2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal 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 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 portland mayor 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 timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

THANKS for covering climate change.  It was a very timely episode.  I think, however, that a follow up might be useful.  Many folks on your blog wanted to hear a discussion about the cost of inaction, rather the the cost to a household. 

Climate change is a moral issue.  What does inaction now mean for future generations and what obligation do we have to them?  What does it mean to us as humans to care for the Earth?  Who is most affected (currently) by climate change and should we care that it is the poor? 

I've suggest several guest, but one set of folks uniquely qualified to address the issue of the cost of inaction (to Oregon in particular) are at the UO's Climate Leadership Initiative (http://climlead.uoregon.edu/).  One of their studies looked at the impact on the Rogue River Valley and determined that wine country won't survive climate change.  It said that Southern Oregon will end up looking more like CALIFORNIA (that will get your listeners' blood pumping).

Cheers, 

Nate Stice 

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

The cost of climate change is here and real.  Science tells us that 350 ppm is the maximum level of carbon we can have in the atmosphere without catastrophic effects.  We are over 380.  

We are holding a rally in Oregon on OCT. 24 to spur our leaders on in taking action.  See 350oregon.org

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Two points:

1) Please ask you PGE guest about the Boardman coal-fired plant--which has effects globally and nationally.  It is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the NW.   It also creates air pollution problems for the Gorge.  In their IRP, they want to keep it running until 2040.

2) Let's really talk about cost.  It is estimated that cap and trade legislation will cost households about $100.  That compared to the billions in damage that climate change will reap is nothing.

Nate Stice

Tigard, OR

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

Hi--

I think it is about time to talk about climate change again.  Carol Browner, the President's top aid on environmental issues came out last week and said that we shouldn't expcect action on climate change until next year. 

A delay has signifigance for the Northwest, which would benefit greatly from a cap-and-trade system.

It also has ethical implications that folks in the Northwest are thinking about.  This weekend three Lutheran Pastor spoke out in the Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/supporting_clean_energy_bill_i_1.html.

And UO has brought in renowned ethicist Dale Jamieson think about issues around cliamte change.http://www.uoregon.edu/~morse/_pages/professors_scholars/current_professors.html

I think a show about what delay means ethically and for the Northwest would be interesting.

Thanks,

Nate

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context