Fruit Tree Project and other gleaner groups on this.
Introduce some urban predators that can help reduce squirrels harvesting of nuts in the city, possibly developing roosting and nesting habitat for predator raptors around nut tree concentrations.
Increase the City and County budgets for tree planting, including grants to nonprofits working in this area.
Require developers to retain and plant more trees. In some areas developers are required to plant two trees for every one taken out.
Utility workers need to be better trained to be guided by the mindset of protecting tree roots and limbs as they do their work.
Action 2. Acquire, restore and protect open spaces to promote functional forest ecosystems with high potential to sequester carbon dioxide.
Convert forest stands from short-lived and/or susceptible trees (e.g., cottonwoods that splinter in ice or wind storms) to longer-lived and more resistant varieties.
Promote uneven age tree management (stands in parks, etc. are often a single age).
Develop denser tree plantings in available areas (ball fields, parks, golf courses). Possibly require a minimum percentage of tree cover on golf courses. This might also create wildlife habitat.
For open spaces that are brownfields awaiting remediation, perhaps this can be accomplished through planting forests and also fungi to ameliorate the toxicity within the brownfields.
Set up an indicator program marking certain trees to monitor the health of forests in the City and County and the effects of climate change.
Continue improving forest health through efforts to promote healthy soil regimes in forested areas by planting nitrogen-fixing plants (alders, legumes).
Action 3. Develop and implement an outreach campaign to provide educational resources to residents about the benefits of trees, tree care and tree regulations.
Give more resources to the Urban Forestry Division for educational outreach programs. Educate regarding the benefits of trees. Develop curricula to teach children and other citizens on how critical trees are for the health of the climate, the air and society.
Explore more stringent rules against cutting down trees. Institute a program where homeowners can swap a tree you want to take out for a new tree planted.
Explore the idea that trees have become valuable enough to the environment and climate stabilization that they should have rights as a part of the commons.
Action 4. Recognize trees as a capital asset to City and County infrastructure.
What is a capital asset? Is it a line on a balance sheet, or something a community can use in promoting its quality of life? Or both?
We value clean air as an asset, so we can find a way to value trees – “33% of our city is covered in beautiful trees!” Create a sense of the sacred nature of trees.
Have schools adopt (watch, monitor, measure, water….) trees in their neighborhood.
Create a Special Trees Program within the City, with some designation or sign (a distinctive cord?) that anyone can use to say ”this tree is special?.
Employ managed harvests where appropriate to generate funds, in cases where stands need thinning or replacement in case of disease.
Create value through growing food for the Food Bank. Develop some of the existing parks as food forests – a community resource for food.
ADD NEW ACTION 5. The City/County/Metro should expedite the development and use of the LIDAR inventory to determine solar potential within the City/County/Metro area.
This inventory will allow the assessment of the solar potential of areas by measuring the tree canopy and tree height based on the location around homes and buildings. Local government needs to be aware of the need to integrate solar potential into all areas to generate solar based power. Where trees have to be sacrificed to improve solar gain, replacement trees should be planted.
20 people attended the first session. 14 people attended the second session.
Food is a “hot” issue today. The constituency of citizens concerned about food issues is growing (e.g., more people are attending the Food Policy Council). Overall, these plans lack specificity and, because most are not measurable, there is little accountability for achieving them. They are safe and conservative.
See the report for Group 4, Urban Forestry, for several recommendations regarding urban orchards of fruit and nut trees
2030 Objective 12. Significantly increase the consumption of local food.
2012 Action 1. Establish joint City-County institutional capacity to support the development of a strong local food system. Provide policy direction and resources to significantly increase the percentage of home-grown and locally-sourced food.
Although the CAP provides directives for the City/County, food and agricultural recommendations need to be considered as part of a bioregional system with emphasis on both “bioregional” (partnerships with other counties and Metro) and “system” (production and consumption as well as the financial dynamics of the local food system). The food needs of Portland cannot be satisfied without considering the surrounding counties.
Except for Action 6, this objective is lacking in quantitative commitments and measures that would insure accountability for achieving them.
Diesel fuel for farm equipment and fertilizer for crops are significant costs in agriculture. Using biodiesel and fertilizer by-products produced from a combination of sources of raw oil (waste cooking oil along with reliable, low cost fuel crops like White Mustard) could significantly reduce these costs.
Action 2. Work to reestablish funding to the Multnomah County Extension Service.
Action 3. Increase the viability of farmers’ markets, community gardens, community-supported agriculture farms and home-grown food through qualitative goals. Integrate these goals into all planning processes.
Action 4. Provide educational opportunities for residents that will enable them to grow fruit and vegetables at their place of residence and in cooperation with their neighbors.
This action relies heavily on developing a sense of community and bringing people together around food. An emphasis on the health and well-being of a community of people should be central to all educational efforts about producing food in one’s own neighborhood. Neighbors can work together and develop creative ways to use space/land perhaps by taking down fences. Growing one’s own food can take a lot of energy, which may be difficult for some people but relaxing to others. This is why neighbors helping neighbors is important. Neighborhood associations and their sustainability committees can facilitate this kind of networking.
· Create a special information campaign to educate people on converting their lawns to gardens (“Food Not Lawns”); depaving and remediation techniques and doing container and “earth box” gardening. Link to and support the “Vote with Your Fork” Campaign and Food Not Lawns.
Action 5. Encourage the use of public and private urban land and rooftops for growing food and remove obstacles to local food production.
Action 6. Create 1,300 new community garden plots.
This goal seems quite low. We prefer 1,300 new community gardens, not simply individual plots.
2030 Objective 13. Reduce consumption of carbon intensive foods.
· As stated, this objective lacks the commitment of specific, measurable targets/outcomes. Quantitative goals for a specific time period should be established. Reduce consumption by how much, by when?
· Define “carbon-intensive foods.” The definition should consider type of food (meat and dairy) as well as how the food was produced (whether from deforested land , organic or industrial techniques, chemicals and pesticides used, etc.), packaged, transported (local or not, how shipped, etc.) stored, and where the waste goes. Defining the carbon intensity of foods inevitably requires looking at the entire lifecycle of food. This means looking beyond the physical boundaries of the City/ County.
2012 Action 1. Create a public engagement campaign highlighting food choice as a key action to live a climate-friendly lifestyle.
· Develop a scorecard with a point system to help people make better food choices; (e.g., points for buying local, for buying food not produced with petroleum). Provide awards (sign for their yard, etc.) when they do. Use signage and icons at the point-of-purchase to help consumers make better food choices. Perhaps develop a Willamette Valley and/or Oregon label to distinguish foods that are grown/produced locally.
· Offer or facilitate the offering of cooking classes that teach people how to cook delicious and nutritious meals without meat.
· Develop something like a “200-Mile Diet Challenge” to emphasize the climate-friendliness of eating food produced in our local region. At the same time require or encourage food stores to identify where food products come from.
Action 2. Create City and County partnerships with healthcare, schools and other organizations to promote healthy, low-carbon diets.
ADD NEW 2030 OBJECTIVE XX. Ensure that all objectives and action steps in this Climate Action Plan be deliberately and carefully developed within the context of systems thinking (inputs and outputs) and use a lifecycle framework for analyzing the climate impacts of food.
Fourteen people attended the first session. Eleven attended the second session. In addition to the specific comments below, these themes emerged:
2030 Objective 14. Motivate all Multnomah County residents and businesses to change their behavior in ways that reduce carbon emissions.
2012 Action 1. In partnership with businesses, universities, community colleges, K-12 schools, non-profits, public agencies, neighborhood associations and faith-based, social and community organizations, launch a community-wide public engagement campaign to promote carbon emission reductions.
Action 2. Establish a business leadership council to catalyze the business community to create a prosperous low-carbon economy.
Action 3. Create a center to bring together academia, businesses and government to foster policy development, best practices and collaboration to address climate change.
Six people attended each session. In addition to the specific comments below, these themes emerged:
2012 Action 1. Prepare an assessment of climate-related vulnerabilities of local food, water and energy supplies, infrastructure and the public health system.
Action 2. Analyze the costs and benefits of addressing major vulnerabilities identified in the assessment and prioritize preparation actions.
Action 3. Adopt a climate change preparation plan assigning responsibility to appropriate bureaus or departments to address prioritized actions.
· Work with and include grassroots groups – not just city government bureaus and departments – to address prioritized actions. Use community groups as partners to identify vulnerabilities, conduct assessments, make recommendations and take needed actions.
Additional links.
http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?c=41896
In 2007, Portland City Council and the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners adopted resolutions directing staff to design a strategy to reduce local carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Achieving the 80 percent reduction goal is not something government can do alone: We need to work together with every citizen and every business to make the fundamental changes that will help us reach the 2050 goal.
The 2009 Climate Action Plan will serve as the 40-year roadmap for the institutional and individual change needed to reach our ambitious climate protection goals in the City of Portland and Multnomah County. This draft plan proposes objectives and actions that will help residents, businesses and government meet the 2050 goal
We encourage you to read the proposed plan and share your thoughts with us.
Draft Climate Action Plan 2009
Draft Climate Action Plan 2009
The comment period ends on Monday, July 13. Complete this online survey in only 7 minutes!
Join the conversation
Attend a Climate Action Plan Town Hall in your neighborhood.
for email updates
Receive news related to the Climate Action Plan.
Media contact information, press releases, and images.
To be on track to reach the 2050 emissions reduction target, all buildings must consume 25 percent less energy than today. By 2030, many new and highly efficient buildings will have been built that will consume less than half the energy of today’s buildings. However, because over two-thirds of the buildings that will exist in 2030 are in place today, existing buildings must be retrofitted with energy-saving measures to achieve the necessary aggregate building effi ciency improvements.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Establish an investment fund with public and private capital to provide easy access to $10 million annually in low-cost fi nancing to residents and businesses for energy performance improvements.
Require energy performance ratings and consumption disclosure for all homes so that owners, tenants and prospective buyers can make informed decisions.
Require energy performance benchmarking for all commercial and multi-family buildings.
Provide resources and incentives to residents and businesses on energy-reduction actions on existing buildings.
Work with partner organizations to promote improved operation and maintenance practices in all commercial buildings.
Climate change is the defining challenge of the 21st century. The world’s leading scientists report that carbon emissions1 from human activities have begun to destabilize the Earth’s climate. Billions of people will experience these changes through threats to public health, national and local economies and supplies of food, water and power.
The challenge of climate change is more urgent than ever, but it is not new. Nor is our region’s response. For more than 15 years Portland has sought to reduce carbon emissions, starting with the City of Portland’s 1993 Carbon Dioxide Reduction Strategy and followed, eight years later, by the joint Multnomah County–City of Portland Local Action Plan on Global Warming. These plans launched ambitious carbon-reduction efforts, like public transit expansions and new green building policies, that promise to benefi t the region’s long-term economic, social and environmental prosperity. Th ese actions helped achieve impressive results, such as a reduction in local carbon emissions in 2007 that were one percent below 1990 levels, despite rapid population growth. At the same time, average emission levels throughout the United States increased 17 percent. Clearly Portland is bucking the trend and heading in the right direction. In addition, these efforts go far beyond reducing carbon emissions, and help us to:
Clean Up Local Air Pollution. When you cut carbon emissions, you also reduce air pollution – such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, benzene, and particulates. Less pollution means cleaner air and healthier families.
Create More Local Jobs. Th e past decade has proven that many of the technologies, products and services required for the shift to a low carbon future can be provided by Portland area companies. Dollars currently spent on fossil fuels will no longer leave our economy and will stay here to pay for home insulation, lighting retrofits, solar panels, bicycles, engineering, design and construction.
Rely Much Less on Imported Oil. Every action in this Plan will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. As prices continue to increase in the long run and supplies become more uncertain, a reduced reliance on volatile, non-domestic oil supplies will diminish the risks faced by everyone.
Save Money. Using less energy, means lower energy bills for residents, business and government. While the early achievements of the Portland region are notable, the latest science suggests that dramatically more ambitious actions are required to mitigate the most extreme impacts of the changing climate. Cities across the United States and around the globe are assessing the impact of local emissions and creating action plans to address this urgent global issue.
In 2007, Portland City Council and the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners adopted resolutions directing staff to design a strategy to reduce local carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. Th is document responds to that directive. Th e 2009 Climate Action Plan will lead future eff orts by the City and County and provide an innovative framework for the region’s transition to a more prosperous, sustainable and climate- stable future. In doing so, it will strengthen local economies, create more jobs, improve health, and maintain the high quality of life for which this region is known.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN VISION:
Each resident lives in a walkable and bikeable neighborhood that includes retail businesses, schools, parks and jobs.
Green-collar jobs are a key component of the thriving regional economy, with products and services related to clean energy, green building, sustainable food and waste reuse and recovery providing living-wage jobs throughout the community. Homes, offices and other buildings are durable and highly efficient, healthy, comfortable and powered primarily by solar, wind and other renewable resources.
Urban forest, green roofs and swales help cover the community, reducing the urban heat island effect, sequestering carbon, providing wildlife habitat and cleaning the air and water.
Food and agriculture are central to the economic and cultural vitality of the community, with productive backyard and community gardens and thriving farmers markets. A large share of food comes from farms in the region, and residents eat healthily, consuming more locally grown grains, vegetables and fruits.
The broad-scale coordination and planning required to achieve the 80-percent carbon reduction goal will demand that governments, businesses, civic organizations and residents collaborate extensively and take the lead in their own activities.
Fossil fuels are a finite and costly resource, as disruptive swings in oil and natural gas prices make clear. A “low-carbon” society — one markedly less reliant on fossil fuels — will be more stable, prosperous and healthy.
Reducing carbon emissions dramatically is a global challenge that local governments cannot solve alone. The federal government must make fundamental shifts in its energy policy and align its vast research and development resources with climate protection. Th e State of Oregon has an invaluable role to play in transportation investments, strengthening building codes, regulating utilities, managing forest lands, reducing waste and guiding local land use policies.
Local governments have an indispensible role to play as well; with their important roles both in developing the fundamental shape of the community, transportation systems and buildings and in helping individuals make informed choices about everyday business and personal choices.
Guided by this Climate Action Plan, Portland and Multnomah County will carry out policies and programs to minimize household, business and government emissions and prepare for the coming environmental and economic challenges. These efforts will help the entire community thrive now and in the future.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000019681 StartFragment:0000000502 EndFragment:0000019664
The Plan:
Proposes an interim goal of a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030.
Establishes objectives to achieve the interim goal.
Focuses principally on major actions to be taken in the next three years to shift Portland and Multnomah County’s emissions trajectory.
To draft this Climate Action Plan, City and County staff worked with a steering committee and working groups to identify the objectives and actions most likely to foster the long-term changes necessary to achieve such ambitious goals.
Key criteria in developing the actions were the magnitude of emissions reductions, the scale of economic and community benefi ts, and the ability of local governments to facilitate their implementation.
Portland and Multnomah County are committed to acting decisively to implement these actions and constantly evaluate progress–adapting and revising as necessary.
The City and County will:
Report on community carbon emissions annually.
Evaluate existing actions and identify new actions every three years.
Re-examine the objectives every ten years.
Individual Actions.
Here are some actions individuals can take right now:
Calculate your carbon footprint — visit www.b-e-f.org/calc
Get free help with what your business can do — visit www.bestbusinesscenter.org or call (503) 823-3919.
Contact the Energy Trust of Oregon at www.energytrust.org or (866) ENTRUST
(968-7878) for a free home energy review.
Discover how driving doesn’t have to be your only option —
visit www.drivelesssavemore.com
Contact your utilities to sign up for clean energy.
Portland General Electric —
or (800) 542-8818
PacifiCorp — www.pacificpower.net
or (888) 221-7070
NW Natural — www.nwnatural.com
or (800) 422-4012
Learn about energy-efficiency and green building for your next home project visit www.buildgreen411.com or call (503) 823-5431.
Reduce stuff. Contact the Metro Recycling
Information hotline at (503) 234-3000 to learn how to reduce the amount of garbage you generate.
Count the number of times you eat red meat in a week; replace 20 percent of your red meat consumption with other food.
Ask a friend what she or he is doing to address climate change.
A VISION FOR 2050
An 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2050 will entail re-imagining the entire community — transitioning away from fossil fuels and strengthening the local economy while shifting fundamental patterns of urban form, transportation, buildings and consumption. Important details remain to be sorted out, but in planning for climate protection the City and County are guided by the following vision:
In 2050, Portland and Multnomah County are at the heart of a vibrant region with a thriving economy and rich cultural community.
Personal mobility and access to services has never been better. Every resident lives in a walkable and bikeable neighborhood that includes retail businesses, schools, parks and jobs. Most people rely on walking, bicycling and transit rather than driving. Pedestrians and bicyclists are prominent in the region’s commercial centers, corridors and neighborhoods. Public transportation, bikeways and sidewalks connect neighborhoods. When people do need to drive, vehicles are highly efficient and run on low-carbon electricity and sustainable biofuels.
Green jobs are a key component of the regional economy, with products and services related to clean energy, green building, sustainable food, green infrastructure and waste reuse and recovery providing living-wage jobs throughout the community.
Homes, offi ces and other buildings deliver superb performance. Th ey are durable and highly effi cient, healthy, comfortable and powered primarily by solar, wind and other renewable resources. Th e urban forest and green roofs cover the community, reducing the urban heat island eff ect, sequestering carbon and cleaning the air and water.
Food and agriculture are central to the economic and cultural vitality of the community, with backyard gardens, farmers’ markets and community gardens productive and thriving. A large share of food comes from farms in the region, and residents eat healthily, consuming more locally grown grains, vegetables and fruits.
Residents and businesses use resources extremely efficiently, minimizing and reusing solid waste, water, stormwater and energy.
The Portland region has prepared for a changed climate, having made infrastructure more resilient, developed reliable supplies of water, food and energy and improved public health services
Th e optimal time to begin addressing building efficiency is in the initial building design stage. Buildings that have been designed and built with performance as a primary goal are capable of significantly outperforming similar, previously built buildings that have been retrofitted for efficiency. Because total emissions from buildings must be reduced by much more than can be accomplished with retrofi ts alone, it is critical that buildings built after 2030 generate more energy from clean sources than they consume, resulting in a net emissions reduction.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Adopt green building incentives for high performance new construction.
Participate actively in the process to revise the Oregon building code to codify the performance targets of Architecture 2030.
Accelerate existing efforts to provide green building design assistance, education and technical resources to residents, developers, designers and builders.
2030 OBJECTIVE 3. - Produce 10 percent of the total energy used within Multnomah County from on-site renewable sources and clean district energy systems.
Current projections anticipate that the population of Multnomah County will increase by more than 30 percent by 2030, with a corresponding increase in demand for energy. State law requires that by 2025, 25 percent of all electricity sold in Oregon be generated from clean renewable sources. Some of these sources will take the form of utility-scale wind farms or solar facilities located far from population centers. District- and neighborhood scale energy systems, as well as on-site renewables and distributed generation sources, also provide opportunities for efficiency gains by reducing transmission losses.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Make the investment fund referenced in Objective 1, available to fi nance distributed generation and district energy systems.
Establish at least one district heating and cooling system.
Facilitate the installation of at least five megawatts of on-site renewable energy, such as solar energy.
Despite thoughtful land-use planning and quality transportation options, residents of Multnomah County are more dependent on automobiles than are the residents of more compact cities on the East Coast and in much of the rest of the world. A critical and basic step to reduce automobile dependence is to ensure that residents live in “20-minute neighborhoods,” meaning that they can comfortably fulfill their daily needs within a 20-minute walk or bike ride from home.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Accommodate all population and business growth within the existing Urban Growth Boundary.
For each type of urban neighborhood, identify the land use planning changes, infrastructure investments, including public/private partnerships that are needed to achieve a highly walkable neighborhood and develop an implementation action plan.
Require evaluations of planning scenarios and individual land use decisions to include estimates of carbon emissions.
Adopt a schedule of funding for public investments to make neighborhoods highly walkable. Coordinate complimentary land use developments.
Complete the Streetcar Master Plan and fund the next eight miles of streetcar lines.
Currently, the per capita daily passenger vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in the Portland region are about eight percent above 1990 levels. (Figure 9). To be on target for the 2050 goals, per capita daily passenger VMT must decline by about 30 percent from today's by 2030. This reduction must occur in addition to vehicle fuel efficiency improvements and the development of cleaner fuels. Reducing per capita VMT while maintaining the mobility of, and access to services for, Portland and Multnomah County residents will require significant growth in walking, bicycling and transit (Figures 10 and 11).
The current Transportation System Plan projects that drive-alone trips will decrease from 62 percent in 1994 to 57 percent in 2020 (Figure 12). To achieve the 2030 objective, VMT reductions will need to accelerate dramatically from the current trajectory. The benefits of this shift will do more than protect the climate: because the average Portland household spends about 20 percent of household income on transportation, reductions in VMT can significantly increase disposable income.
4 See, for example, “The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice.” Center for Transit Oriented Development and Center for Neighborhood Technology, January 2006.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Update the Transportation System Plan to incorporate mode share goals that will result in a 50 percent reduction in transportation related emissions by 2030.
Together with Metro and TriMet, develop a joint funding schedule for infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks and improved access to destinations beyond a reasonable walking distance.
Allocate transportation expenditures among maintenance and infrastructure projects to improve the target mode shares.
Identify the steps necessary to create a world class bicycle system throughout Portland and Multnomah County.
Fund the first tier of improvements identified in the City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan and adopt a schedule of funding to address subsequent improvements.
Expand the Smart Trips program to a county-wide eff ort to reach each resident at least once every five years.
Invest in advanced telecommunications infrastructure to enable widespread e-commerce and telecommuting.
Implement appropriate pricing mechanisms on driving such as congestion pricing, tolls and parking pricing and direct these funds to infrastructure for non-automobile transportation modes and programs to promote their use.
Protect existing intermodal freight facilities.
Current federal standards require that the average fuel economy of new cars must be 35 miles per gallon by 2020. As of April 2009, the EPA is reviewing a request to allow California to impose more stringent carbon emissions standards for all new vehicles sold within that state. Oregon may adopt California’s proposed standards, which would eff ectively increase the fuel economy of cars sold in Oregon to 39 mpg by 2020. Whatever standards Oregon adopts, the City and County must pursue additional policies and programs to improve fuel effi ciency.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Support implementation of state tailpipe emission standards that are more aggressive than federal standards.
Provide educational opportunities to residents and businesses to drive the most efficient vehicle that meets their needs.
Portland’s 2007 requirement that all fuel sold in the city contain minimum amounts of biofuels has already been a success. Biofuels have become widely accepted in Portland and Multnomah County, and manufacturers are beginning to design engines to accept higher blends of biofuels. Additional fuel-related emissions reductions will be possible as a new generation of more sustainable alternative transportation fuels ( e.g., cellulosic ethanol and electricity) becomes commercially available.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Implement the second phase of the City’s renewable fuels standard to require that diesel fuel sold in Portland include at least 10 percent biodiesel, half of which must be made from sources that can be produced in Oregon.
Accelerate the transition to plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles by supporting the installation of a network of electric car charging stations.
Portland’s recycling rate is among the highest in the U.S., reaching 64 percent in 2007, almost twice the national average of 33 percent. Total solid waste generated, however, refers to both the amount of materials sent to landfi lls and the amount of materials recovered (i.e., recycled, composted, converted to energy or otherwise put to a use other than the original intended purpose). At the current growth rate for solid waste generation, the Portland area in 2030 will generate over one and a half times the amount of waste it generates today (Figure 13). Given expected population growth, a 25 percent reduction in total waste from current levels means that, on a per capita basis, residents and businesses must generate about half the waste in 2030 that they do today.
The Portland Recycles Plan, adopted by Portland City Council in 2007, establishes an objective of reducing per capita waste generation to 2005 levels by 2015. Th is objective is consistent with the statewide goal of limiting per capita waste generation to 2005 levels and limiting total waste generation to 2009 levels.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Encourage businesses and residents to purchase new and reused goods with minimal packaging that are durable, repairable and reusable.
Participate actively in the process to develop state and federal product stewardship legislation.
As noted above, in 2007, 64 percent of all waste generated in Portland was diverted from landfill disposal. Given available technology, only nine percent of the total amount of waste generated cannot readily be recycled. This means more than 90 percent can be recovered. Portland has established a city-wide objective of recovering 75 percent of all waste by 2015. In 2008 it adopted a detailed plan to help businesses comply with that requirement.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Complete the implementation of mandatory commercial food waste collection in Portland and begin collection of residential food waste.
Assist 1,000 businesses per year to improve compliance with Portland’s requirement of paper, metal and glass recycling.
Together with Metro create a regional hierarchy of materials disposal to guide decisions on technologies such as commercial composting, digesters, plasmafication and waste-to-energy systems.
Regulate solid waste collection for unincorporated Multnomah County.
Provide technical assistance to contractors and construction firms to meet Portland’s new requirement to recycle 75 percent of construction and demolition debris.
2030 OBJECTIVE 10 - Maximize the efficiency of the waste collection system.
As of 2007, haulers in Portland are required to use at least 20 percent biodiesel in trucks used to collect waste in Portland. Waste collection-related carbon emissions can be further reduced by reducing the miles driven by garbage and recycling trucks and by utilizing even cleaner transportation fuels.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Provide weekly curbside collection of food waste, other compostable materials and recycling. Shift residential garbage collection to every other week.
Currently, the Portland urban forest covers 26 percent of Portland and removes 88,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year, equal to about one percent of all local carbon emissions. If local emissions are successfully reduced by 80 percent by 2050, this amount of sequestration would equal fi ve percent of local emissions. Should the urban forest’s capacity to sequester carbon dioxide be compromised, Portland will have to reduce emissions beyond the 80 percent goal to compensate.
The City of Portland’s “Grey to Green” initiative, which calls for planting an additional 50,000 street
trees and 33,000 yard trees over the next five years, is an example of the kinds of programs and actions that must be implemented to achieve this objective.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Expand public and private programs to encourage planting and preserving trees.
Acquire, restore and protect open spaces to promote functional forest ecosystems with high potential to sequester carbon dioxide.
Develop and implement an outreach campaign to provide educational resources to residents about the benefi ts of trees, tree care and tree regulation.
Recognize trees as a capital asset to City and County infrastructure.
A county-wide urban food and agriculture initiative promotes a long-term vision of a city and county that can grow a signifi cant portion of its food.
A community-based, local food system can reshape the community’s relationship to food and provide substantial environmental, economic, social and health benefits. A public-private initiative can significantly increase the amount of home-grown food and reduce the carbon intensity of the food chain.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Establish joint City-County institutional capacity to support the development of a strong local food system. Provide policy direction and resources to significantly increase the percentage of home-grown and locally sourced food.
Work to reestablish funding to the Multnomah County Extension Service.
Increase the viability of farmers’ markets, community gardens, community-supported agriculture farms and home-grown food through qualitative goals. Integrate these goals into all planning processes.
Provide educational opportunities for residents that will enable them to grow fruit and vegetables at their place of residence and in cooperation with their neighbors.
Encourage the use of public and private urban land and rooftops for growing food and remove obstacles to local food production.
Create 1,300 new community garden plots.
From a carbon perspective, not all food is created equal. As shown in Figure 16, consumption of red meat (beef and pork), for example, results in more than twice the carbon emissions, on a per-calorie basis, of dairy products, almost three times that of chicken, fi sh, eggs, fruits and vegetables, and almost eight times the emissions of cereals and carbohydrates. Red meat production is significantly more carbon intensive than other foods because:
the digestive process of cattle produces large amounts of methane gas and
over 30 calories of inputs are often needed to produce one calorie of beef.6 If the average household were to shift the calories of one day’s meat and dairy consumption per week to grains and vegetables, the resulting carbon emissions reductions would be equivalent to driving approximately 10 percent less per year.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Create a public engagement campaign highlighting food choice as a key action to live a climate-friendly lifestyle.
Create City and County partnerships with healthcare, schools and other organizations to promote healthy, low-carbon diets.
A successful community engagement campaign must tie together existing eff orts, develop new initiatives and forge a partnership between government and the community.
Reaching this objective requires cooperation among governments, neighborhoods, schools, non-profit organizations, faith communities, businesses, civic organizations and individual community members.
Actions to be completed before 2012
In partnership with businesses, universities, non-profits and public agencies, launch a community-wide public engagement campaign to promote carbon emission reductions.
Establish a business leadership council to catalyze the business community to create a prosperous low-carbon economy.
Create a center to bring together academia, business and government to foster policy development, best practices and collaboration to address climate change.
Climate change is already affecting Portland and Multnomah County. To adapt, the region must understand and prepare for change. Th is work has already begun. In 2002, for example, the Portland Water Bureau analyzed potential impacts of climate change on supply and demand for potable water. At a regional level, the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and University of Washington Climate Impacts Group are leaders in advanced scientifi c research on likely climate change impacts.
A comprehensive review of likely impacts in the Portland area has not yet been undertaken, however. Because of the long lead time necessary for some of the adaptive actions that may be required, it is key that this review and resulting recommendations take place soon.
Impact areas such as infrastructure, energy, economy, transportation, water, food, stormwater management, social and health services, public safety, environment and biodiversity, population migrations and emergency preparedness.
Planning arenas that the City or County manages or for which they set policy.
Co-benefits of preparation efforts.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Prepare an assessment of climate-related vulnerabilities in local food, water and energy supplies, infrastructure and the public health system.
Analyze the costs and benefits of addressing major vulnerabilities identifi ed in this assessment and prioritize preparation actions.
Adopt a climate change preparation plan assigning responsibility to appropriate bureaus or departments to address prioritized actions.
Th e City and County own and operate hundreds of buildings, thousands of streetlights and traffi c signals and several large-scale industrial plants. As public entities, the City and County can invest in capital projects with relatively long payback periods and, like all businesses, need to examine every facet of operations for emission reduction opportunities.
Actions to be completed before 2012
Issue capital improvement bonds or identify other funding sources to fi nance energy-efficiency upgrades in City and County facilities.
Require that all new City and County buildings achieve Architecture 2030 performance targets.
Convert street lighting, water pumping, water treatment and other energy-intensive operations to more efficient technologies.
Adopt and implement green building policies that include third-party certifi cation of energy, water and waste conservation strategies.
Purchase or generate 100 percent of all electricity required for City and County operations from renewable sources, with at least 15 percent from on-site or district renewable energy sources such as solar and biogas.
Require that local government fl eets, regulated fl eets (e.g., taxis and waste/recycling haulers) and the fl eets of local government contractors meet minimum fl eet fuel efficiency standards and use low-carbon fuels.
Buy electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles for City and County fl eets as they become commercially available.
Recover 85 percent of all waste generated in City and County operations.
In City and County purchasing decisions, consider carbon emissions from the production, transportation, use and disposal of goods as a criterion.
Identified Need: On one hand, Multnomah County is at the epicenter of the local food movement and is progressive in identifying and attempting to manage the social determinants of health, but on the other hand, half of all the adults in Multnomah County are either overweight or obese; chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease are on the rise; half of all Multnomah County children will be on food stamps at one point in their childhood; our economic plans don’t include food, and only about 10% of the food that we consume is grown locally. What we lack is a shared vision and a strategic action plan to achieve a truly sustainable, healthy, and equitable food system for all.
Goal: To develop a shared community vision and collaborative food action plan to promote a sustainable, healthy, and equitable food system.
Framework: Host a Food Summit in early 2010 to develop a shared community vision for our local food system and to develop a 15 year community action plan with objectives, goals, and metrics under a distributed ownership model.
Outcomes:
Roles:
Phases & Timeline:
Action Plan Structure: organize under the categories of foodshed (supply), healthy eating (demand), equity, and local economic vitality.
Shared Governance Structure: TBD
Identified Need: On one hand, Multnomah County is at the epicenter of the local food movement and is progressive in identifying and attempting to manage the social determinants of health, but on the other hand, half of all the adults in Multnomah County are either overweight or obese; chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease are on the rise; half of all Multnomah County children will be on food stamps at one point in their childhood; our economic plans don’t include food, and only about 10% of the food that we consume is grown locally. What we lack is a shared vision and a strategic action plan to achieve a truly sustainable, healthy, and equitable food system for all.
Goal: To develop a shared community vision and collaborative food action plan to promote a sustainable, healthy, and equitable food system.
Framework: Host a Food Summit in early 2010 to develop a shared community vision for our local food system and to develop a 15 year community action plan with objectives, goals, and metrics under a distributed ownership model.
Outcomes:
Roles:
Phases & Timeline:
Action Plan Structure: organize under the categories of foodshed (supply), healthy eating (demand), equity, and local economic vitality.
Shared Governance Structure: TBD
Draft template for the Multnomah Food Initiative.

Multnomah County commissioners kicked off a 15-year campaign Thursday called the Multnomah Food Initiative. Their ambitious goal: mobilize the community to rethink what we eat and how we get our food.
The campaign, approved unanimously by the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, goes public next year with what Kat West, Multnomah County sustainability manager, billed as the nation’s first “food action summit.”
Organizers expect to bring together community members to tackle hunger, poor nutrition and obesity, and explore ways to improve people’s health and promote economic development in the local farm and food industries, said Weston Miller, volunteer chairman of the Portland Multnomah Food Policy Council, who works for Oregon State University Extension Service.
Many in government and public health see the food issue as gaining importance at a time when there are huge numbers of Oregonians seeking food stamps, yet many people in the state are overweight and developing diabetes and other related maladies.
“In addition to being one of the hungriest communities, we’re also one of the most obese communities,” observed Ted Wheeler, Multnomah County chairman.
The county already led the way in promoting fast-food menu labeling in Oregon, Wheeler said. That initiative served as a model for a 2009 state law that alerts many fast-food customers of the nutrition content of their foods. The county also organized the planting of a large community garden in Troutdale this year, designed to provide food for the hungry.
The food action plan is a logical extension of the county’s efforts, Wheeler said.
“Just imagine a county that eats healthfully and that feeds itself from food grown within our own borders,” West said. First off, the county needs to assure that hungry people are fed, she said. Ultimately, though, the goal is to “redesign our food system,” West said, “to produce, not food, but healthy people.”
Amber Meyer doesn't need university studies or proclamations from experts to tell her something's wrong with the U.S. food system.
The reality hits the Portland resident in the gut every time she tries to figure out how to feed her family of six on the $500 a month in food stamps that supplements her husband's income from a print shop.
That comes to less than $1 per meal per family member.
And that means Meyer must decide whether to pay now for healthful food that won't stretch to the end of the month. Or pay later if the cheaper but processed, fattening foods affect their health in the future.
"It's really hard, but I have to choose filler foods -- it's like Hamburger Helper constantly and loads of Top Ramen," Meyer said. "Fresh produce is out. Meals from scratch are out. If you put enough mac and cheese on their plates it'll fill them up, but I know it's not healthy."
Food is more abundant than ever, researchers say, but it's often the wrong kind of food.
In the face of a growing obesity epidemic that coincides with large numbers of Oregonians who still go hungry, Multnomah County has decided it's time for a food fight.
The county has launched a 15-year food initiative. The idea: Locally grow a significant amount of the food that county residents eat, make it more affordable and accessible and move away from processed foods by teaching people what to do with food that comes from the ground and not a can.
The thinking is that in a region that plans for nearly everything it values -- climate, transportation, land-use, ending homelessness -- food is the next frontier.
"We have a crisis and many people consider our food system broken," said Kat West, the county's sustainability manager.
"It's a very big, daunting task ... but somebody has got to lead and we think we are up to the challenge. "
The county, of course, can't eliminate junk food from its borders, but it already has begun maneuvering to become a leader on food and health issues. It successfully passed a menu labeling law in February, introduced a health equity initiative last year and this spring started a farm on unused county land that has provided several area food pantries with produce for the first time in years.
Organizers have pulled together people from the county, the city of Portland, Metro, Portland Public Schools, Portland State University, the Oregon State University Extension Service, Kaiser Permanente, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Oregon Food Bank, Community Food Security Coalition, Ecotrust, Growing Gardens, New Seasons Market and Burgerville to serve on a steering committee. They will meet for this first time this month and host a food summit early next year.
Local brands and more
West wants the group to start with producing a state of food report for Multnomah County that will look at who has access to healthful fare, how much food people consume locally and how much land is available for farming or gardening in the county.
For example, Atlanta's local food initiative launched last year found that 1.2 million acres of developable land sits vacant in the metro area but that it would take just 23,000 acres to grow enough vegetables to feed the city's residents.
Establishing a massive grow-your-own movement here will be a major thrust of the county's initiative. Garden plots and small-scale farms could produce food for county residents. Schools and parks own acres of unused land, allowing schoolchildren to help grow the food they'd eat at school and parks to open more gardens. Excess county and city land could go to people with no yards of their own and the county could push a foods-not-lawns program for homeowners.
There's talk of a local brand, where products grown within a certain radius would receive a special label so someone buying apples at the store knows if they came on a boat from New Zealand or on a truck from Hood River.
And a key to the initiative, West said, would be driving development to ensure every neighborhood has access to a full-service grocery store and possibly the creation of the "healthy corner store," which stocks fresh food instead of junk food.
Entrenched food system
Local and national experts laud the county's initiative, but also warn that it will encounter an entrenched food system.
It's a story of big industry and $50 billion a year in advertising. Of industrialization that has concentrated farming into a handful of companies and a handful of crops. Of controversial federal farm subsidies that have turned certain foods into commodities -- mainly corn and soybeans -- so cut-rate that the industry used them to create more food than we could consume, then came up with a plan to make us eat more. And we did.
Put simply, our food system has become a bit perverse. The further the food is from nature, the less it costs. The more we struggle to make ends meet, the more likely we are to be overweight.
"The food system permeates every aspect of our society, yet the question of is it good for your health ends up being at the bottom of the list as opposed to is it cheap, it is easy, is it profitable," said Lawrence Wallack, dean of Portland State University's College of Urban and Public Affairs.
The price of fruits and vegetables has increased between 40 percent and 50 percent in the last 10 years while the price of junk food has declined about that much, said New York University nutrition and food studies professor Marion Nestle, who studies how the American food system went awry.
For a county to try to tackle the food system is like David and Goliath, she suggested. But David picked up a pebble and won -- and Nestle said pebbles to toss at the giant abound.
The obesity explosion has caught the country off-guard, she said, and now we're wondering what's in our food, where it came from and why we're eating this instead of that. Concerns over climate change have us questioning things such as why -- as a recent documentary pointed out -- garlic is shipped from China on a cargo ship with flip-flops and sex toys when it can be grown abundantly here. And there's the sticky subject of healthcare reform with obesity-related diseases feeding costs.
It appears the time for change is, well, ripe.
"Multnomah County is absolutely asking the right questions," said Beth Emshoff, a metro specialist for OSU's extension service. "It's very difficult for a state or a city to say we are going to buck the system. Having said that, there are many things we can do and if anybody can do it, it would be a place like Portland. And if we can do it here it will have implications across the country."
Learning to garden
Amber Meyer sees the potential. Earlier this month, her 20-month-old boy sat with a crusty mac-and-cheese mustache and munched on a green bean Meyer had just snapped from her small garden at SnowCap Community Charities. The food pantry has offered plots to low-income people for more than six years, asking only they donate a small portion of the harvest to the pantry.
Meyer had never gardened in her life -- the family stays in a second-floor apartment -- and it kind of scared her.
But this summer for the first time in memory, her family devoured fresh vegetables nearly every day.
Now when she drives around Portland, Meyer wonders why more people can't share her experience. "I see empty plots and say, 'Man, that could totally be a community garden.'"
As of December 9th, 2009...
Referenced Local Reports – Recommendations & Assessments
|
NAME OF REPORT |
PREPARED BY |
DATE PUBLISHED |
WEBSITE |
|
Climate Action Plan 2009 |
Multnomah County & City of Portland |
2009, October |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49989&a=240683 |
|
Portland Plan: Food Systems Existing Conditions Report |
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland |
2009, November |
Not currently available on the web |
|
Foodability: Visioning for Healthful Food Access in Portland |
Community Food Concepts – PSU MURP for City of Portland BPS |
2009, June |
|
|
Multnomah County Health Equity Initiative 2009 |
Multnomah County Health Department |
2009 |
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/health/healthequity/documents/HEI_report_2009.pdf |
|
Profiles of Hunger and Poverty in Oregon: 2008 Oregon Hunger Factors Assessment |
Oregon Food Bank |
2008, September |
http://www.oregonfoodbank.org/research_and_action/documents/hungerprofiles2008FINAL.pdf |
|
Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health: Trade-offs and sustainability in the Oregon-Washington regional food system |
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies – PSU, OSU, Kaiser, Food Innovation Center |
2008, October |
http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.ims/files/media_assets/ims_foodsystemsfinalreport.pdf |
|
Growing Portland’s Farmers Markets: Portland Farmers Markets/Direct-Market Economic Analysis |
Barney & Worth, Inc. for City of Portland |
2008, November |
http://www.barneyandworth.com/osd/PortlandFarmersMarkets_WebReport.pdf |
|
Portland 2030: a vision for the future (visionPDX) |
The people of Portland, Oregon (City of Portland) |
2008, February |
http://www.visionpdx.com/downloads/final%20vision%20document_Feb.pdf |
|
visionPDX: Community Engagement Report |
Bureau of Planning, City of Portland |
2008, February |
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=168876 |
|
Voices of Equity: Community members and county employees speak out about health equity and the social determinants of health (Appendix A) |
Multnomah County |
2008 |
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/health/healthequity/documents/HEI_report_2009_app_A.pdf |
|
Voices: Stories about hunger from the Oregon Food Bank Network |
Oregon Food Bank |
2008 |
http://www.oregonfoodbank.org/research_and_action/voices/documents/voices2008final.pdf |
|
Everyone Eats!: A community food assessment for areas of North and Northeast Portland, OR |
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon – Interfaith Food and Farms Partnership |
2007, Summer |
http://www.emoregon.org/pdfs/IFFP/IFFP_N-NE_Portland_Food_Assessment_full_report.pdf |
|
Descending the Oil Peak: Navigating the Transition from Oil and Natural Gas |
Peak Oil Task Force – City of Portland |
2007, March |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42894&a=145732 |
|
The Diggable City – Phase III |
PSU for City of Portland & Food Policy Council |
2007, July |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42793&a=171174 |
|
Identification and Assessment of the Long-Term Commercial Viability of Metro Region Agricultural Lands |
Oregon Department of Agriculture for Metro |
2007, January |
|
|
Regional Equity Atlas: Metropolitan Portland’s Geography of Opportunity |
Coalition for a Livable Future |
2007 |
|
|
New on the Menu: District-wide changes to school food start in the kitchen at Portland’s Abernethy Elementary |
Abernethy Elementary, Portland Public Schools Nutrition Services, Injury Free Coalition for Kids, and Ecotrust |
2006, October |
|
|
Public Involvement Task Force Report: A strategic Plan for Improving Public Involvement in the City of Portland |
Office of Neighborhood Involvement – City of Portland |
2006, October |
|
|
Local Lunches: Planning for Local Produce in Portland Schools |
TH2 – PSU MURP for City of Portland (?) |
2006, June |
Part 1: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42829&a=123023 Part 2: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42829&a=123022 |
|
Peak Oil Task Force Briefing Book |
Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau of Planning, Department of Transportation – City of Portland |
2006, July |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42894&a=126582 |
|
The Diggable City – Phase II |
PSU for City of Portland & Food Policy Council |
2006, February |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42793&a=122595 |
|
The Diggable City – Phase I |
PSU for City of Portland & Food Policy Council |
2005, June |
|
|
The Spork Report – Increasing the supply and consumption of local foods in Portland Public Schools |
PSU for the Food Policy Council |
2005, June |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42794&a=116851 |
|
Case Studies of Community Gardens and Urban Agriculture: Portland, OR |
David Hess |
2005 |
|
|
Public Space and Farmers’ Markets |
Portland Building Auditorium, OSD, FPC |
2004, August |
N/A |
|
2004 Portland-Multnomah Food Policy Council Report |
Food Policy Council |
2004 |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42795&a=116844 |
|
Lents Community Food Assessment Report |
|
2004 |
N/A |
|
Barriers and Opportunities to the use of regional and sustainable food products by local institutions |
Community Food Matters & Food Policy Council |
2003, September |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42829&a=116839 |
|
2003 Portland-Multnomah Food Policy Council Report |
Food Policy Council |
2003, October |
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42795&a=116841 |
|
Neighborhood Food Network Report: North/Northeast Portland Community Food Security Project |
Coalition for a Livable Future, Oregon Food Bank, Growing Gardens, Ecumenical Ministries |
2002 |
http://www.clfuture.org/publications/Neighborhood%20Food%20Network%20Report.pdf |
Other communities’ processes and outcomes
|
NAME OF REPORT |
LOCATION |
DATE PUBLISHED |
WEBSITE |
|
Spade to Spoon |
UK: Brighton & Hove |
2006, Summer |
|
|
A Plan for Atlanta’s Sustainable Food Future |
US: Atlanta, GA |
2008, Summer |
|
|
Homegrown Minneapolis |
US: Minneapolis, MN |
2009, June |
|
|
Vivid Picture |
US: California (prepared by Ecotrust) |
2005, June |
|
|
A Healthy Community Food System Plan |
Canada: Waterloo |
2007, April |
|
|
Food in the Public Interest |
US: New York, NY |
2009, February |
Additional Resources:
Just in case you were under the impression that Transition is a process defined by people who have all the answers, you need to be aware of a key fact.
We truly don't know if this will work. Transition is a social experiment on a massive scale.
What we are convinced of is this:
This site, just like the transition model, is brought to you by people who are actively engaged in transition in a community. People who are learning by doing - and learning all the time. People who understand that we can't sit back and wait for someone else to do the work. People like you, perhaps... Final point Just to weave the climate change and peak oil situations together...
The above was taken from...
http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionInitiative#Discla...
TBA
The first general meeting for Transition Portland was on Oct 14th, 2009. We will be associating the agenda & meeting minutes with this post.
Everyone in Transition PDX are invited to gather and and hear progress reports from new conveners of interest groups, existing groups, and the Hub, as well as feedback and discussion from the larger Transition community.
This is an opportunity to get to know others in Transition PDX, share wisdom and progress toward a more resilient community.
Plan to attend so that together we can maintain the momentum needed to build community, create resilience, and craft an effective Energy Descent Action Plan.
Everyone in Transition PDX are invited to gather and hear progress reports from existing groups, the Hub, as well as feedback and discussion from the larger Transition community.
This is an opportunity to get to know others in Transition PDX, share wisdom and progress toward a more resilient community.
Plan to attend so that together we can maintain the momentum needed to build community, create resilience, and craft an effective Energy Descent Action Plan.
Following the meeting, people talked informally for about a half hour.