World oil production has been on a plateau for the last several years. Is that a temporary leveling off, a geologically imposed peak before long-term decline, or something called "peak oil lite"? The theory of peak oil lite is that human-based reasons, not geological reasons, are creating at least a temporary peak in oil production.

The thing is, it's pretty hard to tell peak oil lite from geological peak oil. When the world nears or reaches geological peak oil, it unleashes human forces that keep production down.

For example, Iran and Venezuela have both said recently that they think OPEC should commit to reducing output at their meeting on September 9, since oil prices are going down. Yes, they're saying that the price of oil is too low!

Because oil production is so tight elsewhere, OPEC has real power to jack prices back up. OPEC's power to raise oil prices is strongest at the time of regional or world peak oil.

Read the New York Times story.

I might have used the word "entrepreneurialism" in the title.

But then, that isn't in keeping with larger national stereotypes about Vermont, is it?

JULY 20, 2008 - Gubernatorial Debate Questions - and Candidate's Closing Statements.

Download a complete transcript of the debate below.

Listen to the entire debate here.

View video clips below.

A reality check, courtesy of the Ohio Republic.

A virtual sugar maple leaf to our friends in the mid-west.

Local economies purposefully restrict the region from which we source the
goods we need.  Instead of relying on cheap transportation to import the
skills of others--in the form of products--we are required to cultivate and
nurture the necessary skills in our neighbors.  Nothing illustrates this
point more poignantly than a local food system.

The one hundred mile diet is a useful way of defining an economic region.
If no one within a hundred mile radius grows cantaloupe it is likely that we

The story of the Douglas Administration's delay in the purchase of new passenger rail cars that I broke last week and updated last Saturday continues to spread through the Vermont media.

The Brattleboro Reformer covered the story on Wednesday, and they talked to the director of the Vermont Rail Advocacy Network, who points out the importance of moving expeditiously on the rail cars:

But rail advocates say Gov. James Douglas has simply prioritized roads over trains.

"Perhaps the real issue is that Gov. Douglas has proposed (and the Legislature approved) issuing $10 million in bonds for road construction projects," said Christopher Parker, executive director of a new nonprofit group called the Vermont Rail Advocacy Network, in an e-mail. "The problem with the delay is that it risks losing a $2 million grant from Amtrak."

He said the plan, if ever implemented, would be to add runs in the morning and at night, when traffic is heaviest on Interstate 91.

Bruce Johnson has also written a story on the passenger rail cars; look for it in this Sunday's Times Argus / Rutland Herald. (UPDATE: The story is here.)

The Reformer also published an editorial on Thursday, comparing the train service in Brattleboro in 1938 with 2008. The nickel version: There were six departures from Brattleboro to New York City in 1938, vs. one today. And there's only a 25% chance that you'll get to New York within 30 minutes of the scheduled arrival time today. Going east and west from Brattleboro by train is difficult or impossible now, too.

I haven't found answers to the questions outstanding at the end of my previous post. Maybe next week...

UPDATE: Nancy Schulz, Executive Director of the Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition, sent out the following email today:

VBPC member and volunteer David Cain is taking the initiative to gather information and supporters to address the issue of bicycles on Amtrak trains. A major obstacle is Amtrak's refusal to allow bikes on their trains to and from New Haven, CT that make connections with the Vermonter. If this specific issue is one that energizes you, then please consider contacting Dave directly to find out how you can help. You can reach Dave by sending an email message and please "cc" me. Thanks.

My Thursday's post on the Douglas Administration's decision to delay purchases of new Amtrak cars has stirred things up some. I started getting some calls returned Friday, and John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio began digging into the story. Dillon's story aired Friday afternoon.

Over the course of the day, my understanding of the story changed quite a bit. And there were quite a few calls among the highest levels of Vermont state government, as the various actors scrambled to get on the same page.

As I explained Thursday, VTrans Operations Director Sam Lewis told the Vermont Rail Advisory Council earlier in the week that the Douglas administration was waiting to move forward on purchasing new Amtrak trains until the Debt Affordability Committee reviewed the purchase in October. The cars will save the state money, burn less fuel, and allow two departures a day for the Vermonter run from White River Junction and southward.

When asked at the meeting who flagged the Amtrak car purchase for review by the Debt Affordability Committee, VTrans Operations Director Sam Lewis said it was the Secretary of Administration (Mike Smith) and the Secretary of Transportation (Neale Lunderville).

John Zicconi, spokesperson for the Agency of Transportation, called me Friday morning, returning a call I'd made before posting Thursday to Mike Smith. Zicconi's explanation was consistent with Lewis' comments. He explained that the Amtrak car purchase would require the $1.8 million in bonding that was in the 2010 budget. If the state decided after its 3-year trial period that it wanted to keep the cars, it would require additional bonding to pay for the $18+ million purchase. The Debt Affordability Committee reviews bonding decisions, he explained, and if there are more projects that require bonding than the state can afford to take on in debt, the Debt Affordability Committee makes an advisory statement about how to spend the money.

I asked him whether it would have been an option for the administration to just buy the new trains and present the Debt Affordability Committee with a fait accompli. He replied, "We think it's wise to let the Debt Affordability Committee weigh in."

Meanwhile, Zicconi explained, VTrans can proceed with preparations for the Amtrak train purchase. For example, they needed to perform a new cost-benefit analysis on the Amtrak purchase to present to the Debt Affordability Committee, so they could have the information in their deliberations. "We need to get our ducks in a row so we can answer their questions," he said.

Friday afternoon, quite a different story emerged.

At Tuesday's meeting of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council (VRAC), VTrans revealed that the Douglas administration had put up a new hurdle in the state's race to purchase new Amtrak cars. The state-of-the art train sets -- lighter cars with smaller engines -- will save fuel and double the departures each day on the Vermonter route, which runs from St. Albans to Brattleboro and on to New York and Washington.

Last year, the legislature authorized the purchase of the new trains, which have not been used in the US yet. Amtrak was so eager to see these new trains in service that it was prepared to contribute money toward their purchase and postpone future increased charges to Vermont for running the train.

Unfortunately, the Attorney General and Treasurer nixed the deal. The legislation contained a "highly unusual" clause, directing that the Treasurer and the Attorney General must be satisfied that the manufacturer could sufficiently guarantee that it could buy back the cars at 90 percent of cost after three years. The AG and Treasurer weren't sure that the young company, Colorado Railcar, would be financially capable of the repurchase in three years, so the deal fell through.

The legislature took a crack at it again this year, with only the Treasurer in the review loop and less strict language about his assignment. Sam Lewis, Director of Operations at the Agency of Transportation, reported to the Vermont Rail Advisory Council on Tuesday that the project's fate is once again uncertain. Because the legislature also passed other bills requiring bonding, the state's Debt Affordability Committee is now scheduled to review the Amtrak purchase before the state moves ahead with it. The committee doesn't meet until the fall.

Members of VRAC were outraged that this long-delayed project would be delayed yet again.

When I began blogging here last September, I wanted to get out the word about peak oil--what it is, and when it is likely to hit us--as well as describe ways to relocalize production of energy, food, materials, etc. Peak oil, the point at which world oil production reaches an all-time maximum before declining, is a watershed for an industrial civilization that depends on oil for everything. Even something as basic as flour for our daily bread is generally transported thousands of miles before we eat it.

Since then, peak oil has become something of a meme. World Public Opinion, in a survey conducted in 15 countries and published in April, found that 70% of those surveyed believe that we're at the end of the age of oil as a primary fuel source. In the US, it's 76%. Corporate media outlets like the Wall Street Journal now feature regular articles about peak oil, like this one about how even the Panglossian International Energy Agency is sobering up about future oil availability. Business Week and National Geographic are running informed articles on peak oil, and MSN.com recently explored, "What if gas cost $10 a gallon?"

The specific term "peak oil" is probably still unfamiliar to most people, but it's the concept that is important, and I think most people get it now. Or they at least get that "the party's over" soon, even if they aren't familiar with projections about how fast it's likely to be over and don't know how to respond.

Interestingly enough, that same World Public Opinion survey showed that 57% of people in the US believe that government policy is based on the premise that oil will be our primary energy source for the foreseeable future. The people know that our government is off track, and our legislators seem determined prove them right.

Oh yeah, we could suggest that Vermonters keep their federal rebate checks in Vermont.

Right. We're not a Gannett-owned giant corporate commercial behemoth for nothing.

Check out the story.

And remember - KEEP IT IN VERMONT.