Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Moscow is Pullman's "Automobile Sprawl"

An excerpt from a story in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
Moscow resident Nils Peterson, who was a member of two subcommittees designated to craft amendments to the ordinance, said the cumulative effects of big-box stores clustered together and a size cap were lost in the amendment process.

"The dark store provision and cap are important because they are sprawl busters," he said. "It's time for you to step up on the climate-change issue and take action to bust automobile sprawl."

Louise Ashmun said she has been involved with climate-change issues in Moscow.

"I walk almost everywhere and I've gone a whole month without riding in my car," she said. "I have an amazing wonder that such a place exists as Moscow and a large retail store at 130,000 square feet is enormous and completely off character. A walkable city needs to be encouraged and enhanced."
You know, the only thing funnier than barking moonbattery like this, is when the barking moonbats help to prove your point.

If Nancy Chaney, Aaron Ament, Nils Peterson, et. al., were paid double agents, they couldn't be more useful for Pullman. At a critical moment in our history, as big-box stores and developers start to discover the Palouse, Moscow is being sabotaged from within, undoing in the process three decades of retail dominance. I love it!

Plus, think about it. Nils Peterson and No SuperWalMart's own retail demand study concluded last year that, "As a whole, the Moscow/Pullman area is adequately supplied with retail space, with sales surpluses in Moscow more or less offsetting sales leakages in Pullman." According to Mr. Peterson's own words, we can no longer tolerate that paradigm, as it involves the internal combustion engine. There is no "walkability" BETWEEN cities. In effect, Moscow is Pullman's "automobile sprawl" and we must "bust it" to stop global warming!

And let's not forget PARD's battle cry:

You can't say "One Wal-Mart is Enough" AND stop global climate change, particularly if you offer to give people rides to the Wal-Mart in Moscow. I'm going to repost some information I posted earlier about a Pullman Wal-Mart and global warming.

Two studies have shown that Pullman shoppers spend nearly $100 million annually outside of town, primarily in Moscow, Lewiston, Clarkston, and Spokane.

Based on data derived from the Sightline Institute, the average car with a solo driver produces 1.1 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per mile traveled.

Therefore, the average round trip between Pullman and an outside shopping destination produces the following carbon dioxide emissions:
Moscow - 20.9 pounds
Lewiston - 70.73 pounds
Clarkston - 73.898 pounds
Spokane - 164.46 pounds
That one-stop shopping "behemoth" known as a Wal-Mart Supercenter could put an end to unnecessary driving and make Pullman a "Cool City." In fact, as the new Wal-Mart will be well-served by city bus lines and bike and pedestrian paths, shoppers theoretically wouldn't have to drive at all, especially as PARD claims, it will be possible to do all your shopping at Wal-Mart. We could reduce our "carbon footprint" by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds annually!! In addition, Wal-Mart certainly qualifies as "smart growth," as it is infilling an already highly developed area on Bishop Boulevard!

That my friends, is how you bust "automobile sprawl," save the planet from global warming, and cause elitist liberal moonbats to short-circuit all at one time!

Technorati Tags:


Nic said...

I have to call B.S. on the pounds of CO2 produced. You don't even use 20 pounds of gasoline getting to Moscow and back, how can you possible produce 20 pounds of CO2?

Tom Forbes said...

Nope, it's true Nic.

The below question and answer is from the U.S. Government Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center:

Q. Could you tell me, please, if I have 1 gallon of fuel in my car, how many (units?) of CO2 will be emitted? Is there any difference if the car 4 or 6 or 8 cylinders or in respect of horse power in percentage?

A. A good estimate is that you will discharge 19.6 pounds of CO2 from burning 1 gallon of gasoline. This does not depend on the power or configuration of the engine but depends only on the chemistry of the fuel. Of course if the car gets more miles per gallon of gasoline, you will get less CO2 per unit of service rendered (that is, less CO2 per mile traveled).

In the same FAQ is a scientific explantion of why the CO2 is greater than the mass of the fuel burned.

At this EPA website, you can find the estimated carbon footprint of your individual vehicle.

My 2003 Mazda MPV produces 9 tons of greenhouse gases every year driving back and forth to Moscow.

Satanic Mechanic said...

Tom is correct. Nic, remember your chemistry in school. Yes, one gallon of gasoline only weighs about 6 pounds. You need three elements for combustion- 1. fuel, 2. heat and 3. Oxygen (remember this one).
When you burn the gasoline, it is mixed with oygen, the carbons are ripped away from the hydrocarbons to burn the hydrogen, they go out and grab Oxygen like crazy. You need more oxygen than fuel to yield energy. That is why you get more CO2 out. In a perfect burn, you get CO2 and H2O but in the real world you also get some Sulfer oxides and NOx's (different types of Nitrogen Oxides).
If you want, I can look up the chemical equation in my old college chemistry book.

Tom Forbes said...

I want to know the carbon footprint of your rig, SM! I'll bet you are single-handedly raising the temperature in Pullman by half a degree!

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Where is Alex and his $40 bike when we need it?! :P

Nic said...

ahhh... i think everyone can rule out me being a chemical engineer.

Satanic Mechanic said...

I like to think of it as raising it by ten degrees, one degree for each cylinder.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Mr. Mechanic -

I respectfully request that you drive your rig some more. It's still a bit too chilly outside for my tastes when the breeze gets going.