2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I'm disappointed your guest list didn't include the activists who work on this issue, from the UP, PSU, and UO students who have and are working on banning bottled water from their campus to Food & Water Watch who's fighting the Nestle proposal in Cascade Locks to Corporate accountability who's working to get the governor to stop the state purchase of bottled water.  

The guests, while smart and thoughtful, provided little detail or particular stories on water problems around the world.  They mostly spoke in generalities.  There's good people working on these issues from a local perspective, and their thoughts would've been nice to hear.

Rural Oregon's voice was lost as well today, with little input concerning irrigation, prior appropriation, or salmon - and how water privatization (both around the world and here in Oregon) plays a major role in those issues.

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Biomass will and should be part of Oregon's future energy mix.  However, there is a very unfortunate bill to promote biomass being considered by the state legislature that will undermine Oregon's ability to grow its renewable energy economy and reduce global warming pollution: HB 2940.

in 20076, the Oregon legislature adopted its "renewable energy portfolio standard" or "RPS," which requires 25% of our new electricity come from 100% clean, renewable energy by 2025.  With the latest and best climate study (by MIT) finding there is a 90% likelihood the Earth will warm 9 degrees in the next 90 years, we must meet and exceed our RPS.

Unfortunately, HB 2940 takes us in exactly the wrong direction by allowing pre-1995 biomass and hydro energy into the RPS.  In effect, this waters-down the RPS by 10%.  In addition, biomass is not a 100% clean, renewable energy like wind and solar are, so the RPS is actually watered-down even more.

Not only is this bad for the environment, but also bad for the economy.  

Thanks to the RPS, wind projects in rural Oregon provide clean electricity to 300,000 households, providing economic benefit to counties and cities, rural farmers and landowners, and workers.  The $2 billion of capital investment for wind projects produced approximately $225 million in rural property tax revenues and community service fees.  Rural farmers, ranchers, and landowners receive $4 to 8 million in annual payments from wind companies.  And wind farms have created 1,650 construction and operations jobs.  The RPS has been a true success.

Currently there are wind projects permitted for development in rural Oregon to serve nearly 600,000 more households.  These wind projects would provide an additional $319 million in rural property tax revenues and community service fees; provide an additional $8 to 15.5 million in payments to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners; and generate 3,000 more jobs in rural counties with record high unemployment rates.  

By undercutting the RPS, the Oregon legislature will put these projects at substantial risk – potentially depriving Oregonians of needed economic opportunity.  And HB 2940 will put our climate at further risk as well.  So let's have biomass, but let's not water-down our renewable energy targets in the process.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

How does a recall election help provide Mayor Sam Adams with sufficient more political capital and credibility?  The recall election is counter-productive for getting Portland's business done.  If Jason Wurster's concern is government effectiveness, then he shouldn't be running the recall.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

If Solar World isn't pursuing large scale solar in Oregon - only rooftop warehouse solar in Southern Oregon, ask them why they'resupporting HB 3039's 2:1 credit for large scale solar.

Brock Howell
Environment Oregon

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

I am an advocate for Environment Oregon, a statewide organization with more than 30,000 members statewide.

A caller just stated her support for HB 3039 and the solar feed-in tarrif.  Environment Oregon supports the solar feed-in tarrif, which was in the Governor's original bill, HB 2121.  

HB 3039 also has a second component - a program to encourage large-scale solar.  Unfortunately, this provision allows a 2:1 REC (renewable energy credit) for utilities to meet the state's renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS, 25% renewable energy by 2025).  Conceptually the 2:1 solar REC cuts the RPS in half.

HB 3039 is on the Senate floor today for a vote.  Although the 2:1 REC isn't currently in the bill (as it was withdrawn to get the bill out of the Senate), HB 3039 will go to a conference committee where the 2:1 credits is likely to be added back in.

Allowing cuts to the RPS should be unacceptable to Oregonians.  While we should be encouraging Solar, we shouldn't be losing sight of our main goal: reducing global warming pollution.

Brock Howell
Environment Oregon

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The GIS/GPS-based road user charge system is being studied because of a significant forecasted deficiency in paying for road maintenance and construction. This deficiency is largely due to forecasted escalating costs of gasoline and fuel efficiency subsidies that will result in more fuel-efficient vehicles. Also driving this exploration of the mileage tax is a fairness issue between gas-sipping and gas-guzzling vehicle owners in paying for maintenance. Both of these reasons, at a minimum, warrant a study of the mileage tax.

A GPS/GIS-based road user charge system also affords an opportunity to cut other externalities, if built into the system. With the right information, incentives can be built in to charge based on things such as vehicle weight, road construction quality (differentiating the charge between gravel and concrete roads, for example), driving near an environmentally sensitive area, actual tailpipe emissions, congestion, driving in inclimate weather, excessive speeding, not wearing seat belts, and driving with or without insurance. The advantage of incorporating such things, if technically and administratively feasible, is safer roads, healthier environment, stable funding source for road maintenance, and hopefully a shift toward transit-oriented development.

There are many challenges to a GIS/GPS-based road user charge system, not the least of which providing adequate privacy safeguards. The history of the Bush Administration (and other past Presidents, both Democrat and Republican), with regards to privacy makes me leary of implementing any GPS/GIS-based system. Nevertheless, I wonder whether such concerns are overblown. Nearly every new GMC-manufactured car has On-Star. Many other vehicle manufactures have similar GPS-based systems. We have no constitutional protections when it comes to Corporate America violating our privacy, just statutory and common law protections. Furthermore, Corporate America is not accountable to democracy in the same way elected representatives and senators are. If all cars are going to have GPS systems on-board, would you rather have corporations or government managing them?

Implementing GPS/GIS-based road user charge systems also has technical and administrative challenges. Some posters have talked about electric cars being juiced-up at home and work instead of at a fueling station where Oregon's research project has kept track of mileage and billed the driver. Other posters have commented that the weight of the vehicle must be taken into account for true road wear-and-tear. These are but two of the challenges. That is why it is important for the state to continue conducting research.

Implementation of a road-user charge system won't happen for another 10 years. Even then, the gas tax is likely to stay for at least another 20 years. We know one day many, and someday all, cars will either be highly fuel efficient or electric. The state will need a new way to pay for the road infrastructure. I think we can all agree it's a good thing the state is thinking and planning for the eventuality.

Most Oregonians want to end our dependency on oil and shift toward a more economically and environmentally sustainable fuel source for personal transportation. The sooner we have a 21st Century transportation system, the better. But the sooner we get there, the sooner we'll need a mileage tax. Keep doing the research Oregon!

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I have to say, this conversation is very uncontroversial. No one is going to argue against making valuation of GDP better. Wouldn't a magazine-format of this issue better than a forum-format to discuss this issue on OPB?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The GDP does well what it is supposed to do. The GDP provides sound information for policy makers to determine how to encourage business and how much tax revenue will be received. Many other policy decisions would be better informed by quantifying non-market values. For example, calculating the inherent Columbia River salmon into GDP (or what would be GPI) is would greatly benefit policy-making in areas affecting salmon. In fact, though, several think tanks and economists already measure GPI. The stickler is finding how to used GPI instead of GDP, in other words, how not only to raise the public awareness of GPI but how also to make it the binding measurement upon our policy-decisions.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context