It’s a polling truism that most people are concerned about climate change – or, more accurately, climate disruption, or climate chaos – but not concerned enough that they base their votes on the issue.
Great piece. You can add that the MSM does not get it. They always seem to forget to mention climate in the Presidential debates. Here in Oregon it is always an after-thought during interviews and other political debates. As for our business club members, the answer is obvious. They only think about it when it comes to green washing their organizations, not when it comes to making personal sacrifices or driving their political positions.
If it makes you feel better I am a strong Tina Kotek supporter. If she loses in the primary, I gave 5 minutes of thought to maybe voting for Betsy Johnson because I think she would do a good administrative housecleaning and force more accountability in the bureaucracy. It is her position on global warming that got me back to saying I cannot vote for her.
I understand your frustration with the perceived lack of urgency in enacting policies that reduce Oregon's carbon emissions, but the truth of the matter is that Oregon by itself adds an insignificant amount of carbon into the atmosphere, and therefore cannot have any measurable impact by reducing its contribution alone. This is the reason why raising costs on Oregonians to reduce carbon by a globally immeasurable amount is irresponsible. For Oregon to have an impact on climate change we need to employ a global strategy that leverages the strengths of our state. I wrote about this in The Oregon Way last year.
Jessica - everyone in the world can say that: what I do doesn’t matter so I won’t do anything. By that token, nobody should vote, because one vote hardly ever makes a difference. If you never vote, I salute you for being consistent; if you do vote, I submit that you don’t really believe your own logic. And in the absence of a national strategy, states have an absolute duty to take the lead, hoping the federal government will follow.
Steve - Comparing climate policy to voting is like comparing apples to oranges. With voting you do not know the outcome ahead of time. Also in close elections the outcome could be decided by a handful of votes. With climate policy, we know beforehand the impact of our decisions, in terms of cost to the consumer and the overall outcome. If we don't we need to go back and perform the due diligence before enacting the policy. I am not saying we should do nothing. I am saying we need to go through the cost/benefit analysis of our policy decisions and get the best possible outcomes for the least amount of cost to taxpayers. This holds true for all of our policy decisions.
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”
Ah, so now its climate disruption. I see, if you cant change minds ,just keep changing the verbiage until something sticks. I believe that we all need to do what we can to keep the planet clean. At our house we installed solar, we drive efficient cars, we have cut back our use of plastics, we recycle. But please tell me just how the power is going to be made for EVs when the percentage of EVs go from the current 3-5% to 70-80%. Where is that power coming from? Hideous wind farms plaguing eastern Oregon? Solar installations covering prime Willamette Valley soils? Tearing out dams? Oh wait that only reduces greatly the energy production . What are the answers to these questions? No you dont have those answers. So why put the politicians on the spot in this regard. But its easier to create a crisis to get your base going isn't it? If more were done to have solid answers to energy questions maybe the concerns for our planet could be a platform to problem solving not another lightning rod to political division. What is the truth after all in how much difference the state of Oregon can make when we are already taking steps to clean our environment? Yes we should do better, but the overall effect is minimal.
Actually, there is no reason why wind and solar and perhaps nuclear can’t provide all our electricity. I think the wind turbines have majestic beauty, but anyway destroying the world for the sake of aesthetics is absurd. As to terminology, we used to call it “global warming” until Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to start saying “climate change” because it sounded less threatening and bizarrely not only Republicans but everyone else fell into line.
I appreciate the need to change gears on how we energize our lives. But the fact remains wind is not a reliable source. I agree nuclear needs to be researched and perfected. I live next to a 12 acre solar field , nothing majestic about it! And using hyperbole that we must give up natural beauty to save the world is overstated. And I hope you are willing to have 30 ft blades swinging near where you live.
At our house, we installed solar, too. It's generating enough power for our house, our well, our guest cabin and, by next year when we plan to buy EVs, for our cars as well. A one-off, little thing maybe. But the neighbors are interested and may soon follow suit. So one little thing generates more little things and pretty soon you're talking about real change.
Changing a culture by walking your talk can have great value over time, as we learned at the turn of the 20th Century when farmers learned to adopt better farming practices -- by copying their neighbors. Big cultural changes start with small upstream changes.
In rural areas, there are plenty of farmsteads and homesteads with enough land for solar arrays that need not consume too much, if any, good growing land. (BTW, nurseries that gravel over the land and large animal feeding operations that build over it are far worse for the preservation of good farmland.) And those solar installations pay farmers $1,200 per acre per year, which is better than many crops that can be grown on class 2 and 3 soils.
So, if the economic incentives are there on both the consuming (EVs) and production (solar) ends and can be better connected with upgrades to the grid, it's a win-win-win for the goal of de-carbonizing transportation, residential and industrial uses.
As to the tradeoffs and aesthetics of these technologies, there are ways to grow crops under and between solar arrays on farmland and one can always install colorful prayer flags on one's ground based solar arrays. Eye of the beholder, I guess.
Great piece. You can add that the MSM does not get it. They always seem to forget to mention climate in the Presidential debates. Here in Oregon it is always an after-thought during interviews and other political debates. As for our business club members, the answer is obvious. They only think about it when it comes to green washing their organizations, not when it comes to making personal sacrifices or driving their political positions.
If it makes you feel better I am a strong Tina Kotek supporter. If she loses in the primary, I gave 5 minutes of thought to maybe voting for Betsy Johnson because I think she would do a good administrative housecleaning and force more accountability in the bureaucracy. It is her position on global warming that got me back to saying I cannot vote for her.
That does make me feel better! (And I’m sure it makes Tobias feel better too …) I think I convinced my dentist not to vote for her for that reason …
Thanks, Steve. I wish your comments were more widely published. How about challenging Steve Duin to a duel?
Elsa Porter
HA!
Hi Steve,
I understand your frustration with the perceived lack of urgency in enacting policies that reduce Oregon's carbon emissions, but the truth of the matter is that Oregon by itself adds an insignificant amount of carbon into the atmosphere, and therefore cannot have any measurable impact by reducing its contribution alone. This is the reason why raising costs on Oregonians to reduce carbon by a globally immeasurable amount is irresponsible. For Oregon to have an impact on climate change we need to employ a global strategy that leverages the strengths of our state. I wrote about this in The Oregon Way last year.
https://theoregonway.substack.com/p/what-should-oregons-role-be-in-addressing?s=r
Best Regards,
Jessica.
Jessica - everyone in the world can say that: what I do doesn’t matter so I won’t do anything. By that token, nobody should vote, because one vote hardly ever makes a difference. If you never vote, I salute you for being consistent; if you do vote, I submit that you don’t really believe your own logic. And in the absence of a national strategy, states have an absolute duty to take the lead, hoping the federal government will follow.
Steve - Comparing climate policy to voting is like comparing apples to oranges. With voting you do not know the outcome ahead of time. Also in close elections the outcome could be decided by a handful of votes. With climate policy, we know beforehand the impact of our decisions, in terms of cost to the consumer and the overall outcome. If we don't we need to go back and perform the due diligence before enacting the policy. I am not saying we should do nothing. I am saying we need to go through the cost/benefit analysis of our policy decisions and get the best possible outcomes for the least amount of cost to taxpayers. This holds true for all of our policy decisions.
“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”
Edward Everett Hale
Ah, so now its climate disruption. I see, if you cant change minds ,just keep changing the verbiage until something sticks. I believe that we all need to do what we can to keep the planet clean. At our house we installed solar, we drive efficient cars, we have cut back our use of plastics, we recycle. But please tell me just how the power is going to be made for EVs when the percentage of EVs go from the current 3-5% to 70-80%. Where is that power coming from? Hideous wind farms plaguing eastern Oregon? Solar installations covering prime Willamette Valley soils? Tearing out dams? Oh wait that only reduces greatly the energy production . What are the answers to these questions? No you dont have those answers. So why put the politicians on the spot in this regard. But its easier to create a crisis to get your base going isn't it? If more were done to have solid answers to energy questions maybe the concerns for our planet could be a platform to problem solving not another lightning rod to political division. What is the truth after all in how much difference the state of Oregon can make when we are already taking steps to clean our environment? Yes we should do better, but the overall effect is minimal.
Actually, there is no reason why wind and solar and perhaps nuclear can’t provide all our electricity. I think the wind turbines have majestic beauty, but anyway destroying the world for the sake of aesthetics is absurd. As to terminology, we used to call it “global warming” until Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to start saying “climate change” because it sounded less threatening and bizarrely not only Republicans but everyone else fell into line.
I appreciate the need to change gears on how we energize our lives. But the fact remains wind is not a reliable source. I agree nuclear needs to be researched and perfected. I live next to a 12 acre solar field , nothing majestic about it! And using hyperbole that we must give up natural beauty to save the world is overstated. And I hope you are willing to have 30 ft blades swinging near where you live.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/unlocking-our-nation-s-wind-potential
I’d be delighted.
Interesting. All the best
To you too!
At our house, we installed solar, too. It's generating enough power for our house, our well, our guest cabin and, by next year when we plan to buy EVs, for our cars as well. A one-off, little thing maybe. But the neighbors are interested and may soon follow suit. So one little thing generates more little things and pretty soon you're talking about real change.
Changing a culture by walking your talk can have great value over time, as we learned at the turn of the 20th Century when farmers learned to adopt better farming practices -- by copying their neighbors. Big cultural changes start with small upstream changes.
For an example from another field:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/07/29/slow-ideas
In rural areas, there are plenty of farmsteads and homesteads with enough land for solar arrays that need not consume too much, if any, good growing land. (BTW, nurseries that gravel over the land and large animal feeding operations that build over it are far worse for the preservation of good farmland.) And those solar installations pay farmers $1,200 per acre per year, which is better than many crops that can be grown on class 2 and 3 soils.
So, if the economic incentives are there on both the consuming (EVs) and production (solar) ends and can be better connected with upgrades to the grid, it's a win-win-win for the goal of de-carbonizing transportation, residential and industrial uses.
As to the tradeoffs and aesthetics of these technologies, there are ways to grow crops under and between solar arrays on farmland and one can always install colorful prayer flags on one's ground based solar arrays. Eye of the beholder, I guess.