[Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?

[Ted Moffett]

Kai et. al.

It would take a monster mall to comprehensively compete with the
shopping options in Spokane or Seattle, so many would still make those
long trips even with the Hawkins mall.  And I think many of these
"shopping trips" are really about a mini vacation to get away from it
all, so would still occur even with a new local mall.  Also, shopping
on the Internet for what is not available locally is a more efficient
option than driving to Spokane or Seattle, letting the bulk carriers
(UPS, Fed-Ex, USPS, etc.) ship the items efficiently, although for
heavy items, driving to Spokane might be cheaper than shipping the
item.  As gas prices climb, driving to Spokane or Seattle will just
become more costly.

Still, there is a gain in efficiency, it would seem, to having
everything needed from out of the area shipped in bulk to local
outlets at a mall.  It would take a complex analyses of all behavior
of consumers to determine conclusively if the proposed Hawkins
location would result in a net increase or decrease in fossil fuel use
for the Moscow/Pullman area.  But if only looking at the consumers
from Moscow, who will drive out to and back from this mall, the
proposed location I think will increase fossil fuel use, as opposed to
a location more centrally located in Moscow.  And what about Pullman
consumers drawn to the mall who might not otherwise make the trip?  A
much longer drive than from Moscow.

The underlying assumptions of the long term sustainability of our
consumer fossil fueled society of course need examination.  In this
discussion some appear to be assuming this is a sustainable way of
life, it would seem, which it is not, when viewed globally, even if
only China adopts average USA levels of resource extraction,
consumption, and energy use, associated with our massive economy, for
the 1.3 billion in China.

Hawkins clearly intends to take advantage of the huge amount of
traffic on the corridor, which implies another discussion regarding
the environmental sanity or the lack thereof of this increasing
traffic flow between Moscow and Pullman.

No matter how you slice or dice it, I think it is clear that fossil
fuel use in Moscow and Pullman has increased dramatically in the past
few decades, in part due to population increases, and no reduction in
average vehicle efficiency.  Given the daunting realities of oil
depletion, and climate change, that this "business as usual" approach
to fossil fuel use has continued is rather astonishing.   The hybrids
appearing on the Palouse should help address this at least marginally.

The US economy is primed to go into a recession, and recent sustained
increases in fuel costs, without increases in efficiency, function
like a large tax on consumers.  In the long run, I think we can only
expect gas prices to climb even higher.  And some serious analyst's in
the oil industry have some rather alarming predictions for what could
happen to our economy if we do not soon develop an alternative (i. e.
non oil powered) energy transportation system, or at least a dramatic
increase in efficiency.

It seems there is a happy face optimism that alternative energy
sources, new technology and the marketplace will bail us out when the
oil crisis becomes critical, whenever that is, while it is clear we do
not have the infrastructure in place, nor is one quickly being rolled
out,  to address an oil crisis (just one major Middle East war away).

But on the climate change issue, there is no time to wait for new
technology or energy sources or the marketplace to respond.  The
evidence is mounting that action to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions
was needed decades ago, so we are way behind the curve on this issue.

If the Pentagon report below on climate change has credibility, we are
playing Russian Roulette with the environment.  But we can also look
at optimistic solutions, offered at the web site first below:

http://www.thebreakthrough.org/breakthroughbook.shtml

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the
Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has
repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they
will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national
defence is a priority.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and
the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of
terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then
this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire
warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of
document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority
is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally
speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national
security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush
Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added
Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the
Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty
scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob
Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher
population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water
and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the
planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought
widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations
that could soon be repeated.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 1/14/08, Kai Eiselein, editor <editor at lataheagle.com> wrote:
> How much would it (the mall) save in fuel usage and emissions?
> Face it, there are a lot of us who can't find what we need in Moscow. We
> drive to Lewiston, where the selection is a little better, or Spokane,
> Seattle and Boise.
> That's a lot of fuel.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a better selection shipped in bulk (and
> saving fuel), resulting in fewer trips to elsewhere, rather than making
> these long drives?
> Just throwing another facet into the mix. :)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> To: "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "v2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Will Moscow support Hawkins sprawl-mall?
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 2008 5:10 PM, Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Andreas,
> >>
> >> I understand that big business does not bring as much as lets say a mom
> >> and
> >> pop store, to our community. It does bring 10-15% of taxes into out
> >> community. Money that we can use for our community. Along with the jobs,
> >> some managerial some lower end, but these businesses are providing jobs.
> >
> > Matt --
> >
> > Yeah, I get what you're saying, but the proposed development doesn't
> > even do that. It's supposed to be built on the unincorporated land
> > just over the state line into Washington.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> >