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 television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I am relieved that Bradwood Landing has been taken off the table. That's one LNG terminal down and two to go. We won't be happy until they are all dead. I don't know anybody who actually welcomes  LNG to Oregon. Oregonians don't want it. Why should we accept the environmental costs  of these projects which  would ship gas through Oregon to California for the benefit of a Texas speculator? It just doesn't make any sense. A lot of farmers, property owners and fishers are pretty upset.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

Ten more years of mercury, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions making climate change worse? No thank you. I appreciate how far PGE has come in offering to shut down Boardman in 2020, but it needs to be done sooner. We can't wait 10 more years. PGE staff has found that it can be done by 2014. Four more years is long enough (cough, cough.) As a PGE ratepayer, I am willing to pay a little more to offset Boardman.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context